FEALAC and Inter-Regional Governance: A ‘New’ Path to Pacific Partnership

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.       Why capitalize Climate Crisis?

2.       This study discusses the roles that interregional entities like FEALAC can play in addressing global governance challenges such as climate change. Since there has not been much research conducted on the topic, this study offers an interesting study shedding light on a neglected topic.

3.       Since many regional player countries no longer belong to the global south, I wonder whether the FEALAC represents a venue for south-south cooperation. That is, can we call the cooperation between East Asia and Latin America south-south(periphery-periphery) cooperation? Since the author argues that this type of regionalism differs from the old regionalism, there should be more detailed explanations about what factors and motivations have led to the emergence of such a new wave of regionalism.

4.       The author uses expressions such as FEALAC Way or Pacific Identity, but there seems to be no agreed-upon conceptualizations of these terms and expressions. What do these even mean?  

5.       When introducing some of the theories of regionalism, the author simply mentions the names of Mitrany, Haas and Hoffman without properly citing their works. Please provide proper citations.

6.       While the authors argue that climate change should be emphasized more as the agenda by FEALAC, there was no detailed discussion on why that should be the case. Why should climate change cooperation be an avenue through which Asia and Latin America promotes interregionalism via FEALAC? What benefits can we expect from such climate cooperation and what forms should be cooperation take? 

7.       The authors discusses FEALAC in terms of the five functions that interregionalism serves. However, there seems to be no good explanation on why the authors do it. Is the purpose to evaluate where FEALAC stands now as a regional body and to discuss its effectiveness? Or is the purpose to tease out what is missing in FEALAC’s roles?? I do not seem to understand how this part is connected with the rest of the paper.  

8.       The authors can benefit from having the manuscript proofread.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Many thanks for your insightful comments, and please see the attachment. 

 

with best wishes, 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting paper in an under-researched area. I think the author(s) makes too much out of the creation of FEALAC to the point of laying the basis of a Pacific identity. The author needs to demonstrate that FEALAC is more than an intergovernmental forum for dialogue. Addittionally, the process of institutionalization has not progressed very far. I do not see any bodies except a meeting of foreign ministers, a secretariat and some working groups. There are no organs, no decision making mechanisms, no pulling of resources, etc. The second point is that the first wave of regionalism is related to the bipolar world order and in that sense US played a crucial role in the creation of the EEC. The second and third waves that are mentioned are related with the demise of the bipolar system and the rise of neoliberalism writ at large. One factor that is missing in the analysis is the constraining influence that the US exerts on the foreign policy of countries in Asia and Latin America. In the same vein, I think you need to discuss how China views the creation of FEALAC.

I think the author(s) need to elaborate  more the Multi-Donor Trust Fund as well as how the national projects (!) fit within the scope of FEALAC. Moreover, the author needs to clarify why s/he singles out for promising collaboration the climate issue. To my knowledge, the climate question has been addressed at the global level through the UN-held conferences. The author needs to show how discussion of the issue at the inter-regional level could help the countries involved present a more robust and unified stance. 

I don't preceive the idea of a Pacific identity as convincing. There is much more to identity formation than learning. The author alludes to the colonial past and this hinders the prospect of a common identity, not to mention other cultural factors (different languages, religions, historical trajectories, etc) 

Last re-read the text for typos and the Table I think you mean NAFTA and not TAFTA and in Graph 2 China and Singapore are missing. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

 

Many thanks for your thoughtful comments!

 

Please see the attachment. 

 

with best wishes, 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an improved version of the paper. There is however one major and one minor mproblem that need to be addressed in a more comprehensive and explicit manner. The major problem: In lines 269-274 the author states that the 5 functions pertinent to inter-regionalism can be analyzed by rationalist (realism and (neoliberal institutionalism) and constructivist perspectives. The analysis that follows on each function DOES NOT discuss or even hint how the observations conform to the above-mentioned theories and perspectives. Without clearly stated, one gets the impression that the author favors the rationalist perspectives with more emphasis on realism. On the other hand, one could make the case for application of the constructivist perspective in functions discussed under subsections 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5. The minor-problem: I fail to see how the national projects discussed in subsection 3.4 are treated as part of inter-regionalism.  Discussion in Working Groups does not elevate their status. 

Lastly, line 402, "is solely" must be deleted 

 

 

Author Response

To the distinguished reviewer,

Many thanks for your great observations regarding my paper and suggestions for further development. I have made efforts to incorporate your feedback into my work. Thank you once again for your valuable input.

Best regards,

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf