BROWSE

Special Graduate Schools Graduate School of International Studies Department of International Development Cooperation 3. Theses(Master)

Integration in South America: A general analysis of UNASUR and MERCOSUR

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.advisorIan Watson-
dc.contributor.authorAULESTIA CARRION JENIFFER KARINA-
dc.date.accessioned2022-11-29T02:32:30Z-
dc.date.available2022-11-29T02:32:30Z-
dc.date.issued2021-02-
dc.identifier.other30428-
dc.identifier.urihttps://dspace.ajou.ac.kr/handle/2018.oak/20039-
dc.description학위논문(석사)--Graduate School of International Studies Ajou University :국제개발협력과,2021. 2-
dc.description.tableofcontentsChapter I Introduction 1 1.1 Historical Background in South America 1 1.1.1 UNASUR 3 1.1.1.1 Background 3 1.1.1.2 UNASUR Structure and Agenda 5 1.1.2 MERCOSUR 8 1.1.2.1 Background 8 1.1.2.2 Structure and Agenda 9 1.2.- Problem Statement: 11 1.3.- Significance of Study 12 1.4.- Research Goals 14 1.5.- Hypothesis: 14 1.6.- Variables 14 1.7.- Methodology 14 1.8.-Research Method 15 1.9.- Information Sources: 15 1.10.- Thesis Outline 15 Chapter Ⅱ Literature Review: Concepts of Integration, Complex Interdependence, Globalization and Sovereignty 17 2.1 Integration 17 2.2 International Institutions and Complex Interdependence 22 2.3 Globalization 26 2.4 Sovereignty 28 Chapter Ⅲ Is there integration in South America 31 3.1 Background, inside and outside factors 31 3.2 Sovereignty and the State´s role in the integration process in South America 31 3.3 Integration approaches: Economic and Neofunctionalism 33 3.3.1 Economic 33 3.3.2 Neofunctionalism 34 3.4 MERCOSUR Analysis 35 3.4.1 Mercosur "Golden Decade": Presidentialism and Common Market 35 3.4.2 MERCOSUR DECLINE 37 3.5 UNASUR Analysis 39 3.5.1 UNASUR "Trilemma" 40 Chapter Ⅳ UNASUR and MERCOSUR comparison with European Union and ASEAN 43 4.1 Historical Background 43 4.1.1 European Union 43 4.1.2 ASEAN 44 4.2 Economy, Trade and Market differences 44 4.2.1 Economy 45 4.2.2 Trade 47 4.2.3 Market 49 4.3 Structural and Political differences 50 4.3.1 Structural Differences 51 4.3.2 Political Differences 53 Conclusions 57 REFERENCES 61-
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.publisherGraduate School of International Studies Ajou University-
dc.rights아주대학교 논문은 저작권에 의해 보호받습니다.-
dc.titleIntegration in South America: A general analysis of UNASUR and MERCOSUR-
dc.typeThesis-
dc.contributor.affiliation아주대학교 국제대학원-
dc.contributor.department국제대학원 국제개발협력학과-
dc.date.awarded2021. 2-
dc.description.degreeMaster-
dc.identifier.localId1203198-
dc.identifier.uciI804:41038-000000030428-
dc.identifier.urlhttp://dcoll.ajou.ac.kr:9080/dcollection/common/orgView/000000030428-
dc.subject.keywordMERCOSUR-
dc.subject.keywordRegional integration-
dc.subject.keywordSovereignty-
dc.subject.keywordUNASUR-
dc.description.alternativeAbstractSouth America has had some integration institutions like: CAN, ALBA and CELAC, however its impact and scope have been very small, as well as UNASUR and MERCOSUR, there has been a lack of positive results. In fact, the word integration might not be the correct term, these intuitions act more like cooperation axes rather than international organizations. UNASUR was a very popular case study, before and after its foundation, as a relatively new organization which introduced new topics never discussed before in South America. For example, military cooperation, was something “unusual” to be discussed; the geopolitical issues and national security were always under the influence of the United States. On the other hand, MERCOSUR, was created under different circumstances. At the end of the Cold War it was announced that capitalism will regulate the relations among the States, free trade agreements and economic liberation was the way to act in the 90´s and South America was a part of that change. For the purpose of this thesis regional integration is defined as “a process where the States gave up their sovereignty to achieved a common welfare that they would not accomplish by themselves” (Botto, 2015). Regional integration usually includes a commitment, territorial proximity and could be political, economic, social, or a mix of all; this allows the members to do collective decision making that is ratified in the agreement signature. The EU is the only case with a supranational scope, combining political and economic elements. Finally, the delegation of authority is a conflictive area to South American States and indicates how the governments see the international relations; that is why UNASUR is “stuck”, presidents could not agree who will be the next Secretary-General and instead of looking for alternatives to find a solution, they stopped the negotiations and called for a new meeting. This is evidence that the States are nor working for the regional integration, they are working for the protection of their own sovereignty.-
Appears in Collections:
Special Graduate Schools > Graduate School of International Studies > Department of International Development Cooperation > 3. Theses(Master)
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Show simple item record

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

  • License
    sherpa_romeo
    sherpa_juliet
STATISTICS
Total Visit :3,550,659
Total Download :1,795
Today View :13,023

AJOU

AJOU Central Library Repository는 국립중앙도서관 OAK 보급사업으로 구축되었습니다.

Browse

OAK Portal LOGIN