Suchergebnisse

Regionalism as an international phenomenon dates back to post-WWII decades. It is well studied both in theoretical and practical perspective. It is quite clear to most researchers what the "old" or "new" regionalism is, and what kind of logic stands behind it. However, the classic theory of regionalism does not explain contemporary processes of interregional and transregional integration, which we witness today. A common point of the three approaches (namely, regionalism, interregionalism and transregionalism) is that all of them are related to globalization. Each of these approaches constitutes a response to globalisation's challenges, which varies from region to region. Nevertheless, their aims and scope differ greatly. Regionalism represents interstate and transnational co-operation within an international region. It is derived from the logic of institutionalized interactions that may take a range of forms—from regular consultations on the ministerial level to creation of supranational bodies and common policies. Interregional co-operation implies institutionalized agreements between states representing two or more regions, which can act either on their own (i.e. quasi-interregionalism, or hybrid interregionalism) or as a part of a regional organization / informal regional group of states. The logic of interregionalism dwells on the wish for widening the geographic scope of economic interaction by opening new regional markets. Transregional cooperation, on the contrary, is promoted primarily by political factors, such as the wish of some states, which share common values, to unite their efforts in order to play a greater role in global governance. It is argued that the study of regionalism, interregionalism and transregionalism can make an essential contribution to the development of the contemporary theory of international relations. ; Регионализм как феномен международных отношений имеет давнюю историю, берущую начало в послевоенные годы. Он хорошо изучен как теоретически, так и практически. Исследователям не составляет труда идентифицировать «старый» и «новый» регионализм, объяснить его логику. Вместе с тем, классическая теория регионализма не позволяет осмыслить современные процессы межрегиональной и трансрегиональной интеграции, разворачивающиеся на наших глазах. Общим для них является то, что все они связаны с процессом глобализации и представляют собой коллективную реакцию на него, варьирующуюся от региона к региону. Вместе с тем, цели и масштаб их существенно разнятся. Регионализм опирается на межгосударственное и, шире, транснациональное сотрудничество в пределах международного региона. Он подчиняется логике установления институционализированных взаимосвязей, которые могут принимать различные формы – от регулярных консультаций на министерском уровне до создания наднациональных органов и выработки общей согласованной политики. Межрегиональное сотрудничество развивается на базе институционализированных соглашений между государствами-представителями двух и более международных регионов, которые могут выступать как поодиночке (так называемый квази- или гибридный межрегионализм), так и в составе региональной организации или неформального регионального блока. Логика межрегионализма основывается на стремлении расширить географию экономического взаимодействия за счёт выхода на новые региональные рынки. В основе трансрегионального сотрудничества, напротив, лежат, в первую очередь, политические факторы, а именно, стремление отдельных государств, разделяющих общие ценности, объединиться ради более эффективного участия в глобальном управлении. Представляется, что исследования регионализма, межрегионализма и трансрегионализма могут внести существенный вклад в развитие современной теории международных отношений.

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.

Le dialogue interrégional existant entre l'Afrique et l'Amérique du Sud a été marqué par des moments d'intensification et par des moments de distanciation. Dès 2006 commence une période d'accélération de ces liens à travers notamment la création d'un Forum de coopération ASA et par la revitalisation de la Zone de Paix et de Coopération de l'Atlantique sud (ZOPACAS). Cet article questionne l'importance stratégique de ces forum interrégionaux dans la Politique Extérieure du Brésil et dans sa stratégie d'insertion internationale. Il est défendu l'idée que le dynamisme qu'a connu le dialogue interrégional entre les deux rives de l'Atlantique Sud a offert de nouveaux espaces d'action au sein desquels le Brésil a exercé un leadership en promouvant à la fois ses propres intérêts et en impulsant une diffusion idéationelle à travers sa rhétorique. ; Peer reviewed

