論文使用權限 Thesis access permission:校內校外完全公開 unrestricted
開放時間 Available:
校內 Campus: 已公開 available
校外 Off-campus: 已公開 available
論文名稱 Title |
南方共同市場的困境:國家、區域與跨區域的挑戰 The Dilemma of MERCOSUR: National, Regional and Extra-Regional Challenges |
||
系所名稱 Department |
|||
畢業學年期 Year, semester |
語文別 Language |
||
學位類別 Degree |
頁數 Number of pages |
233 |
|
研究生 Author |
|||
指導教授 Advisor |
|||
召集委員 Convenor |
|||
口試委員 Advisory Committee |
|||
口試日期 Date of Exam |
2019-04-16 |
繳交日期 Date of Submission |
2019-06-24 |
關鍵字 Keywords |
南方共同市場、拉丁美洲區域整合、區域性認同、區域整合 regional integration, MERCOSUR, regional identity, Latin American integration |
||
統計 Statistics |
本論文已被瀏覽 5767 次,被下載 100 次 The thesis/dissertation has been browsed 5767 times, has been downloaded 100 times. |
中文摘要 |
在穩定性、整合程度及制度化方面,「南方共同市場」是整個拉丁美洲和加勒比 海地區最成功的區域整合。就如同其他區域整合計畫,「南方共同市場」在近20 年間經歷跌宕起伏,許多研究透過政治和經濟科學領域來解釋這些盛衰、起伏, 以預測該區域整合之未來發展。本研究分析「南方共同市場」自1991 年建立以來 的演進與重大事件,主要目的是以更全面性的方法來研究該區域整合,並解釋一 系列重大事件,其中有傳統方法未能解釋或選擇忽視的面向。透過文獻回顧,顯 示絕大多數研究都以功利主義邏輯來解釋整合的過程。現實主義和自由主義幾乎 都把焦點放在經濟利益、安全和地緣戰略邏輯,而不關注社會文化邏輯。徹底分 析共同的歷史背景、語言、發展夢想和障礙等面向後,本研究發現這些社會文化 建構之區域認同在過去二十年中變得更加強大。根據本論文之研究結果,這種社 會文化對經濟、安全和地緣戰略等方面之整合具有重要意義,若忽視這些面向, 對「南方共同市場」的全面研究就無法完整呈現. |
Abstract |
MERCOSUR is the most successful integration Alternative in the whole Latin American and Caribbean region in terms of stability and the degree of integration and institutionalization. As other integration proposals elsewhere, the South American bloc has experienced important ups and downs through its nearly two decades of existence, which different fields of the political and economic sciences have tried to explain in order to anticipate the future of this regional bloc. This study analyses the evolution of MERCOSUR and its major events since its creation back in 1991. The main purpose of our study is to argue in favor of more comprehensive approaches to study this regional integration bloc in order to explain a series of events, which more traditional approaches have failed to explain or have chosen to neglect. A quick review of the existing literature on this topic showed that the vast majority of studies have focused on mere utilitarian logics to explain the integration process. Both, realist and liberalist positions have, one way or another, placed almost all weight on economic interests, security and geostrategic logics, leaving too little or no room at all for sociocultural logics. Upon a thorough analysis of matters of shared historical background, common language, common development dreams and common obstacles; we have observed that a regional identity based on these complex sociocultural issues have grown stronger over the last two decades. This sociocultural issues have, according to our findings, as much weight over the integration or lack of it, as do matters of economic, security and geostrategic. In this light, we conclude that a comprehensive study of MERCOSUR cannot be considered complete if it neglects these important aspects. |
目次 Table of Contents |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................... i 摘要 .............................................................................................................................iv ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................. v Table of contents ..........................................................................................................vi INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 Chapter I: TERMINOLOGY DELIMITATION AND METHODOLOGY .................... 7 1.1. Motivation and purpose of the investigation ............................................................ 7 1.2. Investigation structure ........................................................................................... 13 1.3. Concepts and terminology..................................................................................... 15 1.3.1. Regional integration ...................................................................................15 1.3.2. Sociological aspects ...................................................................................22 1.4. Methodology ........................................................................................................ 24 1.4.1. The constructivist approach to integration ..................................................24 1.4.2. The interpretivist approach to integration ...................................................27 1.4.3. The historic approach to integration ...........................................................30 Chapter II: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK .............................................................. 