DOCSLIB.ORG

The Argentina

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Argentina Protocol of Olivos FOR DISPUTE SETTLEMENT IN MERCOSUR The Republic Argentina, the Federative Republic of Brazil, the Republic of Paraguay and the Eastern Republic of Uruguay, hereinafter "States Parties"; HAVING REGARD to the Treaty of Asuncion, the Protocol of Brasilia and the Protocol of Ouro Preto; RECOGNIZING that the evolution of the integration process in Mercosur requires the improvement of the system solution of disputes; CONSIDERING the need to ensure the correct interpretation, implementation and enforcement of the fundamental tools of the integration process and the set of rules of Mercosur, in a consistent and systematic manner; CONVINCED the desirability of making specific changes in the settlement of disputes in order to consolidate the system legal certainty within Mercosur; HAVE AGREED as follows: CHAPTER I DISPUTES BETWEEN STATES PARTIES Article 1 Scope 1. Disputes arising between States Parties concerning the interpretation, application or non- compliance with the Treaty of Asunción, the Ouro Preto, protocols and agreements Protocol within the framework of the Treaty of Asunción, the Decisions of the Common Market Council, the Resolution of Market Group and the Joint Guidelines Committee of Commerce of Mercosur will be subject to the procedures set out in this Protocol. 2. Disputes within the scope of application of this Protocol that may also be subject to the dispute settlement system of the World Organization of Trade or other preferential trading schemes that are part of the individual member states of MERCOSUR may be subject to one or other jurisdiction, the choice of the complainant. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties to the dispute may, by mutual agreement, set the forum. Once initiated proceedings for settlement of disputes in accordance with the preceding paragraph, neither party may have recourse to dispute settlement mechanisms established in other forums regarding the same object, defined in accordance with Article 14 of this Protocol. Nevertheless, within the framework of established this numeral, the Council of the Common Market shall regulate matters concerning the choice of forum. CHAPTER II MECHANISMS FOR TECHNICAL ASPECTS Article 2 Establishment of mechanisms 1. 1.When deemed necessary, expedient mechanisms could be established to resolve disputes between States Parties on technical aspects in regulated instruments of trade policycommon. 2. The rules of operation, the scope and nature of these mechanisms statements to be issued on the same will be defined and approved by Council Decision of Market Common. CHAPTER III COMMENTS ADVISORY Article 3 Regime request The Common Market Council may establish mechanisms for request advisory opinions of the Permanent Review Tribunal defining their scope and procedures. CHAPTER IV DIRECT NEGOTIATIONS Article 4 Negotiations States parties to a dispute attempt to resolve it, first of all, through direct negotiations. Article 5 Procedure and deadline 1. Direct negotiations shall not, unless otherwise agreed between the parties to the dispute, exceeds a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which one of them informed the decision to start another controversy. 2. The States parties to a dispute inform the Common Market Group, through the Mercosur Administrative Secretariat, about the actions that are undertaken during the negotiations and their results. CHAPTER V INTERVENTION GROUP COMMON MARKET Article 6 Optional procedure before the GMC 1. Whether through direct negotiations do not reach an agreement or if the dispute is resolved only partially, any of the States parties to the dispute may directly initiate the arbitration procedure provided for in Chapter VI. 2. Without prejudice to the preceding paragraph, the States parties to the dispute may, by mutual agreement , submit it to the Common Market Group. i. In this case, the Common Market Group will assess the situation, giving opportunity to the parties to the dispute to present their respective positions, requiring, when necessary the advice of experts selected from the list referred to in Article 43 of this Protocol. ii. Expenses relating to such advice shall be borne in equal amounts by States parties to the dispute or in the proportion determined by the Common Market Group. 3. The dispute may also be brought to the Common Market Group is another state that is not party to the dispute, justifiably ask such a procedure at the end of direct negotiations.In this case, the arbitration proceedings initiated by the State Applicant will not be interrupted, unless otherwise agreed by the States Parties to the dispute. Article 7 Assignments GMC 1. If the dispute is submitted to the Common Market Group by States parties to the dispute, this issue recommendations that, if possible, should be specific and detailed, aiming at solving the dispute. 