The paper refers to a diplomatic controversy between Brazil and the United States that took place in the late sixties of the 20th century. The reason of the dispute layed in a fact of exporting processed soluble coffee by Brazil to the USA at very competitive prices. The US processors didn’t have access to law grade coffees, which served as a raw material to fabrication of soluble powder. The US processors forced the Department of State to counteract that situation. As a result the USA government blamed Brazil of discriminatory trade practices and violating free trade. The controversy was put under the consideration of the International Coffee Organization. The proceedings coincided with the twilight of the American aid programme for Latin America called Alliance for Progress. The controversy was an instance of growing suspicions and deteriorating relations between Latin America and the USA, which changed its foreign policy in that region from supporting development of democracy in the continent toward backing up military regimes.

On April 18–19, 2011 the University Library in Toruń hosted an international academic conference entitled Contemporary Latin America. Politics – Society – Economy (Współczesna Ameryka Łacińska. Polityka – społeczeństwo – gospodarka). The conference was organised by the Faculty of Political Sciences and International Studies of the Nicolas Copernicus University under the honorary patronage of the Marshal of the KujawskoPomorskie Voivodeship Piotr Całbecki, the President of Toruń Michał Zaleski, the Honorary Consul of the Republic of Peru in Toruń Stanisław Rakowicz, Ph. D. and the Rector of the NCU Prof. Andrzej Radzimiński, Ph. D. The participants represented higher education facilities from all over Poland as well as the international organisation, Community of Democracies.

Celem artykułu jest analiza nowych form militaryzmu i politycznej aktywności wojskowych w państwach Ameryki Łacińskiej na przełomie XX i XXI wieku. Poddaję analizie trzy wybrane formy udziału wojskowych w polityce. Rozpoczynam od uwag na temat interwencjonizmu wojskowego. Następnie skupiam się na fenomenie wojskowego prezydencjalizmu, czyli udziału w wyborach prezydenckich i pełnienia funkcji konstytucyjnych prezydentów przez byłych wojskowych, którzy w przeszłości łamali porządek konstytucyjny, inspirując i/lub przeprowadzając zamachy stanu lub sprawując dyktatorską władzę, a także łamali prawa człowieka w okresie dyktatur i wewnętrznych konfliktów zbrojnych. W dalszej kolejności badam problem militaryzacji partii politycznych, wskazując na zaangażowanie byłych wojskowych w tworzenie nowych partii politycznych reprezentujących interesy środowiska lub też zasilanie przez byłych wojskowych już istniejących partii politycznych.

Rites, healers and the law

The ontological difference on which positive law and indigenous customary law in Latin America are based is one of the most important problems in the field of legal conflict between both systems. The ontological difference of the indigenous world is visible, among others, in the ways of passing and executing sentences. Punishment is often ritualistic and reintegrates the punished person into the community. In many cultures where witchcraft is a common phenomenon, sentences are given by shamans and healers. Illustrating the above statements with examples from various Latin American indigenous cultures, the article shows that law based on the vision of the Western world often cannot be an adequate response to some events taking place in indigenous worlds. This is not least because in the world of positivist rationality these events or phenomena simply do not exist.

The purpose of the article is to draw attention to the functioning of constitutional guarantees of human rights and freedoms contained in the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. The author addresses the issue of human rights protection, including the development of institutions guaranteeing their protection in the context of the authoritarian model of governance in Venezuela. The paper is a theoretical attempt to present the problem of the functioning of human rights institutions in Venezuela at the constitutional level after the seizure of power by President Nicolas Maduro. It also attempts to determine to what extent the Chavista camp suspended constitutional guarantees of protection of human rights and freedoms in Venezuela. At the same time, the article describes how the petrification of the system of power by Nicolas Maduro affects the state of human rights protection in the country.

This article aims to define the role played by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice in the political system of contemporary Venezuela and determine the extent of the executive branch’s influence on the judiciary. The research problem formulated by the author concerns the determination of the fundamental importance of the Tribunal in keeping the Chavistas in power. The paper compares the substantive legal competencies of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice with the political realities of recent years and shows why the Tribunal’s activities undertaken in recent years have raised so much controversy. It has been pointed out that the Chavistas’ control of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice is a significant factor enabling the supporters of Nicolas Maduro to exercise both judicial and extrajudicial control over the institutions of the judiciary and to influence the legislature, vide the deprivation of legislative powers already accomplished.

The aim of this article is to define the role played by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice in the political system of contemporary Venezuela and determine the extent of the executive branch’s actual influence on the judiciary. The research problem formulated by the author concerns the determination of the actual importance of the Tribunal in keeping the Chavistas in power. The paper compares the substantive legal competences of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice with the political realities of the recent years and shows the main reasons why the Tribunal’s activities undertaken in recent years have raised so much controversy. It has been pointed out that the Chavistas’ control of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice is a meaningful factor enabling the supporters of Nicolas Maduro to exercise judicial and extrajudicial control over the institutions of the judiciary and influence the legislature