单边主义的悖论:美国-墨西哥毒品战略的制度化失败

Q3 Social Sciences
Simon Reich , Mark Aspinwall
{"title":"单边主义的悖论:美国-墨西哥毒品战略的制度化失败","authors":"Simon Reich ,&nbsp;Mark Aspinwall","doi":"10.1016/S1870-3550(13)71772-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Realism posits that strong states use compulsory power to influence the behavior of weaker ones. If true, then U.S. policy toward Mexico on a key national security issue such as drugs should illustrate that claim and policy outcomes should reflect U.S. preferences. Yet, in exploring a series of bilateral case studies, this article suggests that unilateral U.S. government initiatives do not achieve their specified goals. Rather, we argue that Mexico effectively employs a series of “strangulation strategies.” These derail U.S. initiatives and -under specific conditions- result in institutional agreements that proscribe certain forms of behavior and reduce future U.S. autonomy.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37648,"journal":{"name":"Norteamerica","volume":"8 2","pages":"Pages 7-39"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1870355013717725/pdfft?md5=468f11e25cfc81932a0a03abfa5c8b02&pid=1-s2.0-S1870355013717725-main.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Paradox of Unilateralism: Institutionalizing Failure In U.S.-Mexican Drug Strategies\",\"authors\":\"Simon Reich ,&nbsp;Mark Aspinwall\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/S1870-3550(13)71772-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Realism posits that strong states use compulsory power to influence the behavior of weaker ones. If true, then U.S. policy toward Mexico on a key national security issue such as drugs should illustrate that claim and policy outcomes should reflect U.S. preferences. Yet, in exploring a series of bilateral case studies, this article suggests that unilateral U.S. government initiatives do not achieve their specified goals. Rather, we argue that Mexico effectively employs a series of “strangulation strategies.” These derail U.S. initiatives and -under specific conditions- result in institutional agreements that proscribe certain forms of behavior and reduce future U.S. autonomy.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37648,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Norteamerica\",\"volume\":\"8 2\",\"pages\":\"Pages 7-39\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1870355013717725/pdfft?md5=468f11e25cfc81932a0a03abfa5c8b02&pid=1-s2.0-S1870355013717725-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Norteamerica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1870355013717725\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Norteamerica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1870355013717725","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

现实主义认为,强国使用强制性权力来影响弱国的行为。如果这是真的,那么美国在毒品等关键国家安全问题上对墨西哥的政策应该说明,这种主张和政策结果应该反映美国的偏好。然而,通过对一系列双边案例研究的探讨,本文认为美国政府的单边行动并没有达到其指定的目标。相反,我们认为墨西哥有效地采用了一系列“扼杀策略”。这些破坏了美国的倡议,并在特定条件下导致制度协议,禁止某些形式的行为并减少美国未来的自主权。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Paradox of Unilateralism: Institutionalizing Failure In U.S.-Mexican Drug Strategies

Realism posits that strong states use compulsory power to influence the behavior of weaker ones. If true, then U.S. policy toward Mexico on a key national security issue such as drugs should illustrate that claim and policy outcomes should reflect U.S. preferences. Yet, in exploring a series of bilateral case studies, this article suggests that unilateral U.S. government initiatives do not achieve their specified goals. Rather, we argue that Mexico effectively employs a series of “strangulation strategies.” These derail U.S. initiatives and -under specific conditions- result in institutional agreements that proscribe certain forms of behavior and reduce future U.S. autonomy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Norteamerica
Norteamerica Social Sciences-Cultural Studies
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Editorial Policies Focus and Scope Section Policies Peer Review Process Open Access Policy Archiving General Criteria Ethical Guidelines Directory Indexing Editorial Bodies Editorial Board International Advisory Board Focus and Scope Norteamérica is a semiannual peer-reviewed journal regarding multi and interdisciplinary academic studies about the North America region (Mexico, United States and Canada) which consider the region itself as an object of study, along with its evolution, its individual processes and internal dynamics. An analysis of the reality of each of the three nations is thematically linked with the rest of the region. 1.- Norteamérica will publish exclusively multi- and interdisciplinary academic studies focused on the North American region (Mexico, the United States and Canada) that: a) address the region as an object of analysis: specifically, its evolution, particular processes, and internal dynamics; b) analyze the reality in each of the three nations, linking them thematically with the rest of the region; c) carry out comparative studies of the nations of North America; d) address the region and its insertion in the international context; and e) expand upon international processes and their impact within the region. 2.- Through these research perspectives, the journal will disseminate articles addressing a wide variety of general and specific issues: a) politics, economics, society and culture; b) foreign policy, trade, political systems, security, comparative politics, political philosophy and history; and c) migration, electoral processes, borders, science and technology, minorities, the environment and natural resources, education, human rights, gender, and others.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信