2. If the dispute is brought to the Common Market Group at the request of a State which is not part of it, the Common Market Group may provide comments or recommendations. Article 8 Deadline for intervention and pronouncement of the GMC The procedure described in this Chapter shall extend for a period exceeding thirty (30) days from the date of the meeting at which the dispute was submitted to the Common Market Group. CHAPTER VI ARBITRATION PROCEDURE AD HOC Article 9 Top of arbitration stage 1. Where it has not been possible to resolve the dispute by applying the procedures referred to in Chapters IV and V, any State Party to the dispute may notify the Administrative Secretariat of Mercosur its decision to resort to the arbitration procedure established in this Chapter. 2. The Mercosur Administrative Secretariat shall, immediately, communicating to each other or to other states involved in the dispute and the Common Market Group. 3. The Mercosur Administrative Secretariat will handle the administrative steps that may be required for the operation of the procedures. Article 10 Composition of the Ad Hoc Arbitration Court 1. The arbitration procedure will be tried before an ad hoc tribunal composed of three (3) arbitrators. 2. The arbitrators shall be appointed as follows: i. Each State party to the dispute shall appoint one (1) head arbitrator from the list provided for in Article 11.1, within fifteen (15) days from the date on which the Mercosur Administrative Secretariat has communicated to the States Parties to the dispute one decision to resort to arbitration. Simultaneously appoint the same list, one (1) alternate to replace the head referee in case of disability or excuse this at any stage of the arbitration proceedings arbitrator. ii. If any State party to the dispute does not appoint their arbitrator within the time specified in item 2 (i), they will be chosen by lot by the Mercosur Administrative Secretariat for a period of two (2) days from the expiration of that term among the referees that State from the list provided for in Article 11.1. 3. The President arbitrator shall be appointed as follows: i. The States parties to the dispute shall appoint by common agreement the third arbitrator, who shall chair the Ad Hoc Arbitration Court, the list provided for in Article 11.2 (iii) for a period of fifteen (15) days from the date in the Mercosur Administrative Secretariat has notified the States parties to the dispute to the decision of one of them to resort to arbitration. Simultaneously, the same list designate an alternate to replace the head referee in case of disability or excuse this at any stage of the arbitration proceedings arbitrator. The President and his deputy may not be nationals of the States parties to the dispute. ii. If there is no agreement between States Parties to the dispute shall choose the third arbitrator within the time allowed, the Mercosur Administrative Secretariat at the request of any of them, proceed to designate by lot from the list of Article 11.2 (iii), even excluding the nationals of States parties to the dispute. iii. The appointed arbitrators to act as third parties should respond within a maximum of three (3) days of notification of his appointment, on his acceptance to act in a controversy. 4. The Mercosur Administrative Secretariat shall notify the arbitrators of their appointment. Article 11 Lists of arbitrators 1. Each State Party shall designate twelve (12) arbitrators, who will join a list that will be recorded in the Mercosur Administrative Secretariat. The appointment of the arbitrators, together with detailed curriculum vitae of each of them, shall be notified simultaneously to the other States Parties and the Mercosur Administrative Secretariat. i. Each State Party may request clarification of the persons designated by other States Parties for the list referred to in the previous paragraph, within thirty (30) days from such notification. ii. The Mercosur Administrative Secretariat shall notify the States Parties to the consolidated list of arbitrators of Mercosur and its subsequent amendments. 2. Each State Party shall, in addition, four (4) candidates to join the list of third umpires. At least one of the arbitrators appointed by each State Party to this list will not be a national of any of the States Parties of MERCOSUR. i. The list shall be notified to the other States Parties, through the Chair Pro Tempore, accompanied by the curriculum vitae of each proposed candidate. ii. Each State Party may request clarification of persons proposed by the other States Parties or submit justified objections to nominees, according to criteria established in Article 35, within thirty (30) days of notification of such proposals.Objections must be communicated through the Chair Pro Tempore proponent to the State Party. If, within a period not exceeding thirty (30) days of notification of failure to reach a solution, we consider the objection. iii. The consolidated third-party arbitrators list and subsequent amendments, together with a curriculum vitae of the arbitrators, shall be communicated by the President Pro Tempore of the Administrative Secretariat of Mercosur, the record and notify the State Parties.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mercosur: the Common Market of the Twenty-First Century?
