The awarding committee considered the paper worth receiving a special recognition for its contribution to a lively theoretical debate, by means of a rigorous empirical comparative analysis.

Based on a clear conceptual framework and developed on the basis of a rigorous methodology, the paper also points to possible future avenues of research, as a good piece of academic work should do.

The paper analyses the conditions under which South American states create regional institutions that expand or restrict the reach of the liberal international order (LIO). By exploring counter-institutionalization in the areas of migration and election monitoring, the paper provides a valuable insight into the relationship between regional dynamics and the crisis of the LIO. In particular, the paper shows how the impact of regional counter-institutionalization on liberal international norms and institutions varies depending on the interaction between the sources of tensions within the LIO and regional leaders’ preferences.

Through the comparative analysis of the South American Conference on Migration and the Union of South American Nations Electoral Accompaniment Missions, the paper shows that the exclusionary nature of the post-Cold War LIO in the area of migration activated the response of Argentina, a leading state with liberal preferences, while the supranational intrusiveness of the post-Cold War LIO in the area of election monitoring activated the response of Venezuela, a leading state with illiberal preferences.

The work provides a significant set of empirical and theoretical contributions to the literature in at least four ways:

1. contributing to the literature on comparative regionalism and its relationship with the LIO;
2. identifying the conditions leading to the emergence of regional institutions with both expansive and restrictive effects on the LIO in South America;
3. shedding light on the coexistence of liberal and illiberal tendencies in South American regionalism;
4. contributing to the international relations debate on the contestation of the LIO, particularly as far as the role of illiberal powers and inclusivity (or exclusivity) of the LIO is concerned.