Search results

AbstractThis article assesses EU–Africa inter‐regionalism and the reception of EU norms by African actors, by investigating the relations between the European Parliament (EP) and the Pan‐African Parliament (PAP). By exploring this interparliamentary dialogue, the article draws attention to the contradictions of African perceptions on European integration, which is simultaneously seen as an inspiration and a neo‐imperialist project. The EP was considered a role model to the PAP and was also one of its main supporters. However, European involvement in African issues has not always been regarded as positive. Post‐colonial and pan‐African discourses found in African statements have reinforced their resistance to European engagement in African politics. After discussing these ambivalent narratives on the EU, this article addresses the way that these perceptions impact on AU–EU inter‐regional relations, arguing that these mixed views towards the Europeans have undermined the diffusion of EU norms and the levels of trust in this relationship, preventing the joint Africa–Europe strategy from attaining its ambitions.

The aim of this article is to analyse the involvement of civil society in regional integration organizations through a comparative analysis of social/civil society channels in the Southern Common Market (Mercosur) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC). We seek to analyse the level of openness and the trajectory of both blocs in relation to civil society participation. The instruments and strategies employed by civil society actors in both regions are contrasted, aiming to understand how prominent and successful they have been in terms of influencing the decision-making processes of Mercosur and the SADC, which have been traditionally marked by their intergovernmental and interpresidential characters. We argue that civil society involvement in regionalism is shaped by regional institutional design, member states' support for societal participation and civil society resources. Thus, this article seeks to contribute to the comparative regionalism literature, setting out an analytical comparative framework for assessing the role of civil society in regional organizations from the Global South.

This article assesses the development of Mercosur's institutions across its 30 years of history. It aims to stress how the insertion of supranational instances in the bloc was historically disregarded by Member States, in the context of both right and left-wings governments. However, the creation of a Technical Secretariat, a Permanent Review Tribunal, and a regional parliament (Parlasur) institutionalized non-executive forums, which have become autonomous regional arenas, despite their marginalized position within the bloc's decision-making system. Although these bodies have never seriously challenged Mercosur's intergovernmental, and even interpresidential, institutional design, they have enabled the bloc to expand its agenda beyond the governments' priorities. Thus, this article aimed to unveil the causes of Mercosur's resistance to supranational institutional change. The qualitative methodological approach is based on specialized literature, but also draws on primary sources and the normative analysis of official documents and reports which have gone through a deductive assessment. First, the article will introduce the main institutional changes seen in Mercosur during its 30 years of existence. Secondly, we argue that these transformations have maintained Mercosur's intergovernmentalism as its main institutional feature, although additional non-executive bodies were set up in the 2000s. Afterwards, it reflects upon the current circumstances of the bloc, addressing whether future institutional reforms would alter Mercosur's structural configurations.

This article assesses the development of Mercosur's institutions across its 30 years of history. It aims to stress how the insertion of supranational instances in the bloc was historically disregarded by Member States, in the context of both right and left-wings governments. However, the creation of a Technical Secretariat, a Permanent Review Tribunal, and a regional parliament (Parlasur) institutionalized non-executive forums, which have become autonomous regional arenas, despite their marginalized position within the bloc's decision-making system. Although these bodies have never seriously challenged Mercosur's intergovernmental, and even interpresidential, institutional design, they have enabled the bloc to expand its agenda beyond the governments' priorities. Thus, this article aimed to unveil the causes of Mercosur's resistance to supranational institutional change. The qualitative methodological approach is based on specialized literature, but also draws on primary sources and the normative analysis of official documents and reports which have gone through a deductive assessment. First, the article will introduce the main institutional changes seen in Mercosur during its 30 years of existence. Secondly, we argue that these transformations have maintained Mercosur's intergovernmentalism as its main institutional feature, although additional non-executive bodies were set up in the 2000s. Afterwards, it reflects upon the current circumstances of the bloc, addressing whether future institutional reforms would alter Mercosur's structural configurations.

Over the past decades the European Parliament (EP) has achieved a prominent position in the European Union's decision-making process. Although EP consent has been a requirement for the final approval of EU trade agreements since the Treaty of Lisbon, its role in the process of negotiating these agreements remains unclear. In order to illustrate this context with a case study, we will investigate the ongoing trade negotiations between the EU and the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), which have started in 1999 and were temporarily suspended between 2004 and 2010. The degree of autonomy parliamentarians have to deviate from the European Commission's position is verified, as well as their information clearance level and the degree of political polarization associated with this agreement. Therefore, this research intends to assess how parliamentarians seek to influence trade agreements while the negotiations are still in course, thus strengthening the parliamentarization of EU trade policies.