以整合理論與區域主義方法檢視南錐共同體共同市場之形成

Abstract

區域主義與區域整合從後冷戰時期到今日一直是不能被忽略的國際現象。歐盟的成立與深化廣化兼具的歐洲整合運動，是歐洲從二戰結束後開始推動整合，至今日所達到的輝煌成就，更被譽為是區域整合的典範。而在歐洲整合運動的發展過程中，歐洲以外的區域整合也同時學習、仿效歐洲整合的軌跡在1950-1960年代中發展。1970年代之後的世界各國所面臨全球化的挑戰與冷戰的結束，更掀起一波所謂「新區域主義」的浪潮。至今，區域主義仍然是國際關係研究中的熱門議題。在理論層面，歐盟的成立與發展過程被當作是理論發展的經驗材料，許多理論家據此創建了所謂「整合理論」(integration theory)，並引發整合理論間的辯論。而其他學者觀察到歐洲以外的整合現象，則開始進行事實的概念化(Conceptualization)工作，對發生在不同時間，不同空間的區域主義進行定義與分類。 綜上所述，本文認為區域主義與整合理論實為一體之兩面。首先，兩者的共通點在於：兩者的研究對象皆為地理位置相鄰的一團國家所進行的交往互動；而兩者的相異之處則在於：區域主義的關懷在於概念建立，對現象進行描述，並從較宏觀層次探討、比較與歸納其研究對象。相對而言，整合理論則著重於探討整合的過程，以及影響整合結果的因素，並試圖為整合提出評價。然而所有整合理論皆取材於歐洲整合經驗，因此整合理論在解釋歐洲以外的例子時則解釋力大打折扣，也是常發生的事。因此本文試圖以拉丁美洲的「區域主義」，作為檢驗源自歐洲的「整合理論」解釋力的依據。 總結來說，區域主義較能完整地解釋南錐整合，其中又以現實主義途徑最具解釋力。而整合理論雖然較缺乏解釋力，但是整合理論中的政府間主義卻準確地描述了南錐經驗中國家主導的整合過程。因此政府間主義能夠補充區域主義之現實主義途徑，為南錐整合提供更細緻的解釋。新區域主義途徑也能對南錐經驗提出完整的解釋，但卻無法與整合理論對話，其解釋自成一格但具說服力。反觀新功能主義，其完全無法適用南錐經驗的解釋，對其最沒有解釋力。

Abstract Regionalism and regional integration have been trends after WWII. The European integration started after that time, improving in decades, and reached the achievements nowadays. The institution built by leaders of EU members has been a model of regional integration of other place of world. From the 1950’s to the 1960’s, regional integration outside Europe had started by fallowing the steps of European integration and imitating the European experience. In the 1970’s, facing the challenge of globalization and the end of cold war, a wave called regionalism appeared in many countries as the reaction. This phenomenon was observed by researchers and was conceptualized to the regionalism approach. Regionalism approach emphasizes categorizing and comparative study to regional integration in different places. It also emphasizes to study regionalism under the context of globalization. According to above, the study made a theoretical comparison between two research approaches: regionalism approach and integration theory. The observation of the comparison includes the similarity and the difference between the two. The similarity between the two is that both of the research approaches aims to discuss the interaction of a groups of countries neighboring each others. However, the difference between the two is how they research the regional interactions. What study of regionalism concern is to describe the fact and raise a conception from a grand aspect, then compare and generalize regionalism as a phenomenon. However, integration theory emphasize on the process of regional integration, and concern the influence of factors in the integration. However, the development of integration theory is correspondent to the fact of European integration because the material of the integration theory is from the experience of European integration. Therefore, the explanation of integration theory is limited when discussing the regionalism outside of Europe. The study tries to take regionalism in Latin-America, the development of Mercosur, as an example to examine the theory. Furthermore, the study take another research framework, study of regionalism to discuss the same fact and compare the explanatory power of two research framework. In conclusion, the explanatory power of regionalism approach is stronger than integration theory. However, after reviewing the school of integration theories, intergovernmentalism describes delicately and precisely the process of integration and development of Mercosur. It can supply regionalism approach. Beside, the NRA approach is an independent theory in school of study of regionalism. It offer a complete explanation to the integration of Mercosur, but it can’t have a dialogue with the school of integration theory. The most traditional integration theory, Neo functionalism, have no explanatory power in case of integration of Mercosur.