    GEORGIA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW VOLUME 32 2004 NUMBER 1 MERCOSUR: THE COMMON MARKET OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY? Rafael A. Porrata-Doria,Jr. * I. INTRODUCTION MERCOSUR, the "Common Market of the Southern Cone," was created in March 1990 by the Treaty of Asunci6n and was meant to create a common market among its four signatories (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay) by December 31, 1994.' This common market would include the graduated elimination of all customs duties among its signatories,2 the creation of a common external tariff, the adoption of a common trade policy,3 and the harmonization of economic policies The Treaty of Asunci6n, and its * Professor of Law, Temple University. J.D. 1977, Yale University; M.A., University of Pennsylvania; B.A. 1974, University of Pennsylvania. This Article, based substantially on research materials not available in English, is the first comprehensive description and evaluation of MERCOSUR in the English language. The author is a former consultant to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank) and was a mission participant and co- author of its study "Competition Policy and MERCOSUR" (1996). The author gratefully acknowledges the helpful comments of Marina Angel, Jeffrey Dunoff, and Henry Richardson. The author particularly appreciates the outstanding efforts of his principal research assistant, Julie Liebenberg, J.D. 2004, Temple University School of Law, and of his current research assistant, Suzette Sanders, J.D. expected 2005, Temple University School of Law. The information in this Article is current as of August 2003. ' Treaty of Asunci6n Establishing a Common Market among Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Mar.
    [Show full text]
  • UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Financial Institutions and the Real Economy Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6bq1q4t7 Author Messer, Todd Publication Date 2021 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Financial Institutions and the Real Economy by Todd Messer A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Economics in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, Chair Professor Christina Romer Associate Professor Benjamin Faber Spring 2021 Financial Institutions and the Real Economy Copyright 2021 by Todd Messer 1 Abstract Financial Institutions and the Real Economy by Todd Messer Doctor of Philosophy in Economics University of California, Berkeley Professor Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, Chair This dissertation examines the role of financial institutions as they relate to foreign currency payments and financial stability. The first chapter of this dissertation examines how the foreign currency component of international payments can be costly for importers and ex- porters by studying the introduction of a payments system between Brazil and Argentina established in 2008. The second chapter of this dissertation examines the reasons behind short-term funding vulnerabilities of financial institutions by studying Building and Loan Associations in California during the Great Depression. Finally, the last chapter of this dis- sertation studies the COVID-19 pandemic, which is one of the most important public health and economic events of recent history. This chapter studies the effect of stay-at-home orders, enacted to combat the spread of COVID-19, on local labor markets.
    [Show full text]
  • This Is an Accepted Manuscript of a Book Chapter Published by Ashgate / Routledge in 2012
    This is an Accepted Manuscript of a book chapter published by Ashgate / Routledge in 2012. https://www.routledge.com/p/book/9781409434641 Please cite the published version! Hummel, Felix/ Mathis Lohaus (2012): “MERCOSUR: Integration through Presidents and Paymasters.” In: Tanja A. Börzel/ Lukas Goltermann/ Mathis Lohaus/ Kai Striebinger (eds.): Roads to Regionalism. Genesis, Design, and Effects of Regional Organizations. Aldershot: Ashgate/Routledge, 59-77. 1 Chapter 4 MERCOSUR: Integration through Presidents and Paymasters Felix Hummel and Mathis Lohaus Introduction Which factors evoke attempts towards regional integration and influence their rate of success? In the case of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), the most prominent theories in this regard seem to lack explanatory power. Neither the emergence nor the institutional development and outcomes of MERCOSUR are consistent with the assumptions made by intergovernmentalism and neofunctionalism. As one scholar puts it, “the sequence of interdependence–integration–institutions simply did not take place” (Malamud 2003: 59–61), thus limiting the applicability of the major theories. To account for regional integration in this case, a different approach appears to be necessary. According to our hypothesis, Mattli’s (1999) framework for regional integration will prove suitable. With regard to the emergence of MERCOSUR, the organization can be seen as a counter-union to balance external influences like the US-led Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) or bilateral agreements. The subsequent (lack of) regional integration is best explained by a mixture of demand- and supply-side factors, combining arguments from economics and political science. Our main explanatory factors are the Latin American particularity of interpresidentialism and Brazil’s role as a paymaster.
