In this paper, we deal with the distinction between two specific forms of political mobilization in Latin America, guerrilla and terrorism. First, we try to identify and discuss the main historical events in the evolution of guerrilla mobilization. We emphasize the socio-political profile and the ideological dispositions which are usually related to the guerrilla mobilization. Then, we examine the two phenomenons in a comparative perspective. We argue that guerrilla is a form of political mobilization that entails a fundamental change in the political competition (which involves an internal war), whereas terrorism, by its scope, its goals and its objectives, may only affect, to some extent, one or many policies of a given government. Finally, we propose two definitions of guerrilla and terrorism, followed by some additional commentaries on their theoretical limits.
In the first section of this paper, the author tries to demonstrate how the increasing importance of modelisation/simulation reveals the existence of a crisis in strategic thought, seen as a crisis in the management of complexity, even more so as a crisis regarding the fundamental concepts of strategy, and regarding its claim even (as the " triumph of the means over the end " ) to tell how the world should be managed and what must be its destiny. At the same time, it is suggested that the dominance of " technolanguages " is growing, that the various attempts to overcome this crisis through the use of " artificial intelligence " are extremely promising, provided however that we agree to " a criticism of the strategic time-space ". In the second section, the author deals with the main problems and constraints linked with the conversion of strategic expertise into information processing languages and recommends that research be done along five axes : an update of the " fundamental connectors ", a kind of synapse in the strategic thinking, a study of the " attributes " and a setting up of such elaborate typology as " linguistic atoms ", and finally analyses of " contexts " and " key questions ".
The International Monetary fund agrees on stand-by agreements with a large number of countries of the world, allowing these countries to obtain substantial lines of credit. These agreements are made up of a group of conditions, where the generic term "conditionality" originates. This notion has been all the more legally formulated since the Fund's decision taken on March 2"d, 1979. The author of this article looks into each one of the 12 paragraphs and underlying principles that constitute the decision. Afterwards, the author examines paragraph 3 in detail, which enacts that these stand-by agreements are not international agreements, and analyses the reasons motivating such a decision on behalf of the Fund. The author also deals with the underlying issue of the legal type of international convention that a stand-by agreement may constitute: the "gentleman's agreement" or the unilateral mandatory declaration or the unenforceable agreement. Finally, the text ends with the review of the principal sanctions linked to the infringement of the stand-by agreement standards.