Abstract
This article examines the peculiarities of coordinating the foreign policy directions of states within modern regional integration associations under conditions of international environment transformation and the intensification of global challenges. The relevance of the topic is determined by the necessity to align the national interests of member countries with the collective objectives of regional cooperation. Among the key issues identified are uneven political priorities among states, differences in levels of integration and interaction, and difficulties in developing common decisions in international policy. The purpose of the study is to identify the main instruments for coordinating foreign policy actions within integration associations and to assess their effectiveness in contemporary geopolitical conditions. Comparative, systemic, and institutional approaches were applied in the research process together with methods of political analysis, forecasting, and generalization of international practice. An examination of the activities of the European Union, ASEAN, the African Union, and MERCOSUR enabled the identification of specific features of interstate interaction models in the sphere of foreign policy. Findings demonstrate that the highest level of effectiveness is achieved through mechanisms based on institutional coherence, diplomatic dialogue, and multilevel cooperation. The obtained results indicate that regional integration structures are gradually strengthening their role in international relations by developing common positions on security, economic, and humanitarian issues. At the same time, the effectiveness of collective actions depends on political trust among participants, stability of institutional systems, and the ability to respond to changes in the international environment. The article proposes a conceptual approach to assessing the effectiveness of foreign policy interaction, encompassing institutional, strategic, communicative, security, and diplomatic components, enabling a comprehensive analysis of the degree of coordination in international decision-making and the effectiveness of joint activities among participating states. Conclusions substantiate that improving the mechanisms of foreign policy interaction is an important prerequisite for strengthening regional stability, enhancing the international influence of integration associations, and ensuring an effective response to contemporary challenges. Prospects for further research include analyzing the digitalization of diplomatic processes, developing multilateral cooperation and adapting integration models to the new conditions of global politics.
References
1. Muntschick, J. (2026). The securitization of inter-regional energy cooperation between the EU and Southern Africa. Frontiers in Political Science, (8), 1720109. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2026.1720109
2. Soto, A. J. J., Mendoza, W. J., Moscoso Cuaresma, J. R., Nunez-del-Prado, M., & Alatrista-Salas, H. (2026). Interregionalism without automatic integration: European Union influence and political mediation in Mercosur. European Politics and Society, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/23745118.2026.2632281
3. Palmieri, R., Amice, C., Amato, M., & Verneau, F. (2024). Beyond the finish line: Sustainability hurdles in the EU–Mercosur free trade agreement. Social Sciences, 13(7), 362. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13070362
4. Harrison, J., & Paulini, S. (2024). Reinventing trade, environment and development interlinkages: lessons from the EU–Mercosur Association Agreement. Journal of International Economic Law, 27(4), 723–740. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgae044
5. Nolte, D., & Correa Ribeiro Neto, C. (2021). Mercosur and the EU: The false mirror. Lua Nova, (112), 87–122. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-087122/112
6. Ramanzini Jr., H., & Luciano, B. (2021). Regional (dis)integration beyond governments: A comparison in social and civil society participation between Mercosur and SADC. International Area Studies Review, 24(1), 18–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/22338659211005587
7. Freudlsperger, C., & Jachtenfuchs, M. (2021). A member state like any other? Germany and the European integration of core state powers. Journal of European Integration, 43(2), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2021.1877695
8. Chirathivat, S., Kunnamas, N., & Welfens, P. J. J. (2020). Regional integration in the EU and ASEAN in the period of declining multilateralism and corona shocks. International Economics and Economic Policy, (17), 555–561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10368-020-00480-4
9. Pose-Ferraro, N. (2026). Between geopolitics and political economy: The European Union–Mercosur negotiation to form a trade agreement. Journal of Common Market Studies, 64(1), 248–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13743
10. Koval, A. G., & Andrianova, E. K. (2022). Mercosur in trade policy clusters: Challenges and prospects. Brazilian Journal of Political Economy, 42(3), 718–737. https://doi.org/10.1590/0101-31572022-3288
11. Karataşlı, Ş. S. (2023). Hegemonic world orders, distributional (in)justice and global social change. International Affairs, 99(1), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiac312
12. Fernández-Guillén, Ó. E. (2021). Asean–Mercosur: Integración, relaciones económicas y potencialidades de asociación en el Sur Global. OASIS, (35), 279–317. https://doi.org/10.18601/16577558.n35.14
13. Lanz, R., & Piermartini, R. (2021). Specialisation within global value chains: Transport infrastructure matters upstream. The World Economy, 44(9), 2587–2610. https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.13106
14. Tacea, A. (2021). From legal to political reasoning: National parliaments’ use of reasoned opinions in the area of freedom, security and justice. Journal of Common Market Studies, 59(6), 1573–1589. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13213
15. Röth, L. (2022). After Merkel – The 2021 German election and its implications for European Union politics. Journal of Common Market Studies, 60(S1), 612–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13389
16. Borges, F. A. (2022). It’s not me, it’s you: self-interest, social affinity, and support for redistribution in Latin America. Latin American Politics and Society, 64(3), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/lap.2022.10
17. Klüver, H., & Bäck, H. (2020). Coalition agreements, issue attention, and cabinet governance. Comparative Political Studies, 52(13–14), 1995–2026. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414019830726
18. Broschek, J., & Goff, P. M. (2022). Explaining sub-federal variation in trade agreement negotiations: the case of CETA. Journal of Common Market Studies, 60(3), 801–820. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13287
19. Burcu, O. (2022). The Chinese government’s management of anti-Japan nationalism during Hu-Wen era. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 22(2), 237–266. https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcab002
20. Aggarwal, V. K., & Newland, S. (2020). Governing trade in a fragmented world: Interregionalism and strategic economic coordination. The World Economy, 44(5). https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.12974
21. Leib, J. (2023). Of peacekeepers and pandemics: how Covid-19 changed strategic communication of the UN Mission in South Sudan. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 29(1), 11–36. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-02901004
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Valentyna Babina, Stepan Kovbasiuk, Viktoriia Panasiuk