33 2.1. The classical theories ............................................................................................ 34 2.2. The new theories ................................................................................................... 53 vii Chapter III: MAJOR RESTRUCTURATION OF MERCOSUR INTEGRATION PROCESS (2003-2006) ............................................................................................... 68 3.1. Sociological aspects after the regional crisis of 1999-2002: National, Regional and Global conditions ........................................................................................................ 68 3.1.1. Global Situation .........................................................................................69 3.1.2. Regional situation ......................................................................................75 3.1.2.1. Multiple blocs: Convergence, Overlapping and Competition ...................88 3.1.3. Nacional situation .................................................................................... 101 3.1.4. Brazil’s Dilemma: Regional Leader or Emerging Global player?.............. 114 3.2. Crisis-prompted restructuration process of MERCOSUR .................................... 119 3.2.1. Strengthening the political dialogue: The BAC and other intra-bloc agreements ......................................................................................................... 120 3.2.2. Strengthening the Institutionalization of the Social and Cultural Aspects of the Integration Agenda ............................................................................................ 124 3.2.3. Institutionalization of the political integration: Administrative, Legislative, Political and Economic Institutions .................................................................... 137 3.3. Shortcomings of the Restructuration Process of MERCOSUR ............................ 144 3.3.1. Brazil’s Contested Regional Leadership and Ambitions for more Influence on the Global stage ................................................................................................. 150 3.4. Concluding remarks of chapter III ....................................................................... 168 Chapter IV: A NEW CRISIS: NATIONAL, REGIONAL, GLOBAL CHALLENGES (2011-2019) ............................................................................................................... 171 viii 4.1. Challenges in the form of economic, social and political struggles in MERCOSUR members .................................................................................................................... 171 4.2. Challenges in the form of the ongoing regional integration and re-integration processes ................................................................................................................... 179 4.3. Challenges emanating from external factors related to the geopolitical and trade reconfiguration of the world ...................................................................................... 182 4.4. Challenges resulting from the Trump phenomenon in Latin America and elsewhere ................................................................................................................................. 185 Chapter V: GENERAL CONCLUSIONS .................................................................. 187 5.1. Probing the shortcomings in the regional integration literature ............................ 189 5.2. In the case of MERCOSUR, sociocultural aspects are as important as economic and geostrategic ones ....................................................................................................... 192 5.3. Integration drive for MERCOSUR: a complex mixture of factors ....................... 200 5.4. How the major crisis of the early 2000s prompted the major transformation of this integration process ..................................................................................................... 203 5.5. Perspectives for MERCOSUR vis-à-vis the national, regional and extra-regional challenges it continues to face.................................................................................... 206 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................... 209 |
參考文獻 References |
