The Legal-Institutional Structure of MERCOSUR ADRIANA DREYZIN DE KLOR (original) (raw)
Related papers
[Introduction]. In the last ten years Mercosur has become a viable instrument for the creation of a South American pole of economic development and integration as well as to enhance regional power in face of inter-regional and global negotiations. For many Europeans, Mercosur (1) is a child of the EU process and structures and should closely follow its model of integration; for many North-Americans it is being portrayed as nothing more than a regional political arrangement in order to better negotiate with the United States. They argue that Latin Americans do not have conditions to create a stable integration process. Surprisingly for everyone Mercosur is there and is growing despite all adversities. This essay discusses key aspects that Mercosur shares with the EU and stresses the particularities that once produced and maintain Mercosur as an original regional integration model.
Mercosur’s reinvention in the light of South American politico-ideological synergies (draft)
From the 2000s onward, governments of progressive sensibilities came into power in many of the South American countries. The growing politico-ideological synergy – a key factor for integration building in the subcontinent – produced convergent policies toward the consolidation of the Mercosur. However, these synergies did not relinquish divergences nor tensions within the South-American bloc. In addition, in the last decade, Mercosur started a process of reinvention, given the fact that political and economic conjunctures favored the advancement of neodevelopmentalist projects within its institutional structure, which helped it not enter a state of lethargy among many of the other occurring regional processes in the subcontinent. In this context, it is important to understand the reasons of the change of political orientation of Mercosur. It is likewise essential to ask about consequences of this reinvention to its members and to the political synergies in the region. By understanding regionalism as a “space for action”, in which many actors, public and private, domestic and international, construct integration by and within their relations (Santander 2012), we aim at analyzing the development of Mercosur’s institutions in the last decade and the construction of such change.
This article addresses the problem of cooperation and integration between Argentina and Brazil from 1979 to 2014. Unlike previous scholarly work, it tries to develop a single model to explain both moments of major cooperation, integration and institutional building, while also offering response to conflictive episodes and institutional drawbacks during this time period. A simple and parsimonious answer is suggested: while presidents were relatively more powerful -in institutional terms, but also in economic and political onesvis à vis domestic interest groups opposed to bilateral integration, cooperative dynamics followed. Conversely, when presidents were weaker and oppositions grew stronger relative to them, the relation should have been more conflict prone. To contrast this hypothesis, process tracing and comparison across cases is used to analyse the five more relevant bargains in the history of MERCOSUR.
Mercosur: Limits of Regional Integration
Erasmus Law Review, 2019
This study is focused on the evaluation of successes and failures of the Common Market of the South (Mercosur). This analysis of Mercosur's integration seeks to identify the reasons why the bloc has stagnated in an incomplete customs union condition, although it was originally created to achieve a common market status. To understand the evolution of Mercosur, the study offers some thoughts about the role of the European Union (EU) as a model for regional integration. Although an EU-style integration has served as a model, it does not necessarily set the standards by which integration can be measured as we analyse other integration efforts. However, the case of Mercosur is emblematic: during its initial years, Mercosur specifically received EU technical assistance to promote integration according to EU-style integration. Its main original goal was to become a common market, but so far, almost thirty years after its creation, it remains an imperfect customs union. The article demonstrates the extent to which almost thirty years of integration in South America could be considered a failure, which would be one more in a list of previous attempts of integration in Latin America, since the 1960s. Whether it is a failure or not, it is impossible to envisage EU-style economic and political integration in South America in the foreseeable future. So far, member states, including Bra-zil, which could supposedly become the engine of economic and political integration in South America, have remained sceptical about the possibility of integrating further politically and economically. As member states suffer political and economic turmoil, they have concentrated on domestic recovery before being able to dedicate sufficient time and energy to being at the forefront of integration.
In this work, I will try to expose a variety of signs and premises both political and legal for the economic integration of South America, from different perspectives on the Andean Community (CAN) and the Common Market of the South (MERCOSUR) in a complex and globalized context. It is usual for politics and political issues to lead to legal situations, since this two aspects are closely linked; hence why in this document I will try to provide an understanding of this two dynamics separately from the exercise of the foreign politics of the member states. The study of these dynamics will hopefully give us a clue of the current situation of the economic integration projects aforementioned, and the direction they are taking in South America. The background will be the discussion of countries that 1 President of the Andean Center of International Estudies in Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar, Sede Ecuador. 2 are part of the two integration projects practicing multilateral policies, and their interest to develop a communitarian or supranational integration involving a regional protectionism. The conclusions of this work have been pointed out at the end.