    [Show full text]
  • Dispute Resolution Regulation and Experiences in MERCOSUR: the Recent Olivos Protocol
    Law and Business Review of the Americas Volume 8 Number 4 Article 3 2002 Dispute Resolution Regulation and Experiences in MERCOSUR: The Recent Olivos Protocol Ricardo Olivera Garcia Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/lbra Recommended Citation Ricardo Olivera Garcia, Dispute Resolution Regulation and Experiences in MERCOSUR: The Recent Olivos Protocol, 8 LAW & BUS. REV. AM. 535 (2002) https://scholar.smu.edu/lbra/vol8/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law and Business Review of the Americas by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. Fall 2002 535 Dispute Resolution Regulation and Experiences in MERCOSUR: The Recent Olivos Protocol Ricardo Olivera Garcia* Table of Contents I. Introduction II. What is MERCOSUR? III. Evolution of Dispute Resolution System V. The Brasilia Protocol System A. DISPUTES BETWEEN PARTY STATES 1. Sphere of Application 2. Stages of the Procedure a. Direct Negotiations b. Intervention of Common Market Group c. Arbitral Proceeding 3. Features of the Arbitral Proceeding B. CLAIMS BY PRIVATE PARTIES 1. Sphere of Application 2. Stages of the Procedure V. Adjustments to the Brasilia System Made in Ouro Preto VI. The Experience of the Brasilia Protocol Dispute Resolution System VII. Assessment of the Brasilia Protocol System VIII. Innovations of the Olivos Protocol IX. The Distinction between the Regimen Applicable to Disputes between Party States and Those Deriving from Private Claims Has Been Maintained A. DISPUTES BETWEEN PARTY STATES 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Mercosur: Limits of Regional Integration
    Mercosur: Limits of Regional Integration Ricardo Caichiolo* Abstract versality is seen as the source of the solidification and enforcement of these values. However, the concept of This study is focused on the evaluation of successes and fail- universality has also been linked to the idea of regional- ures of the Common Market of the South (Mercosur). This ism, both regarded as being complementary concepts analysis of Mercosur’s integration seeks to identify the geared towards the improvement of international organ- reasons why the bloc has stagnated in an incomplete cus- isations as well as to society itself. toms union condition, although it was originally created to Another significant development that is seen from the achieve a common market status. To understand the evolu- international community is the emergence and attention tion of Mercosur, the study offers some thoughts about the of supranational organisations as well as the importance role of the European Union (EU) as a model for regional they hold towards their respective organisations or state. integration. Although an EU-style integration has served as Although there are times wherein national dependencies a model, it does not necessarily set the standards by which matter, the role of supranational organisations, in cer- integration can be measured as we analyse other integration tain cases, may go beyond that of the state itself. This efforts. However, the case of Mercosur is emblematic: dur- can be seen from the influence and level of authoritative ing its initial years, Mercosur specifically received EU techni- power as well as the autonomy that they enjoy, from cal assistance to promote integration according to EU-style intra- and interregional organisations.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Digital Market. Strategic Aspects
    Regional digital market Strategic aspects Project Documents Regional digital market Strategic aspects Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean This document was prepared by Jorge Alejandro Patiño and Edwin Fernando Rojas of the Production Productivity and Management Division of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), and Mauricio Agudelo of the Development Bank of Latin American (CAF). The support of Tanía García-Millán, Valeria Jordán, Wilson Peres, Laura Poveda and Sebastián Rovira of ECLAC is gratefully acknowledged. ECLAC is also grateful for the support provided under the project "Innovations for sustainable structural change" of the programme “Structural Change for Sustainable and Inclusive Development in Latin America and the Caribbean” of ECLAC and the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ). The opinions expressed in this document, which is an unofficial translation that has not undergone formal editorial review, are the exclusive responsibility of the authors and may not necessarily coincide with those of the Organization. Publication of the United Nations LC/TS.2018/30 Distribution: Limited Original: Spanish Copyright © United Nations, June 2018. All rights reserved Printed at United Nations, Santiago. S.18-00569 Applications for authorization to reproduce this work in whole or in part should be sent to the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Publications and Web Services Division, [email protected]. Member States and their governmental institutions may reproduce this work without prior authorization, but are requested to mention the source and to inform ECLAC of such reproduction. ECLAC Regional digital market… Contents Introduction.................................................................................................................................................... 5 I. Connectivity in the countries of the region ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Financial Institutions and the Real Economy by Todd Messer A