Books sources Alvin, Y. (1990). Social Change and Development, Modernization, Dependency and World System Theories. Londres, Sage Library of Social Research. Amorim Neto, O. (2011). De Dutra a Lula: a condução e os determinantes da política externa brasileira. Rio de Janeiro, Brasil, Editora Elsevier. Baptista, L.O. (1998). El Mercosur, sus instituciones y su ordenamiento jurídico. San Pablo, Editorial LTR. Bartesaghi, I. (2014). Las relaciones comerciales entre América Latina y Asia Pacífico: desafíos y oportunidades. Uruguay, Observatorio América Latina – Asia Pacífico ALADI, CAF y CEPAL. Berlinski, J., Kume, H., Vaillant, M., Piani, G., Ons, A., Miranda, P. and Romero, C. A. (2006). Hacia una Política Comercial Común del MERCOSUR. Argentina, Siglo XXI Editora Iberoamericana, Red MERCOSUR. Boutros, B. G. (1992). Agenda for peace. New York, United Nations. Bull, H., Watson, A. (Ed.) (1984). The Expansion of International Society. New York, Oxford University Press. Caputo, D. (2015). Un péndulo austral. Argentina entre el populismo y el establishment. Buenos Aires, Argentina, Capital Intelectual. Cardoso, F. H. and Enzo, F. (1967). Dependência e Desenvolvimento na América Latina. Rio de Janeiro, Brasil, Civilização Brasileira. Costa, R. (2010). Mercosur y la negociación de la tarifa externa común. Uruguay, CEBRI. Cox, R. and Sinclair, T. (1996). Approaches to world order. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 210 Doleac, C. (2014). Are the Organization of American States’ Imperialist Roots too Deep to Extirpate Today? Council on Hemispheric Affairs. Dos Santos, T. (2002). La Teoría de la Dependencia: Balance y Perspectivas. Balance y perspectivas. México, Plaza y Janés. Escudé, C. (1998). Historia de un éxito. In Cisneros, Andrés. Política Exterior Argentina 1989- 1999. Argentina, Grupo Editor Latinoamericano S.R.L. Fanely, J. M. y Bouzas, R. (2001). Mercosur: Integración y Crecimiento. Programa Mercosur de la Fundación OSDE, con la supervisión académica y certificación de la Universidad Nacional de San Martín. Argentina, Fundación OSDE. Fukuyama, F. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. London, Penguin. Guzzini, S. (1998). Realism in international relations and international political economy: the continuing story of a death foretold. New York, Routledge. Haas, E. (1958). The Uniting of Europe. Stanford, Stanford University Press. Hasenclever, A., Mayer P. and Rittberger, V. (1997). Theories of international regimes. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Herrington, L. (1981). Why the Rise of China Will Not Lead to Global Hegemony. EInternational Relations. Hodge, B. and Kress, G. (1988). Social semiotics. Cambridge, Polity press. Keohane, R. O. and Nye, J. S. (1977). Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston, Little, Brown and Company. Livingstone, G. (2009). America’s Backyard: The United States and Latin America from the Monroe Doctrine to the War on Terror. London, Zed Books. Marcelo, P. M. (2000). A estrutura institucional do Mercosul. São Paulo, Brasil, Edições Aduaneiras. Mariscal, N. (2003). Teorías políticas de la integración europea, España, Editorial Tecnos. 211 Marois, T. (2012). States, Banks and Crisis: Emerging Finance Capitalism in Mexico and Turkey. London, UK, Department of Development Studies, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, London, Cheltenham and Northampton. Mattli, W. (1999). The logic of regional integration: Europe and beyond. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Puntigliano, A. R. and Briceño-Ruiz, J. (Ed.). (2013) Resilience of Regionalism in Latin America and the Caribbean. Development and Autonomy. Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan. Vázquez, G. R. (2007). El MERCOSUR por dentro. Bogotá, Colombia, ditorial Ántropos. Wallace, H. (2000). The Institutional Setting. In H. Wallace and W. Wallace. Policy-Making in the European Union. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Zimmern, A. (1931). The Study of International Relations. