Abstract
This research focuses on the relationship between Latin America and China. The authors try to answer the question of why the countries of the region have been passive in the context of their interaction with the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). The relevance of the topic stems from the gradual increase in China’s importance and presence in the Latin American region. Today, China is one of the key economic partners of several Latin American countries. To date, however, countries in the region have not been very active in their engagement with the AIIB, despite the existence of specific material incentives. Methodologically, the study is based on a constructivist approach. According to the authors, alternative paradigms of international relations, such as liberalism and realism, fail to explain the paradox of stubborn inaction by the countries of the region. This is due to the fact that the historically rooted and culturally bound procedural nature of international relations allows constructivism to uncover the individual facts that led to this result. The authors conclude that governments in the Latin American region have “constructed” between themselves quite a few customary modes of behaviour which debilitate their demonstrated capacity for agency in international affairs. This has created a vacuum of effective strategy in relations with China in the region. Moreover, this pattern of engagement is not limited to China and is evident in the relations of regional countries with the US and other extra-regional powers.
Publisher
Peoples' Friendship University of Russia
Subject
Political Science and International Relations,History,Development
Reference99 articles.
1. Alden, C., & Aran, A. (2017). Foreign policy analysis: New approaches. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
2. Barnett, M. (1999). Culture, strategy and foreign policy change: Israel’s road to Oslo. European Journal of International Relations, 5(1), 5-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066199005001001
3. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London: The Penguin Press.
4. Bernstein, M. H. (1955). Regulating business by independent commission. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5. Best, J. (2008). Historical development and defining issues of constructionist inquiry. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 41-64). New York: Guilford Press.