    Financial Institutions and the Real Economy by Todd Messer A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Economics in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, Chair Professor Christina Romer Associate Professor Benjamin Faber Spring 2021 Financial Institutions and the Real Economy Copyright 2021 by Todd Messer 1 Abstract Financial Institutions and the Real Economy by Todd Messer Doctor of Philosophy in Economics University of California, Berkeley Professor Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, Chair This dissertation examines the role of financial institutions as they relate to foreign currency payments and financial stability. The first chapter of this dissertation examines how the foreign currency component of international payments can be costly for importers and ex- porters by studying the introduction of a payments system between Brazil and Argentina established in 2008. The second chapter of this dissertation examines the reasons behind short-term funding vulnerabilities of financial institutions by studying Building and Loan Associations in California during the Great Depression. Finally, the last chapter of this dis- sertation studies the COVID-19 pandemic, which is one of the most important public health and economic events of recent history. This chapter studies the effect of stay-at-home orders, enacted to combat the spread of COVID-19, on local labor markets. i ii Contents Contents ii List of Figures iv List of Tables vi 1 Introduction 1 2 Foreign Currency as a Barrier to Trade: Evidence from Brazil 4 2.1 Introduction . 4 2.2 Setting and Institutional Background .
    [Show full text]
  • Southern American Common Market – Mariana Luna Pont 1
    Southern American Common Market – Mariana Luna Pont 1 Southern American Common Market – Mariana Luna Pont 2 Southern American Common Market – Mariana Luna Pont 1. Introduction MERCOSUR (the Common Market of the South) is an integration scheme formed by Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, whose central nucleus has been constituted by the first two countries from the very beginning, due to their development level.1 In addition to a set of shared features, these countries are significantly different in terms of structure, both geographic and demographic; economy – development levels and productive structures; and politics and institutions – bureaucratic and administrative handling, political party system, political traditions, constitutional forms, etc. Most analysts identify two levels of asymmetry: on the one hand, there are the differences between Brazil and Argentina compared to Paraguay and Uruguay and on the other hand, the differences between the two members of higher relative power, in relation to productive structures and growth dynamics. 2. The Creation of MERCOSUR The current integration experience in Latin America is in line with a long tradition of unification and integration, dating back to the moment of emancipation and constitution of the new states. This tendency has been maintained over the years and experienced a major boost after the Second World War, especially since the 1960s, becoming concrete in initiatives such as the Latin American Free Trade Association (ALALC – Asociación Latinoamericana de Libre Comercio), the Central American 1 The status of associate member is established under bilateral agreements called Economic Complementation Agreements, signed between MERCORSUR and each country which decides to acquire said status.
    [Show full text]
  • Mercosur , Andean Community, and Ftaa
    THE LAW OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC INTEGRATION IN THE AMERICAN HEMISPHERE J.H.H. Weiler University Professor, NYU Joseph Straus Professor of Law and European Union Jean Monnet Chair, NYU School of Law AND Sungjoon Cho Assistant Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology Unit IV MERCOSUR , ANDEAN COMMUNITY, AND FTAA Copyright J.H.H. Weiler & S. Cho 2006 THE LAW OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC INTEGRATION IN THE AMERICAN HEMISPHERE Unit IV MERCOSUR , ANDEAN COMMUNITY, AND FTAA Table of Contents Guiding Questions............................................................................................................. 2 I. TRADE AND INTEGRATION ARRANGEMENTS IN THE AMERICAS .......... 3 II. MERCOSUR (SOUTH AMERICA’S COMMON MARKET)............................. 13 2-1. Overview ........................................................................................... 13 2-2. History ............................................................................................... 17 2-3. Institutional Structure ........................................................................ 19 2-4. Dispute Resolution ............................................................................ 20 2-5. MERCOSUR and EU........................................................................ 23 III. ANDEAN COMMUNITY ....................................................................................... 33 3-1. Institutional framework and juridical security in the Andean Community ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • MTR and Regional Indicative Programme for 2011-2013