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Book chapters Abreu, S. (2000). Uruguay: socio pequeño del Mercosur. En Mateo, F. (Ed.). Los países pequeños: su rol en los procesos de integración. Documento de divulgación No. 8, INTAL, Buenos Aires, Argentina, pp. 41-81. Acharya, A. and Johnston A. I. (2007). Comparing Regional Institutions: An Introduction, in A. Acharya and A. I. Johnston (Ed.). Crafting Cooperation. Regional International Institutions in Comparative Perspective, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 1- 31. Adler, E. (2013). Constructivism in International Relations: Sources, Contributions, and Debates, in W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse and B. A. Simmons (Ed.). Handbook of International Relations, London, Sage, pp. 112-144. Aggarwal, V. K. and Fogerty, E. A. (2004). Between Regionalism and Globalism: European Union Interregional Trade Strategies. In V. K. Aggarwal & E. A. Fogerty (Ed.). EU Trade 212 Strategies: Between Regionalism and Globalism. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. Betts, A. pp. 1-40. Bermúdez, I. (1999). Mercosur en la crisis internacional. En Borón, A., Gambina, J. y Minsburg, N. (Ed.). Tiempos violentos: Neoliberalismo, globalización y desigualdad en América Latina. EUDEBA-CLACSO, Buenos Aires, Argentina, pp. 121-128. Boutros, B. G. (2000). An agenda for democratization. In Barry Holden, (Ed.). Global democracy, key debates. London, Routledge, pp. 105-161. Bouzas, R. (1997). Mercosur y liberalización comercial preferencial en América del Sur: resultados, temas y proyecciones. In P. Meller and R. Lipsey (Ed.). NAFTA y MERCOSUR: un diálogo canadiense-latinoamericano. Chile, CIEPLAN-Dolmen, pp. 139-162. Bouzas, R. (1999). Las negociaciones comerciales externas de Mercosur: administrando una agenda congestionada. In R. Roett (Ed.). Mercosur: integración regional y mercados mundiales. Argentina, ISEN Nuevo Hacer, pp.115-132. Bouzas, R. (2005). Compensating asymmetries in regional integration agreements: lessons from Mercosur. In P. Giordano, F. Lanzafame and J. Meyer- Stamer (Ed.). Asymmetries in Regional Integration and Local Development. Washington, BID, pp. 85-112. Bouzas, R., Gratius, S., Soltz, H. and Sberro, S. (2008) Teoría y Práctica de las Instituciones y Procesos de Decisión. In G. Susanne (Ed.). MERCOSUR y NAFTA: Instituciones y Mecanismos de Decisión en Procesos de Integración Asimetricos. Vervuert, Iberoamericana, pp. 33-95. Cresta, J. A. (2008). Asimetrías en el MERCOSUR: un enfoque macroeconómico. In F. Masi e I. Tierra (Ed.). Asimetrías en el MERCOSUR: ¿un impedimento para el crecimiento? Editorial Zonalibro, pp. 41-85. Emmers, R. (2007), Securitization, in A. Collins (Ed.). Contemporary Security Studies. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 109-127. 213 French, J. D. (2010). Many lefts, one path? Chavez and Lula, in A. C. Maxwell and H. Eric (Ed.). Latin America’s Left Turn: Politics, Policies, and Trajectories of Change. Boulder, Lynne Rienner Publishers, pp. 41-60. Goldstein, J. and Keohane, R. O. (1993). Ideas and Foreign Policy: An Analytical Framework. In Goldstein, J. and Keohane, R. O. (Ed.). Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change. Ithaca, Cornell University Press. pp. 3-30. Gonzalez Cravino, S. (2000). Globalización, integración y cohesión social - El caso Mercosur. In Franco and Di Filippo (Ed.). Las dimensiones sociales de la integración regional en América Latina. Santiago de Chile, CEPAL, pp. 35-54. Herz, M. (2014). Regional Governance. In T. G. Weiss and R. Wilkinson (Ed.), International Organization and Global Governance. New York, Routledge, pp. 236-250. Hurrell, A. (1995). Regionalism in Theoretical Perspective. In L. Fawcett and A. Hurrell (Ed.). Regionalism in World Politics. Regional Organization and International Order. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 37-73. Lebow, R. N. (2007). Classical Realism, in T. Dunne, M. Kurki and S. Smith (Ed.). International Relations Theories. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 52.70. Mariano, K. P., Vigevani, T. e Oliveira, M. F. (2000). Na Democracia e atores políticos no Mercosul. Lima, M. C. e Medeiros, M. de A. (Ed.). O Mercosul no limiar do século XXI. Sao Paulo, Brasil, Cortez Editora, pp. 250-285. Schmidt, V. (2001). Discourse and the legitimation of economic and social policy change in Europe. In Weber, S. (Ed.). Globalization and the European political economy. New York, Columbia University Press, pp. 229-272. Schmitter, P. C. (2004). Neo-Neofunctionalism, in A. Wiener and T. Diez (Ed.). European Integration Theory. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 45-74. Smith, S. (2007). Introduction. In T. Dunne. M. Kuki, and S. Smith (Ed.). International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 1-12. 