Search results

Introduction: Multilateralism under attack from nationalism -- International society and the diffusion of power in complexity -- Nationalism, multilateralism and institutions of international society -- Critical junctures on the pathway to European integration -- European integration or disintegration in an era of nationalism -- From Confucianism to nationalism in North East Asia -- China, Japan, Korea trilateral cooperation: No way to regionalism? -- Financial crises in the EU and NE Asia -- The EU, NE Asia and polycentric governance of climate change: Live and let die? -- Nationalism, multilateralism and role relationships in international polycentric governance.

This book explores how nationalism and multilateralism transform international society and global governance. It does so by comparing the governance model of the EU – a constitutionalised and increasingly polycentric form of multilateralism – with Northeast Asia. There nationalist administrations have resisted multilateral commitments and are locked into rivalries instead of pursuing a regional project.

Both Europe and Northeast Asia can be seen as success stories of the late 20th/ early 21st centuries, but by having followed different approaches to international governance. The book traces these two trajectories through critical junctures in history to how both regions have dealt with the contemporary challenges of the financial crisis and climate change. During the financial crisis, Europe's multilateral economic and monetary architecture revealed profound weaknesses whilst national policies allowed much of Northeast Asia to escape the worst of it. On climate change the European Union (EU) has developed effort-sharing governance models to reduce emissions, while Northeast Asian countries are relying on greening national industrial policy. The book argues that global governance has to find the balance between multilateralism and nationalism in order to find collaborative approaches to global challenges.

This book provides a fresh take on the EU and on Northeast Asia and develops innovative concepts of international society and polycentric governance. Thus, it will be of considerable interest to researchers and students of global governance, international relations, EU and Asia Studies.

1. Introduction: Multilateralism under attack from nationalism 2. International society and the diffusion of power in complexity 3. Nationalism, multilateralism and institutions of International society 4. Critical junctures on the pathway to European integration 5.European integration or disintegration in an era of nationalism 6. From Confucianism to nationalism in North East Asia 7. China, Japan, Korea trilateral cooperation: No way to regionalism? 8. Financial crises in the EU and NE Asia 9. The EU, NE Asia and polycentric governance of climate change: Live and let die? 10. Nationalism, multilateralism and role relationships in international polycentric governance

This paper focuses on the critical differences, but also some commonalities, between the EU and three countries in Northeast Asia - the People's Republic of China (PRC), the Republic of Korea, and Japan - in responding to financial crises. The EU's response is naturally multilateral, but the stress test of the sovereign debt crisis showed weaknesses in the integration of economic and monetary policy. The EU strengthened its integration during and after the crisis, oscillating between intergovernmentalism and supranational institutions. This cannot be explained by rational models of stepwise integration, but is eminently political. By contrast, Northeast Asian countries have handled the crisis more successfully in the short term (the jury is still out on the longer-term impact on the massive increase in debt and on slowing growth), but their policy was largely a nationalist one with very limited multilateral coordination, let alone integration, between them. While there are parallels with the objectives of the stabilization measures in the two regions, the design is clearly a major difference that would allow the conclusion to be drawn that the EU is a model of polycentric economic and monetary integration with a number of difficulties revealed in the crisis, while Northeast Asia (and in fact ASEAN+3) is a model of nonintegration with a limited set of grouped bilateral cooperation mechanisms. Neither of the two models is intrinsically superior to the other, but each reveals different political trajectories (or pathways). The global economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic may allow this analysis to be tested.

This paper examines the way local Kenyan politics have affected implementation of the Standard Gauge Railway. It points to initial and immediate development opportunities for local content, jobs, and skills while arguing for a more rigorous assessment of the SGR's economic development potential. Unless Kenya overhauls its governance framework on the issues outlined in this paper, infrastructure projects risk overshooting initial budgets. This may also reduce the willingness of neighboring countries or foreign investors to engage in future initiatives in Kenya.