Search results

Chapter 1: Latin American integration: a Brazilian view -- Chapter 2: Brazilian thought and regional integration in the 20th century -- Chapter 3: The role of regional integration for Brazil: autonomy, universalism, and the elite´s perception -- Chapter 4: The social Mercosur -- Chapter 5: The Mercosur structural dimension: economic and political/diplomatic features -- Chapter 6: Mercosur, Unasul, and CELAC relations -- Final considerations: What is the future of the Mercosur? Where did it come from, where is it, and where is it headed? Main challenges.

O objetivo deste trabalho é analisar a forma como algumas escolas de pensamento, representadas por figuras significativas, percebem no Brasil o tema da integração regional. O foco é a segunda metade do século XX, buscando compreender as concepções de projeção regional e internacional do país, que fundamentam as possibilidades de integração. Para isso, serão discutidos os seguintes temas: o papel do Estado, a visão de país, o nacionalismo, o desenvolvimento econômico e o subdesenvolvimento, o reconhecimento internacional e a percepção dos vizinhos. A ideia da especificidade frente aos países vizinhos é um elemento presente na obra de intelectuais e de formuladores de políticas. Ela se faz presente em muitos países, inclusive em outros dessa região. Buscaremos entender como essa ideia evoluiu no Brasil, chegando, nos anos 1980, à aceitação da existência de uma comunidade de interesses com os países do Cone Sul e da América do Sul.

AbstractThis article aims to examine regional parliaments of two prominent regional organisations in South America (Southern Common Market) and Western Africa (Economic Community of West African States), by focusing on their performance in the agenda of democracy protection. We comparatively assess the performance of regional parliamentary agents in contributing to the mediation and conflict resolution in cases of democratic breakdown as well as the conditions and factors that affect parliamentary performance. We argue that regional parliaments have exerted relevant agency in democratic crises, despite their low decision-making competencies and the strong intergovernmental features of Global South regional organisations.

Does the regional environment shape a state's international socialization and, thus, its perception on external affairs? If this is the case, how does such a process happen and what are the consequences for a state's global foreign policy? We tackle both questions by elaborating an analytical framework that accounts for spatial-temporal interactions in foreign policy. We accomplish such a task by reporting the preliminary findings of a comparison of Brazil's and India's views on the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Through the method of difference, we conclude that those emerging powers' approaches to the NPT derive from the regional dynamic of power in which they are embedded. Brazil solved sensitive security issues in South America with its main regional rival, Argentina, institutionalizing regional relationships in the 1990s, whereas India continued to face enduring tensions in South Asia with its neighbors, particularly Pakistan. Brazilian policymakers thus perceived the post-Cold War international society through more benign lenses than their Indian counterparts, having signed the NPT in 1998. In that same year, India became a nuclear power. Other issue-areas — namely the environment, human rights, and trade — shall be analyzed in the future using the same framework.

Citizens and activists in Brazil were optimistic about their role in shaping public policies after the democratic wave of the 1980s, particularly in the field of international trade negotiations. Observers point out that the state is more open than in previous decades and that Itamaraty (the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs) is losing its grip over the decision‐making process. In this article, we dispute this affirmation. First, we demonstrate the analytical overlap between participation and influence in the literature. Second, we argue that the decision‐making process was far more democratic, and Itamaraty less powerful, from 1946 to 1973 than it is today; participation in the policy arena was associated with influence. Democratization in the political regime in Brazil after 1985 did not bring democratization to the decision‐making process in our case. We conclude by presenting some suggestions on how to bridge the current chasm between participation and influence in Brazilian foreign policy.

Abstract This article presents the increasing demands over the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Itamaraty) for opening its doors to other actors. This discussion will be followed by relevant theoretical and methodological analysis. We will defend the need to overcome problems related to: 1) conceptual vagueness about what the concept of participation means; 2) lack of clarity in the baseline to which comparisons are made; 3) fragile empirical basis; 4) limitations on the use of sources; and 5) how to understand the impact exerted by systemic forces.

O objetivo do texto é discutir o processo de integração latino-americano, com atenção especial às posições brasileiras, visando compreender os elementos de continuidade entre a política dos primeiros anos da República, particularmente o período do Barão do Rio Branco (1902-1912), e a atualidade. Buscam-se as raízes remotas da política brasileira em relação à integração regional que, nos anos 1980, confluíram na proposta do Mercosul. Analisam-se as atitudes do Brasil em relação aos seus vizinhos, bem como os experimentos de coordenação de políticas e estratégias destinadas a maximizar os interesses dos países da região.