Latin American Experience of Paradiplomacy: The Case of Mercocities
- 作者: Alibalaev M.M.1, Kuznetsov D.A.2
-
隶属关系:
- Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)
- MGIMO University
- 期: 卷 22, 编号 3 (2022): Latin American Identity Discourse and a New Regional Integration Agenda
- 页面: 537-553
- 栏目: THEMATIC DOSSIER
- URL: https://journals.rudn.ru/international-relations/article/view/32174
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-0660-2022-22-3-537-553
如何引用文章
详细
At present, the nature and scope of paradiplomacy vary depending on the level of political activeness of the regions, local challenges and the willingness of both states and sub-national entities to implement paradiplomacy strategies. Latin America, taken as an object of study, is no exception. Over the past three decades, Latin America has gained considerable experience of interaction at the level of cities and sub-national regions. The aim of the research is to identify the key features and problems that shape the development of paradiplomacy in South America, using Mercociudades (Mercocities) as an example. This network includes cities of MERCOSUR member states, while remaining open to other cities. Mercociudades might be regarded as the largest and most influential actor of that nature, whose aim is to develop regional units. Relying on case study, document analysis, comparative analysis and SWOT technique, the authors reveal some problems of institutional and organizational nature, differences in legal frameworks of different actors and irrelevance of separate Mercociudades projects and structures for tackling common challenges. Many of the shortcomings of Mercociudades lie in the very nature of the network, determined by its structure and the policies of MERCOSUR member states. At the same time, it is argued that the Mercociudades network can be considered one of the most advanced paradiplomacy cases. Its experience is relatively successful, contributing to the economic, social and political development of the member cities and states concerned. The research is based on official documents and respectful academic sources.
作者简介
Muradin Alibalaev
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)
编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: amm.98@yahoo.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3587-9719
PhD Student, Department of Theory and History of International Relations
Moscow, Russian FederationDenis Kuznetsov
MGIMO University
Email: kuznetsov.d.a@my.mgimo.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6265-2774
PhD (Political Science), Associate Professor, Department of World Politics
Moscow, Russian Federation参考
- Abylgaziyev, I. I., Ilyin, I. V., & Sluka, N. A. (Eds.). (2011). City in the context of global processes. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo universiteta publ. (In Russian).
- Aldecoa, F., & Keating, M. (Eds.). (1999). Paradiplomacy in action: The foreign relations of subnational governments. New York: Routledge.
- Alger, Ch. (1977). The impact of cities on international system. Eukistics, 44(264), 243-253.
- Azocar, N. (2019). Mercociudades: A case of decentralised cooperation in the context of South - South Cooperation. In S. Chaturvedi (Ed.), Global issues and local actions in South - South Cooperation (pp. 11-16). New Delhi: RIS. Retrieved from https://www.ris.org.in/sites/default/files/Publication/LSSC_2019_Final%20report%2022%20November%202019_Website-min.pdf
- Balzacq, T., Charillon, F., & Ramel, F. (Eds.). (2020). Global diplomacy. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Bazarov, B. V. (2011). Regional paradiplomacy in Transboundary Siberian - East-Asian regions. Izvestia. Ural Federal University Journal. Series 2: Humanities and Arts, (4), 26-36. (In Russian).
- Blakely, E. J., & Leigh, N. G. (2010). Planning local economic development: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
- Caetano, G., Godínez, V., & Niubó, M. (2007). Contributions made by decentralised cooperation between the European Union and Latin America to territorial cooperation in Latin America. Barcelona: OCD. Retrieved from https://intranet.eulacfoundation.org/en/system/files/doc_173.pdf
- Calvento, M., & Rolandi, M. (2015). Reconfiguración de la Cooperación Sur - Sur en la región latinoamericana y la participación internacional de los actores subnacionales. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales, 60(224), 315-348. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0185-1918(15)30012-X
- Couto, M., Crovetto, S., Gorosito, M., & Rodríguez, J., et al. (2012). Aprendizajes, miradas y experiencias: Una guía para la acción regional. Proyecto IN: Innovación y Cohesión Social: capacitación metodológica y visibilidad de buenas prácticas (Mercociudades, Racine, Fundación TIAU, Unión Europea). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23174.57926
- Duchacek, I. (1984). The international dimension of subnational self-government. Publius, 14(4), 5-31.
- Duchacek, I. (1986). The territorial dimension of politics: Within, among and across. London: Westview Press.
- Fesur, F. (2010). Giro político, reinserción internacional y nuevas formas de cooperación entre Europa y América Latina. Gobiernos subnacionales y cooperación descentralizada. In E. Iglesias, C. Gasol Valera (Eds.), El rol de los gobiernos subnacionales en los procesos de integración regional (pp. 17-32). Buenos Aires, Brasil: CARI-CEBRI.
- Guimarey, G. (2018). La motivación de los intendentes, alcaldes y prefeitos en participar en la Red Mercociudades: Cuestiones para pensar el sentido de pertenecer a la Red. In G. Mendicoa (Ed.), Hacia una epistemología del Sur II: El MERCOSUR desde abajo: Percepciones y experiencias de los municipios en la integración regional (pp. 263-271). Buenos Aires: Espacio Editorial.
- Iglesias, E., & Gasol Varela, C. (2010). El rol de los gobiernos subnacionales en los procesos de integración regional. Buenos Aires: CARI-CEBRI.
- Jeifets, V. L., & Jeifets, L. S. (2020). Right-Wing turn in Latin America: History and contemporaneity. Istoriya, 11(5), 16. (In Russian). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.18254/S207987840010177-3
- Kosevich, E. Yu. (2020). Latin America: The coronavirus and the new political landscape. Latinskaya Amerika, (10), 39-53. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.31857/S0044748X0011330-2
- Krylov, S. A. (2009). Latin American states’ multilateral diplomacy. MGIMO Review of International Relations, 6(9), 45-53. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2009-6-9-45-53
- Kuznetsov, A. (2015). Theory and practice of paradiplomacy: Subnational governments in international affairs. New York: Routledge.
- Lachapelle, G., & Paquin, S. (Eds.). (2005). Mastering globalization: New sub-states’ governance and strategies. New York: Routledge.
- Lecours, A. (2002). Paradiplomacy: Reflections on the foreign policy and international relations of regions. International Negotiation, 7(1), 91-114. https://doi.org/10.1163/157180602401262456
- Maira, L. (2010). La política internacional subnacional en América Latina. Buenos Aires: Libros del Zorzal.
- Oddone, N. (2009). Globalización, integración regional y desarrollo local: La red de MERCOCIUDADES. Valencia: IIM-UPV.
- Ribeiro, M. T. A., & Ribeiro, A. C. A. (2017). A paradiplomacia na integração regional do cone sul: análise interdisciplinar da atuação e interação entre os atores da rede Mercocidades. Caderno de Relações Internacionais, 8(14), 123-142. https://doi.org/10.22293/2179-1376.v8i14.587
- Schiavon, J. A. (2019). Comparative paradiplomacy. London, New York: Routledge.
- Soldatos, P. (1990). Federalism and international relations: The role of subnational units. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Wong-González, P. (2015). La conformación de regiones asociativas transfronterizas: Los límites de la paradiplomacia regional. In R. Barajas, P. Wong & N. Oddone (Eds.), Fronteras y procesos de integración. Estudios comparados entre América y Europa (pp. 81-96). Tijuan: El Colef, CIAD y Editorial JP.
- Yarovoy, G. O. (2013). Revisiting paradiplomacy as a tool for regional development. Studia Humanitatis Borealis, (1), 28-41. (In Russian).
补充文件
没有额外的文件显示