Suchergebnisse

An editorial introduction to the Special Issue of The Baltic Journal of European Studies. The individual articles in this Special Issue present a diverse array of analyses and topics: what binds them together, however, is the perspective of change. The twentieth-century certainties are no longer adequate explanations as the evolving mosaic of Asia-Pacific relations continues to surprise even the most well-informed commentators. Contemporary developments in China, North Korea, and Japan collectively present a new international relations subsystem of issues that challenge the existing multilateral and strategic context of the Asia-Pacific. Additionally, the different regionalisms as expressed by the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) process emphasise the intercontinental connectivity of Asia-Pacific relations, while generating plenty of serious discussions on the topic in the European Union (EU). The Special Issue falls into two parts: an examination of regional approaches (BRI and ASEM) and country-specific case studies (Singapore, Japan, North Korea, and Taiwan) and how these have been affected by the rise of China. The diversity of the contributions perfectly matches the kaleidoscopic patchwork that represents the Asia-Pacific and articulates the important juxtaposition of EU solidarity with the more pragmatic alliances that help in shaping the region—ASEM, Association of Southeast Asian Nations ASEAN, as well as traditional bilateralism.

This article systematically investigates both regional and issue-specific variation in external perceptions of the European Union (EU) as a global power and an international leader. While most studies on EU external perceptions focus on a one-dimensional vision of EU leadership and/or great-powerness, it is argued here that these perceptions are highly issue-specific, multilayered and differentiating. This study draws on data collected through elite interviews in three regions: the Pacific, Southeast Asia and Africa. The findings make a contribution to the debate on the perception of third states on the international role of the EU. Adapted from the source document.

Contributing to the wider field of studies of international communication strategies by major international fora, this study investigates a scholarly vacuum – the role of visibility in the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM). A novelty of this inquiry is that it is carried out on endogenous (i.e. deriving internally in ASEM) and exogenous (i.e. originating externally to ASEM) levels. Addressing the former perspective, this paper examines ASEM's official discourse and its vision of the role of visibility. Addressing the latter, exogenous perspective, the paper explores a rarely addressed dimension in ASEM studies, namely personal perceptions of the forum among Asian national elites (the opinions expressed by representatives of political, business, media and civil society circles in Japan, China, South Korea, Singapore and Thailand). The main rationale is to assess whether the degree of ASEM's visibility positively correlates to the direct involvement of the stakeholders into or to the achievement of the process. Positing its inquiry within a social constructivist perspective, this article argues that, instead of being conceptualised as the end-goal, visibility should be understood as an element in the construction of the Asia-Europe relations under the ASEM framework.

AbstractThis article focuses on how the European Union's (EU) mediation activities during the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Palestine conflicts are perceived by local elites. Our analysis is based on recent interviews with decision makers in Ukraine, Israel and Palestine. Consistent with this special issue, we investigate perceptions ofEUroles, strategies and effectiveness. We suggest that theEU's relation to the parties may affect their perceptions ofEUconflict mediation efforts. Specifically, we expect that theEUis perceived as abiased mediatorin both cases due to perceived close relations to one or more conflict parties. However, contrary to our expectations and widespread assumption in mediation theory, while such a bias exists, we found it isnotperceived as a main cause ofEUineffectiveness. Other factors, including the prominence of other mediators and internalEUdisunity, are perceived as more detrimental toEUefficacy.