214 Spektor, M. (2010). Brazil: The Underlying Ideas of Regional Policies. In F. Daniel (Ed.). Regional Leadership in the Global System: Ideas, Interests and Strategies of Regional Powers. Aldershot, Ashgate Publishing, pp. 191-204. Academic articles Bennholdt-Thomsen, V. and Garrido, A. (1981). Marginalidad en América Latina. Una crítica de la teoría. Revista Mexicana De Sociología, vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 1505-1546. Bergeron, G. (1971). Commentaire de la communication du professeur Arend Lijphart. Canadian Journal of Political Science, vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 18-21. Berna, l. y Meza, R. (2013). Modelos o esquemas de integración y cooperación en curso en América Latina (UNASUR, Alianza del Pacifico, ALBA, CELAC): una mirada panorámica. Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut, No. 12, pp. 1 -22. Bethell, L. (2010). Brazil and ‘Latin America’ Journal of Latin American Studies, vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 457-485. Burges, S. (2007). Building a Global Southern Coalition: The Competing Approaches of Brazil’s Lula and Venezuela’s Chávez. Third World Quarterly, vol. 28, No. 7, pp. 1343- 1358. Carranza, M. E. (2003). Mercosur, the Free Trade Area of the Americas, and the Future of U.S. Hegemony in Latin America. Fordham International Law Journal, vol. 27, No 4, pp. 14. Conexión INTAL (2016). Made in CHI-LAT. Conexión, Ideas de Integración, No. 237. Costa Vaz, A. (2001). Mercosul aos dez anos: crise de crescimento ou perda de identidade? En Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 43-54. De Tracy, A. Destutt (1829). Gazette de France. Paris, France, 8 août 1829, pp. 3-4. Delaney, J. H. (2002). Imagining “El Ser Argentino”: Cultural Nationalism and Romantic Concepts of Nationhood in Early Twentieth-Century Argentina. Journal of Latin American Studies, vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 625-658. 215 Di Filippo, A. y Franco, R. (2012). Aspectos sociales de la integración (LC/L.996/Add.3), Vol. 4. Doleac, C. (2014). Are the Organization of American States’ Imperialist Roots too deep to Extirpate Today? Council on Hemispheric Affairs. http://www.coha.org/are-theorganization- of-american-states-imperialist-roots-too-deep-to-extirpate-with-today/. (Last Accessed: June 20, 2019). Esteradeodal, A., Goto, J. and Saez, R. (2001). The New Regionalism in the Americas: the Case of Mercosur. Journal of Economic Integration, vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 180-202. Fernandez, J. (1966). The Nationalism Syndrome in Argentina. Journal of Inter-American Studies, vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 551-564. Fernando, P. (2003). Retos y desafíos para un nuevo MERCOSUR. CEI, Revista Argentina de Economía Internacional, Vol. 84, No. 1. Fioramonti, L. and Poletti, A. (2008). Facing the Giant: Southern Perspectives on the European Union. Third World Quarterly, vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 167-180. Gómez-Quiñones, J. (1982). Critique on the National Question, Self-Determination and Nationalism. Latin American Perspectives, vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 62-83. Gonzalez, C. S. (1998). Globalización, integración y cohesión social – El caso MERCOSUR. Serie Políticas Sociales 14, Aspectos Sociales de la Integración, CEPAL, Vol. 3, No. 14, pp. 35-55. Gunder, F. A. (1967). Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America: Historical Studies of Chile and Brazil. The American Historical Review, Vol. 74, No. 5, pp. 1757-1758. Haas, E. B. and Schmitter, P. C. (1964). Economics and Differential Patterns of Political Integration: Projections about Unity in Latin America, International Organization, vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 705-737. Hammond, J. and Filho, J. (2007). Introduction: Brazil under Cardoso. Latin American Perspectives, vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 5-8. 