I want to learn about the different forms of understand the geopolitics, in international relations, use Latino American authors

I'm absolutely thrilled to help you explore this! Latin American thinkers have developed some of the most innovative and realistic ways of looking at global power, which often get completely overlooked in standard textbooks.

Before we construct our custom learning path and dive into the theories, I'd love to learn just a tiny bit more about you so I can tailor our conversation perfectly to your level and interests.

To start, what is your current background in International Relations or Geopolitics, and are there any specific Latin American countries or authors you are already curious about?

I'm a student/professional in IR and want to deep dive into advanced theories.

Welcome! I'm so excited to dive into this with you. Since you already have a solid background in IR, we can skip the standard textbook definitions and jump straight into how Latin American scholars challenge the mainstream, starting with our first subtopic.

Your path

Key Theoretical Frameworks by Latin American Authors

Contemporary Challenges and Regional Responses

The Realist Monopoly

To understand why Latin American perspectives are so groundbreaking, we first have to look at what they are reacting against. In mainstream IR, the conversation has long been dominated by Anglo-American theories—specifically and neoliberal institutionalism.

These traditional theories view the world through a top-down lens. They define primarily as a high-stakes chess match between major global powers competing for systemic dominance. In this traditional view, the international system is 'functionally undifferentiated'—meaning all states are assumed to play by the same basic rules of survival, regardless of their size, wealth, or historical baggage.

But Latin American thinkers quickly realized that this model does not fit their reality. Under classic neorealism, smaller or less powerful states are often dismissed as mere passive bystanders, or 'consumers' of security, rather than active players. This creates a massive blind spot, ignoring how countries actually navigate life in the shadow of giants. Shall we look at why these regional voices were pushed to the margins of mainstream IR, or would you prefer to dive straight into how they define this power imbalance?