Suchergebnisse

This inception paper expatiates on the conditions that are necessary in determining the effectiveness of the European Union's (the EU's) leadership in science and cultural diplomacy (SCD) on regionalism and inter-regionalism in the South. These conditions include willingness, capacity and acceptance. Willingness delineates the scope of the ambition of the EU in SCD. Capacity covers elements that pertain to breadth and depth/ quality and quantity of resources mobilized and available to lead SCD that delivers results. Acceptance refers to the nature of the credibility that the EU is able to command both within and outside the Union respecting its influence to attract followers both amongst Member States of the Union as well as third states, regional and international organizations. The emphasis of the paper is on effectiveness in terms of impact on regionalism and inter-regionalism in the South. Focus is placed on regional and inter-regional processes/ initiatives in Africa, Southeast Asia and Latin America.

International organizations as new subjects of international law and its institutionalization -- Place and position of international organizations within international law system -- Regionalism and international law -- Old and new regionalism -- Treaty and institutional regionalism -- Regional judicial and non judicial bodies and their importance for proper functioning of regional systems -- Interregionalism -- Relation of regionalism and regional organizations with respect to general international law.

This article provides a historical reconstruction of the normative dimension (principles, norms, values) of EU-ASEAN relations, with particular reference to the EU's inclination and attempts to make them an instrument for the diffusion of democracy, human rights and the European model of regional integration in Southeast Asia. Taking into consideration the normative interaction between the two organizations, fueled by particular breaches of democratic principles in Southeast Asia such as the Myanmar case, we focus on the dynamics of construction and de-construction of the EU's and ASEAN's political identity, in the framework of the evolution of the interregional relations. The evolution of asymmetry of power relations between the EU and ASEAN is particularly important in this analysis. The gradual rebalancing of power asymmetries between the two organizations, associated with the rising relevance of Southeast Asia and ASEAN on the world stage, has affected the cohesion among member states on normative issues and restricted the EU's ideational influence on the partner organization. Moreover, this process has induced the EU to adjust its policy towards ASEAN and to rethink the role of European norms in its relations with Southeast Asia.

Regional identity-building has been described within the literature on the European Union (EU)–Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) relationship as a function of interregionalism. While this literature has commonly premised regional identity-building as the direct result of interregional interaction in the sense of regionto-region best practice-sharing and capacity-building, it has also recognized that there have been instances of EU–ASEAN interregional disagreement which have raised levels of regional self-awareness and identity indirectly through processes of self-and-othering. Prominent examples of this kind of ASEAN regional identitybuilding through interregional othering processes have been the EU–ASEAN dispute over human rights and Myanmar in the 1990s. Even though the official EU-ASEAN relationship has come a long way since then, Thailand's recent experience as the coordinator of the official EU–ASEAN dialogue reveals that regional identity-building through interregionalism continues to build on processes of differentiation. Specifically, through Thailand's experience in managing the EU–ASEAN Strategic Partnership talks, as part of its role as the Southeast Asian EU–ASEAN coordinator from 2015 until 2018, this article demonstrates the interplay of differentiation and identification processes within contemporary ASEAN regional identity-building and - affirmation. (Asien/GIGA)

Foreword -- Contents -- Abbreviations -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- Chapter 1: Introduction -- Chapter 2: Regionalism and Regionalisation: A Theoretical Approach -- 2.1 Regionalism and Regionalisation in the Theory of Social Sciences -- 2.2 Old Versus New Regionalism: A Comparative Analysis -- 2.3 Regionalism and Regionalisation in the Context of Globalisation -- 2.4 The Types of Regionalism: A Review -- 2.5 Regionalism Versus Multilateralism, Interregionalism and Microregionalism -- 2.6 The Selected Methods for Measuring the Phenomena of Regionalism and Regionalisation -- Notes

"Regionalism" published on by Oxford University Press.

