Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T08:57:18.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cooperative Hegemony and Summitry in the Americas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Gordon Mace  and
Hugo Loiseau
Gordon Mace
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and at the Institute of Advanced International Studies of Laval University in Québec
Hugo Loiseau
Affiliation:
Department of History and Political Science at the University of Sherbrooke, Laval University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As an instrument for governance, summitry is a novel structure for the management of contemporary hemispheric regionalism in the Americas. Such regionalism is a clear case of the “structuralist paradox” of international cooperation. This article attempts to explain the particular asymmetric regionalism in the Americas by using the concept of cooperative hegemony. The underlying hypothesis is that the U.S. government, since 1994, has pursued a strategy of cooperative behavior, at least in regard to power sharing, in two specific phases of hemispheric regionalism: agenda setting and institutionalization. This study tests the hypothesis through a content analysis of the main documents produced at the Miami, Santiago, and Québec summits, then relates these findings to the progress of institutionalization from 1994 to 2003.

Type
Research Article
Information
Latin American Politics and Society , Volume 47 , Issue 4 , Winter 2005 , pp. 107 - 134
Copyright
Copyright © University of Miami 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baldwin, David A., ed. 1993. Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Boehm, Peter M., and Christopher, Hernández-Roy. 1999. Multilateralism in the Americas: Is It Working Canadian Foreign Policy/La politique étrangère du Canada 7, 2 (Winter): 23–34.Google Scholar
Brown, Chris. 2001. Understanding International Relations. 2nd ed. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Feinberg, Richard E. 1997. Summitry in the Americas: A Progress Report. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
Franko, Patrice M. 2000. Toward a New Security Architecture in the Americas: The Strategic Implications of the FTAA. Washington, DC: CSIS Press.Google Scholar
Grebe López, Horst. 1997. La cumbre de Santa Cruz: un paso hacia el desarrollo sostenible. Nueva Sociedad (May–June): 51–59.Google Scholar
Grieco, Joseph M. 1993. Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: a Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism. in Baldwin 1993. 116–40.Google Scholar
Habeeb, Mark. 1988. Power and Tactics in International Negotiations. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Janet, and Joslyn, Richard. 2001. Political Science Research Methods. 4th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O., and Joseph, S. Nye. 1989. Power and Interdependence. 2nd ed. Glenview: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar
Leadership Council for Inter-American Summitry. 2001. Advancing Toward Québec City and Beyond. Coral Gables: North-South Center Press. March.Google Scholar
Lutz, Ellen L., and Kathryn, Sikkink. 2000. International Human Rights Law and Practice in Latin America. International Organization 54, 3 (Summer): 633–59.Google Scholar
Mace, Gordon, and Louis, Belanger. 1999. The Structural Contexts of Hemispheric Regionalism: Power, Trade, Political Culture and Economic Development. In The Americas in Transition: The Contours of Regionalism, ed. Mace, Belanger, et al. Boulder: Lynne Rienner. 37–67.Google Scholar
Milner, Helen. 1993. The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations Theory: a Critique. in Baldwin 1993. 143–69.Google Scholar
Organization of American States (OAS). 2001a. Inter-American Democratic Charter. http:www.oas.orgcharterdocsresolutionl_en_p4.htm (Accessed July 12, 2004).Google Scholar
Organization of American States (OAS). 2001b. International Institutions to Implement Summit Mandates Together. Press Release E-137/01. June 21. http:www.oas.org (Accessed July 12, 2004).Google Scholar
Organization of American States. Committee on Hemispheric Security (Chs). 2001. Defense Ministerial of the Americas, http:www.oas.orgcshenglishdefault.asp (Accessed July 12, 2004).Google Scholar
Paz Barnica, Edgardo. 1996. La cumbre de las Americas y las prosperidad compartida. Madrid: Tecnos.Google Scholar
Pedersen, Thomas. 1998, Germany, France and the Integration of Europe: A Realist Interpretation. London: Cassell/Pinter.Google Scholar
Pedersen, Thomas. 2002. Cooperative Hegemony: Power, Ideas, and Institutions in Regional Integration. Review of International Studies 28: 677–96.Google Scholar
Powell, Robert. 1993. Absolute and Relative Gains in International Relations Theory. in Baldwin 1993. 209–33.Google Scholar
QSR International. Qsr Nudist. Software, http:www.qsrinternational.com.Google Scholar
Robert, Maryse. 2000. Negotiating NAFTA: Explaining the Outcome in Culture, Textiles, Autos and Pharmaceuticals. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Robin L. 2001. The Oas and the Summit of the Americas: Coexistence, or Integration of Forces for Multilateralism Latin American Politics and Society 43, 1 (Spring): 79–101.Google Scholar
Salazar-Xirinachs, Jose M., and Maryse, Robert, eds. 2001. Toward Free Trade in the Americas. Vol. 3. Washington, DC: Organization of American States/Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Shamsie, Yasmine. 2000. Engaging with Civil Society: Lessons from the OAS, FTAA and Summits of the Americas. Paper. Ottawa: North-South Institute. January.Google Scholar
Singh, J. P. 2000. Weak Powers and Globalism: the Impact of Plurality on Weak-Strong Negotiations in the International Community. International Negotiations 5: 450–51.Google Scholar
Strange, Susan. 1996. The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Summit of the Americas Information Network. 19942001. Declarations and Plans of Action of summits of 1994, 1998, 2001. http:www.summit-americas.orgList-Summit(new)-Eng.htm (Accessed July 12, 2004).Google Scholar
Summit of the Americas Information Network. 2001. Québec Summit Plan of Action, 2001 and Follow-up to the Plan of Action, http:www.summit-americas.org (Accessed July 12, 2004).Google Scholar
Tokatlian, Juan Gabriel. 1994. The Miami Summit and Drugs: a Placid, Innocuous Conference Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 36, 3 (Fall): 75–91.Google Scholar
Weber, Robert Philip. 1990. Basic Content Analysis. 2nd ed. London, Sage.Google Scholar
Zartmann, I. William. 1997. The Structuralist Dilemma in Negociations. Research on Negotiations in Organizations 6: 227–45.Google Scholar
Zartmann, , William, I., and Jeffrey, Z. Rubin. 2000. The Study of Power and the Practice of Negotiation. In Power, and Negotiation, , ed. Zartmann and Rubin. Ann Arbor: University of Michagan Press.Google Scholar
deZela, Hugo. 1998. Ii Cumbre de las Americas, avances y perspectivas. Revista Peruana de Derecho Internacional 48 (January–June): 53–64.Google Scholar