    ANNEX Mid-Term Review and Regional Indicative Programme for 2011-2013 CONTENTS PART I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................... 3 PART II: DIAGNOSIS OF THE REGIONAL SITUATION....................................... 4 II.1 Analysis of the political, economic, social and environmental situation.......... 4 II.1.1 Political situation and EU-Mercosur relations............................................... 4 II.1.2 Economic situation and trade.......................................................................... 6 II.1.3 Social situation................................................................................................. 9 II.1.4 Environmental and energy trends................................................................. 10 II.2 New EU policy objectives and commitments.................................................... 11 II.2.1. Other cross-cutting issues 13 II.3 Relations with civil society and non-State actors ............................................. 14 II.4 Risks and assumptions........................................................................................ 14 PART III: RESULTS, PERFORMANCE AND LESSONS LEARNED................... 15 III.1 Description of individual past and ongoing projects...................................... 15 III.2 Lessons learned.................................................................................................. 17 PART IV: THE EU RESPONSE STRATEGY............................................................ 17 IV.1
    [Show full text]
  • Institutional Framework of Mercosur and How the Mercosur Economic Integration Process Functions
    CHAPTER 4 INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK OF MERCOSUR AND HOW THE MERCOSUR ECONOMIC INTEGRATION PROCESS FUNCTIONS I. INTRODUCTION The original goal of MERCOSUR (Common Market of the South in English or MERCOSUL in Portuguese) was the creation of a common market between Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay by January 1, 1995. Despite the stated goals of the Treaty of Asuncion (the document that set the outlines for establishing that common market), what actually appeared in the Southern Cone on New Year’s Day in 1995 was a very imperfect customs union. The common external tariff (CET) was applied to only about 85 percent of the tariff lines found in the MERCOSUR nomenclature or harmonized tariff classification system (NCM). The actual duty charged depended on the particular item, although during the mid-1990’s the weighted average of the CET was approximately 14 percent. In addition, about 10 percent of the tariff lines found in the NCM originating within and traded among the MERCOSUR countries was still subject to tariffs or non-tariff barriers such as quotas or outright import restrictions. II. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK The Treaty of Asuncion provided for three institutional bodies that were to be replaced by January 1, 1995. In particular, Article 9 of the treaty established the Common Market Council and the Common Market Group to oversee the administration and implementation of the MERCOSUR process during the so- called transition period that officially began in November 1991 and ended on December 31, 1994. In addition, Article 15 of the Treaty of Asuncion set up an Administrative Secretariat in Montevideo to coordinate meetings, issue press releases, and handle public relations.
    [Show full text]
  • Politicization and Regional Integration in Latin America: Implications for EU–MERCOSUR Negotiations?
    Politics and Governance (ISSN: 2183–2463) 2020, Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages 254–265 DOI: 10.17645/pag.v8i1.2598 Article Politicization and Regional Integration in Latin America: Implications for EU–MERCOSUR Negotiations? Andrea C. Bianculli Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals, 08005 Barcelona, Spain; E-Mail: [email protected] Submitted: 31 October 2019 | Accepted: 25 January 2020 | Published: 31 March 2020 Abstract Regional integration in Latin America has experienced different periods of politicization. The most recent goes back to the 2000s and is related to the domestic political changes resulting from the so-called ‘left turn’ which sought alterna- tive economic and development policies to neoliberalism as the state regained centrality. These transformations led to a broad process of politicization of regionalism which changed the terms of the debate surrounding whether regional inte- gration and free trade are the only way for these countries to integrate regionally and internationally. Analyses have thus underscored the postliberal character of this phase of regionalism as reflected in the greater weight of social and political agendas at the expense of economic and trade issues. The Common Market of the South (MERCOSUR) was no exception to this trend. However, in 2010 the bloc rather surprisingly agreed to relaunch negotiations with the European Union (EU). Why did MERCOSUR decide to resume these negotiations—stalled since 2004—in a context of high politicization of re- gional integration? This article argues that internal politicization did not lead to a paralysis of the international agenda. Moreover, internal politicization, coupled with external pressures and the demand for group-to-group negotiations by the EU, drove and supported the conduct of international negotiations.
    [Show full text]