Today's democratic fractures are not manifested through military coups or the abrupt closure of parliaments. We are facing subtle and progressive institutional ruptures, backed by populist discourses based on disinformation amplified by social networks.

In the complex scenario of international relations in the 21st century, it is essential to reconsider strategies in the face of current interstate tensions.

In Latin America, the interference of the military forces in the internal security of the countries has been historically evidenced, which affects the functioning of the democratic order.

The maximum exponent of human evil was the Nazi terror that kept a meticulous record of its victims. Thirty years later, under the doctrine of national security, a new systematic effort, but without light or stenographers, brought the figure of forced disappearance to institutionalized repression in Latin America.

Despite this democratizing transit that seeks to change the Constitution, it seems not only necessary, but imperative, to learn from our recent past. But it is not without significance that in the 21st century the distinctive characteristics of the State's response are the use of violence and human rights violations.

What is legitimate and what is not? Should governments negotiate with terrorist and criminal networks to reduce crime and homicide? Both questions, and many others, arise under this theme. In terms of security and negotiations, there is a wide constellation of cases between states, insurgent groups, and guerrillas, but less so with terrorists or drug cartels.