216 Hettne, B. (1991). Security and Peace in Post-Cold War Europe. In Journal of Peace Research, vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 279-294. Hettne, B. and Söderbaum, F. (2000). Theorising the Rise of Regionness. New Political Economy, vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 457-473. Hettne, B. and Söderbaum, F. (2000). Theorizing the rise of regionness. New Political Economy Routledge, vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 345-473. Jaguaribe, H. (1982). Brasil-Argentina: Breve análisis de las relaciones de conflicto y cooperación. Estudios Internacionales, vol. 15, No. 57, pp. 9-27. Jelin, E. (2001). Cultural Movements and Social Actors in the New Regional Scenarios: The Case of MERCOSUR. International Political Science Review, Revue Internationale De Science Politique, vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 85-98. Josselin, J. M. and Marciano, A. (2006). The political economy of European federalism. Series: Public Economics and Social Choice. Centre for Research, in Economics and Management, University of Rennes 1 and University of Caen, vol. 12. Keohane, R. O. and Nye, J.S. (1987). Power and interdependence revisited. International Organization vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 724-753. Klotz, A., Lynch, C., Checkel, J. and Dunn, K. (2006). Moving beyond the Agent-Structure Debate. International Studies Review, vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 355-381. L. Bethell (2010). Brazil and ‘Latin America’ Journal of Latin American Studies, vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 457-485. Lechini, G. (2007). Middle Powers: IBSA and the New South-South Cooperation. NACLA Report on the Americas, vol. 40, No. 5, pp. 28-33. Malamud, A. (2005). MERCOSUR Turns 15: Between Rising Rhetoric and Declining Achievement. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 421-436. Mario, E. C. (2003). MERCOSUR: The Free Trade Area of the Americas, and the Future of U.S. Hegemony in Latin America. Fordham International Law Journal vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 1029-1065. 217 Miriam, G. S. (2010). A diplomacia brasileira e as visões sobre a inserção externa do Brasil: institucionalistas pragmáticos x autonomistas. Mural Internacional, vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 45- 52. Mitrany, D. (1948). The functional approach to world organization. International Affairs, Royal Institute of International Affairs, vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 350-363. Morais, L. and Saad-Filho, A. (2011). Brazil beyond Lula: Forging Ahead or Pausing for Breath? Latin American Perspectives, vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 31-44. Muñoz, A. S. (2012). El nuevo mapa político y económico de América Latina: Alianza Pacifico versus UNASUR. Estudios Geográficos, No. 273, pp. 703-719. Nye, J. S. (1968). Comparative Regional Integration: Concept and Measurement. International Organization, vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 855-880. Oliveira, R. C. (2006). Autonomia e universalismo como condicionantes da política externa brasileira. Revista de Informação Legislativa, vol. 43, No. 171, pp. 133-153. Peña, F. (2011). ALADI, UNASUR y el MERCOSUR: ¿Ejes de la construcción institucional de una región que enfrenta sus desafíos? Newsletter Mensual Septiembre 2011. Phillips, N. (2007). The Limits of ‘Securitization’: Power, Politics and Process in US Foreign Economic Policy. Government and Opposition, vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 158 - 189. Ruggie, J. G., Katzenstein, P. J., Keohane, R.O. and Schmitter, P.C. (2005). Transformations in World Politics: The Intellectual Contributions of Ernst B. Haas. Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 8, pp. 271-96. Russell, R. and Tokatlian, J. G. (2003). From Antagonistic Autonomy to Relational Autonomy. A Theoretical Reflection from the Southern Cone. Latin American Politics and Society, vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 1-24 Sanahuja, J. A. (2007). Regionalismo e integración América Latina: balance y perspectivas. Pensamiento Iberoamericano, La Nueva Agenda de desarrollo en América Latina, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 75-106. 218 Saraiva, M. G. (2010). A diplomacia brasileira e as visões sobre a inserção externa do Brasil: institucionalistas pragmáticos x autonomistas. Mural Internacional, vol. 1, pp. 45-52. Schmitter P. C. (1969). Three Neo-Functional Hypotheses about International Integration. International Organization, vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 161-166. Secretaría Permanente del SELA y González Cravino, C. S. (1998). Aspectos sociales de la integración (LC/L.996/Add.2), Vol. 3. Stairs, D. (1970). Deutsch Karl W: The Analysis of International Relations. Canadian Journal of Political Science, vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 171-172. Stuldreher, A. (2004). La regionalización como estrategia frente a la globalización. La concepción de política externa conjunta en los bloques de América Latina y el Caribe. Estudios Internacionales, vol. 37, No. 