The European Union (EU) has adopted a very generous region-to-region approach towards Latin America in recent decades. However, although the EU adopted the same interregional strategy across different policy areas, the quality of interregional interaction (and success) vary significantly. An interesting case of EU-driven interregionalism is the case of EU-Latin America science diplomacy. In this policy area, it seems that the EU's interregional approach has been particularly successful, as both regions continuously call for the creation and strengthening of a "Common Area for Higher Education, Research and Technology", and various high-level working groups and action plans have been established to achieve this end. Yet, a critical assessment of EU-Latin America interregional cooperation in the field of science, higher education and innovation has not been produced to date. This paper aims to fill this notable academic (and policy-making) gap by providing a thorough overview of (1) the EU's drivers behind this particular foreign policy action and the chosen interregional approach; (2) the applied policy instruments and actions of this specific case of EU-Latin American interregional relations; and (3) achieved impact of this specific case of EU-Latin American interregional relations.

The article analyzes the regional policy of the European Union and the problems of regionalization through the prism of modern theoretical provisions about the region and identifying its place in the existing system of international relations; shows the EU's practical steps to assert its role as an independent actor in the world arena. Attention is focused on the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the processes of globalization, on the key principles of which ‒ the free movement of people and goods ‒ were dealt a noticeable blow. The pandemic has intensified the processes of regionalization, the strengthening of which occurred as a natural response to the challenge. The author of the article analyzes the problems of regionalism through the prism of a collective monograph by well-known experts on regionalism and international relations E.B. Mikhailenko and V. I. Mikhailenko "European Union's Foreign Policy in the XXI century. European interregionalism", which became a continuation of the scientific research of the authors at the Ural Federal University. The article focuses on such vulnerabilities of the EU's regional policy as poorly formed EU foreign policy identity; dependence in the field of security on the United States; insufficient use of the tools of "hard power" to defend their interests and promote their values and ideals. The still insufficiently meaningful manifestations and consequences of the pandemic have given additional relevance to the monograph, clarifying the origins, difficulties, trends in the implementation of the EU's foreign regional policy, the achievement of interregionalism, its goals and limits

Siguiendo una investigación documental-descriptiva y cuantitativa-analítica, el artículo analiza, desde una visión retrospectiva, los principales rasgos que definen las tres primeras décadas del MERCOSUR y sus transformaciones. Enfatiza el estudio del desempeño comercial del proceso de integración durante el período 2000-2021, tanto en sus relaciones intrarregionales como extrarregionales, para aportar una visión prospectiva al análisis de su presente y futuro económico inmediato. También describe las principales tendencias del intercambio de bienes, los temas de reciente discusión y los últimos acontecimientos del relacionamiento externo MERCOSUR-Asia. Entre otras cosas, demuestra la pérdida de importancia comercial de la Unión Europea y Estados Unidos; su desplazamiento por Asia y China como primer mercado del bloque sudamericano; y el ascenso del Sudeste de Asia como mercado emergente, donde Vietnam, Singapur, Malasia, Indonesia y Tailandia, principales economías de la ASEAN, han ganado importancia dentro del comercio global de bienes del MERCOSUR. Y con base en estas evidencias concluye que el presente y el futuro económico del MERCOSUR (en comercio, inversión y cooperación) se encuentran en Asia-Pacífico, razón válida para instar a la (re)definición de una Agenda Asia. ; Following a documentary-descriptive and quantitative-analytical investigation, the article analyzes, from a retrospective perspective, the main features that define the first three decades of MERCOSUR and its transformations. It emphasizes the study of the commercial performance of the integration process during the period 2000-2021, both in its intra-regional and extra-regional relations, to provide a prospective vision to the analysis of its present and immediate economic future. It also describes the main trends in the exchange of goods, the topics of recent discussion and the latest events in the MERCOSUR-Asia external relations. Among other things, it shows the loss of commercial importance of the European Union and the United States; its displacement through Asia and China as the first market of the South American bloc; and the rise of Southeast Asia as an emerging market, where Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand, the main ASEAN economies, have gained importance within the global trade of MERCOSUR goods. And based on this evidence, it concludes that the present and the economic future of MERCOSUR (in trade, investment and cooperation) is in Asia-Pacific, a valid reason to urge the (re) definition of an Asia Agenda.