145, pp. 25-50. Sunkel, O. (1998). Desarrollo e integración regional: ¿otra oportunidad para una promesa incumplida? En Revista de la CEPAL, No. extraordinario “CEPAL 50 años”, pp. 229- 241. Tussie, D. (2009). Latin America: Contrasting Motivations for Regional Projects, Review of International Studies, vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 169-188. Vigevani, T. and Cepaluni, G. (2007). Lula’s Foreign Policy and the Quest for Autonomy through Diversification. Third World Quarterly, vol. 28, No. 7, pp. 1309-1326. Vigevani, T. and Júnior, H. (2011). The Impact of Domestic Politics and International Changes on the Brazilian Perception of Regional Integration. Latin American Politics and Society, vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 125-155. Watson A. E. (1996). The United States and Japan: Mutual Interests and Cooperation in Latin America. U.S. Department of State Dispatch 7, pp. 62-65. Yeats, J. A. (1998). Does Mercosur’s Trade Performance Raise Concerns about the effects of Regional Trade Arrangements? In The World Bank Economic Review, vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 1-28. 219 Zao, S. (2016). From Soft to Structured Regionalism: Building Regional Institutions in the Asia–Pacific. Journal of Global Policy and Governance, vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 145-166. Working papers Hettne, B. (2003). Regionalism, Interregionalism and World Order: The European Challenge to Pax Americana. American University Council on Comparative Studies, Working Paper Series, no. 3. Kirk, R. and Stern, M. (2003). The new Southern African Customs Union Agreement. Africa Region Working Paper Series, No. 57, World Bank. Olarreaga, M., Soloaga, I. and Winters, L. A. (1999). What’s Behind Mercosur’s Common External Tariff? World Bank, Policy Research, Working Paper No. 2231. Tealde, E. y Juan, L. (2008). Un nuevo mecanismo para la distribución de la renta arancelaria en uniones aduaneras y su aplicación al caso del MERCOSUR. Unidad de Análisis Asesoría de Política Comercial Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas, Documento de Trabajo Nº 1 Junio 2008. Zhang, Z., Sato, K. and Mc Aleer, M. (2001). Is East Asia an Optimum Currency Area? International Center for the Study of East Asian Development, Working Paper, No. 37. Official Speeches ABC Color, (March 29, 2009). Régimen presidencial impide al MERCOSUR poder supranacional. Interview with Dr. Jorge Fontoura, Brazilian, Fifth Judge of MERCOSUR’s Permanent Court of Arbitration. http://www.abc.com.py/edicionimpresa/ politica/regimen-presidencial-impide-al-mercosur-poder-supranacional- 1159444.html. (Last accessed: June 20, 2019). Argentine Foreign Ministry (August 11, 2011). ALADI-Carlos “Chacho” Álvarez: discurso de asunción como Secretario General (Speech pronounced by Former Argentinian Vice220 president, Carlos ‘Chacho’ Álvarez during his inauguration as General Secretary of the Latin American Integration Association, ALADI). Montevideo, Uruguay. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0doGFRHrJ1A. (Last accessed: June 20, 2019). Hausmann, R. (2010). Diversificación Económica y Prosperidad: Comentarios sobre el Uruguay. Universidad Católica del Uruguay. La Red 21, Uruguay (June 3, 2002). Irrelevancia internacional, desconfianza regional (Editorial reflecting on President Cardoso’s comments regarding the US) “el hecho de ser irrelevantes [para Estados Unidos] nos da espacio para hacer lo que queramos”. http://www.lr21.com.uy/editorial/84752-irrelevancia-internacional-desconfianzaregional. (Last accessed: June 20, 2019). Organization of American States (March 3, 1991).Treaty Establishing a Common Market between the Argentine Republic, the Federal Republic of Brazil, the Republic of Paraguay and the Eastern Republic of Uruguay (Treaty od Asuncion). http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/MRCSR/treatyasun_e.asp. (Last accessed: June 20, 2019). The American Presidency Project (March, 2007). Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva Press Conference with US President George W. Bush in Sao Paulo, Brazil. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=24571. (Last accessed: June 20, 2019). The White House, Office of the Press Secretary (March 4, 2009). Remarks by the President on procurement. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-presidentprocurement- 3409. (Last accessed: June 20, 2019). Official documents Alberola, E., Buisán, A. y Fernández de Lis, S. (2002). The quest for nominal and real convergence trough integration in Europe and Latin America. Servicio de Estudios del Banco de España. Documento de Trabajo No. 0213. Alexander, E. W. (1996). The United States and Japan: Mutual Interests and Cooperation in Latin America. U.S. Department of State Dispatch 7, 62-65. 221 Ayacucho Declaration. (2004). Pampa de La Quinua, Ayacucho, Diciembre 2004. http://www.sice.oas.org/agreements_e.asp. (Last accessed: June 20, 2019). Ayacucho Declaration. (December 9, 2004). Pampa de La Quinua, Ayacucho. Banco Central de la República de Argentina (2016). Estadísticas e indicadores. http://www.bcra.gov.ar. (Last accessed: June 20, 2019). Banco Central del Paraguay (2018). Indicadores económicos. http://www.bcp.gov.py. (Last accessed: June 20, 2019). Banco Central del Uruguay (2018). Indicadores Económicos. http://www.bcu.gub.uy. (Last accessed: June 20, 2019). Banco Central do Brasil (2016). Economy and Finance, Exchange and Foreign Capital. http://www.bcb.gov.br/?english. (Last accessed: June 20, 2019). Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (2000). Desarrollo más allá de la economía. Informe Progreso Económico y Social de América Latina, IPES, Washington. CEPAL (2009). América Latina y el Caribe. Series Históricas de Estadísticas Económicas. 1950-2008. División de Estadística y Proyecciones Económicas, Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe. CEPAL, FAO, IICA (2010). Volatilidad de precios en los mercados agrícolas (2000 – 2010), implicaciones para América Latina y Opciones de Política. De Villalobos, R. (2015). El Comercio Agropecuario en el Mercosur. Veinte Años después del Tratado de Asunción. BID-INTAL, Nota Técnica n° IDB-TN 809, de Junio 2015. http://publications.iadb.org/. (Last accessed: June 20, 2019). Declaration of Buenos Aires. (1971). International Legal Materials, vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 448-450. Lucángeli, J. (1991). Integración comercial, intercambio intraindustrial y creación y desvío de comercio: el intercambio comercial entre la Argentina y Brasil en los años recientes. In Documento de Trabajo IE/01, Serie Int Eco. Secretaría de Programación Económica, Proy Arg 91/019, PNUD. 222 Rodrik, D. (2005). Políticas de Diversificación Económica. Revista de la CEPAL, ISSN 1682- 0908, No. 87, pp. 7-23. Treaty of Asuncion (1991). Treaty Establishing a Common Market between the Argentinian Republic, the Federal Republic of Brazil, the Republic of Paraguay and the Eastern Republic of Uruguay, March 3, 1991. http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/MRCSR/treatyasun_e.asp. (Last accessed: June 20, 2019). United Nations (2018). Human Development Report 2018. New York, United Nations Development Program. World Trade Organization (2010). Regional Trade Agreements Database (R.T.A.). http://rtais.wto.org/UI/PublicAllRTAList.aspx. (Last accessed: June 20, 2019). News sources Bartesaghi, I. (2013). La encrucijada de la política exterior del Uruguay: ¿el Mercosur, la Alianza del Pacífico o ambas? http://www.eldial.com/nuevo/index.asp. (Last accessed: June 20, 2019). C-span.org (January 1, 2003). Brazilian Presidential Inauguration (Speech by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva at his Inaugural Ceremony), National Congress - Brasilia. https://www.c-span.org/video/?174488-1/brazilian-presidential-inauguration. (Last accessed: June 20, 2019). pagina12.com. (October 3, 2006). Cómo el ballottage incide en Bolivia. https://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elmundo/subnotas/73927-23962-2006-10-03.html. (Last accessed: June 20, 2019). Pinheiro, G. S. (2016). MERCOSUR y China: tres caminos. Dossier Caminhos e Perspectivas da Integração Latino Americana, Ritimo. https://www.ritimo.org/MERCOSUR-y-China-tres-caminos. (Last accessed: June 20, 2019). 223 The Washington Post (May 10, 2006). Bolivia Gas Plan Causes Rift in S. America. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/ content/article/2006/05/10/AR2006051001243.html. (Last accessed: June 20, 2019). |
電子全文 Fulltext |
本電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的,進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定,切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送,以免觸法。 論文使用權限 Thesis access permission:校內校外完全公開 unrestricted 開放時間 Available: 校內 Campus: 已公開 available 校外 Off-campus: 已公開 available |
紙本論文 Printed copies |
紙本論文的公開資訊在102學年度以後相對較為完整。如果需要查詢101學年度以前的紙本論文公開資訊,請聯繫圖資處紙本論文服務櫃台。如有不便之處敬請見諒。 開放時間 available 已公開 available |
QR Code |