This article provides a contextualisation for the study of relations between the European Union and Africa. We identify seven major trends and drivers that have characterised the literature surrounding the relationship: colonial legacy, meanings of partnership, asymmetry, market liberalisation, politicisation, regional actorness and the changing global order. In the literature, these elements tend to be examined separately or in unidirectional perspectives. This article argues, however, that each element invariably influences both sides, although not necessarily in the same manner or to the same effect. In addition, most elements are intertwined and influence each other. These entanglements become visible when examining all seven elements as part of one context. This article suggests that proceeding on an assumption of mutual influence and highlighting the intertwined nature of the different elements constitutes a framework that serves this special issue's efforts to recalibrate African and European perspectives in the scholarship. ; SCOPUS: ar.j ; info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Contents -- Contributors -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- Chapter 1 Introduction -- References -- Chapter 2 Two Decades of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Historical Background: ASEM as an Evolving Forum -- 3 Institutional Design: ASEM as an International Forum for Dialogue -- 4 "Complex Interregionalism": ASEM as a Region-to-Region or Transregional Forum? -- 5 The Road Ahead: ASEM as a Divided Forum -- 5.1 The Challenge of Informal Dialogue -- 5.2 The Tension Between Dialogue and Tangible Outcomes -- 6 Conclusions -- References -- Chapter 3 ASEM: Partnership for Greater Growth? -- 1 Introduction -- 2 The Golden Years-Momentum and Tangibility -- 3 Behind the Figures and Beyond -- 4 Asian FTAs and the WTO -- 5 What Role for ASEM? -- 6 Conclusion -- References -- Chapter 4 ASEM and the Security Agenda: Talking the Talk but also Walking the Walk? -- 1 Introduction -- 2 ASEM's Security Agenda -- 3 Non-interference -- 4 Recommendations with Little Follow-up -- 5 The Timid Role Model -- 6 None of ASEM's Business -- 7 Not a Priority -- 8 Conclusions -- References -- Chapter 5 The Value-Added ASEM: The Socio-Cultural Dialogue -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Cultural Cooperation Within the Mandate of ASEM: A Concise Overview of the Cultural Policy Agenda -- 3 The Asia-Europe Foundation -- 3.1 Origin and Organization -- 3.2 Development -- 3.2.1 Phase One: "Event-Organizer" -- 3.2.2 Phase Two: "Experimental Entrepreneur" -- 3.2.3 Phase Three: "Trademark" -- 3.2.4 Phase Four: Long-Lasting Value-Added Activities -- 4 The Nebulous Relationship Between ASEM and ASEF -- 4.1 ASEF's Contributions to the ASEM Process -- 4.1.1 Pluralization of Actors -- 4.1.2 The Value of Cultural Cooperation -- 4.1.3 Interregionalism Through Intellectual and Educational Exchanges -- 4.1.4 ASEF as an Expert on Asia-Europe Relations

Comparative Environmental Regionalism focuses on environmental governance as a key issue of analysis to provide an important new conceptualisation of 'region' and regional power. Examining both interregionalism and regional integration, the book goes beyond the traditional study of micro-regions within the EU to examine regions and regional institutions across Asia, Africa and the Americas. The focus on forms of governance allows a consideration of the variety of processes and mechanisms developed to deal with collective issues in addition to formal institutional cooperation. Using globally based case studies, Comparative Environmental Regionalism will be of interest to students and scholars of environmental and regional politics, and international relations.

The birregional strategic partnership between the EU and LAC initiated in 1999, has evolved to adapt to both; changes in the global context and the restructuring of power, and changes in regional integration processes that have altered the balance and nature of the relationship. Currently the EU and LAC have multiple levels of relationship - inter-regional, trans-regional and sub-regional - comprising a heterogeneous set of actors in a complex interregionalism scheme, surpassing the traditional categories of the studies on nterregionalism. ; La Asociación estratégica birregional entre la UE y ALC iniciada en 1999, ha evolucionado para adaptarse tanto los cambios en el contexto global y la re-estructuración del poder, como a transformaciones en los procesos de integración regional que han alterado el equilibrio y la naturaleza de la relación. Actualmente la UE y ALC tienen múltiples niveles de relación –global, inter-regional, transregional y sub-regional– abarcando un conjunto de actores heterogéneos en un esquema de interregionalismo complejo, que sobrepasa las categorías tradicionales de los estudios sobre interregionalismo.