Cuando se piensa en la historia de la integración regional como fenómeno de las relaciones internacionales, se suele pensar en mediados del siglo XX, y siempre tomando como referencia el proceso de integración regional de la Unión Europea (UE). Del mismo modo ocurre con el uso del término "acervo", que usualmente es asociado al vocablo "comunitario", y por tanto se describe como "acervo comunitario", al conjunto de normas jurídicas que recogen los principios y objetivos políticos que han desarrollado las instituciones comunitarias de la UE. Toda iniciativa o proyecto de integración regional anterior al siglo XX es considerado como "sueños de unificación" o "anhelos de unidad". Sin embargo, ambas aseveraciones son incorrectas, por un lado, la historia de la integración regional no nace en el siglo XX, nace en los ciernes de la creación de los Estados-Nación en Europa y de las repúblicas en América, entre los siglos XVII–XX. Por otro lado, la interpretación del término "acervo comunitario", es sólo una acepción del mismo y desde una perspectiva jurídica, sin considerar en su conjunto la histórica, la política, filosófica y cultural. Acervo proviene del latín acervus que significa el conjunto de bienes morales o culturales acumulados por la tradición. Por tanto, a nuestro entender, las ideas de unificación y los proyectos de unidad, anteriores al siglo XX, deberían de ser considerados parte del acervo de integración de ambas regiones. Este trabajo presenta la teoría que el período de los siglos XVII–XX forma parte de lo que se suele denominar como acervo, por consiguiente, a este período lo denominamos período del "acervo integracionista", un acervo que es común tanto para Europa como para América, el cual forma parte de otra historia común, aún mayor entre ambos continentes, que es la historia de Occidente.When one considers the history of regional integration as a phenomenon, which is a product of international relations, it is usual to think of the mid-20th century, utilizing the process of the regional integration of the European Union (EU) as a reference. The same thing happens with the use of the term "acquis", which is usually associated with the term "community"; thus it is common to describe the assemblage of legal norms that gather the political principles and objectives developed by community institutions of the EU as an "acquis communautaire". Any initiative or regional integration project before the twentieth century has been considered as mere "dreams of unification" or a "longing for unity". However, both observations are incorrect; on one hand, the history of regional integration was not born in the 20th century, but at the earliest stages of creation of the European Nation-States and the American Republics, between the 17th and 20th centuries. On the other hand, the interpretation of the phrase "acquis communautaire" merely draws upon the strict meaning of the term from a legal perspective, and does not take into account the totality of its historical, political, philosophical and cultural context. The word "acquis" comes from the Latin term acervus, meaning a set of moral or cultural assets collected by tradition. Therefore, in our understanding, the ideas and projects of unification before the 20th century should be considered a part of the integrationist acquis of both regions. This work presents the theory that the period between the 17th and 20th centuries forms a part of what is usually termed an acquis, a historical repository; consequently, we denote this period an "integrationist acquis", a repository that is common to Europe as well as to America, and forms a part of another common history, an even greater one, which is the history of the West.

The papers and essays in this volume examine several key areas of integration that are of critical interest to the AEC moving into 2025 and beyond. The rest of this integrative chapter weaves the papers together, highlights their key ideas and recommendations, and situates a number of them in terms of the changing international environment. Section 1 presents the results of the ERIA survey of ASEAN people on their aspirations, expectations, and perceived pressing problems into 2025. This is elaborated in Volume 2, Voices of ASEAN: What Does ASEAN Mean to ASEAN Peoples, a companion to this volume. The section also discusses the two key international developments that have a critical bearing on ASEAN's future. Thus, Section 1 provides the compelling contexts to the measures and initiatives that ASEAN needs to undertake to realise the four key features of the AEC 2025 listed above. Section 2 discusses the key strategies or measures for the AEC into 2025 and beyond, based mainly on the papers and essays in the volume. Section 3 concludes and summarises the key recommendations and presents a possible snapshot of ASEAN by 2025 and 2035.

This article seeks to discuss the origins and evolution of the Natuna Islands issue within the context of Indonesia's foreign policy, and in particular, its relations with China. It is argued that while the Natuna issue will continue to crop up from time to time and in the process elicit a variety of reactions and responses from Jakarta and Beijing, it is unlikely to bring about an outright naval confrontation between Indonesia and China in the short to medium term, not least because the governing elites of both countries appreciate the value of deepening bilateral economic engagement.

Against the backdrop of a recovering yet fragile international economy and considerable political uncertainty, it cannot be overstated how important it is that the G20 "stick to its job" at the Hamburg Summit in July 2017 and beyond without diluting its focus. When G20 developed and emerging economies came together to cooperate and coordinate their efforts in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, they defined their action based on a set of core values and a shared sense of responsibility towards strengthened global governance and effective stewardship of the world economy. Accordingly, successive G20 summits have focused on strategic "jobs" where the forum holds a comparative advantage and which can be better addressed than in alternative institutions or governance mechanisms. Two such advantages are the group's composition and the ability to take a holistic approach to world financial and economic affairs. This volume brings together a collection of short essays—a number of which were presented at an ICTSD workshop held in parallel to the G20 Trade and Investment Working Group meeting in Berlin in February 2017—that reflect on some of key areas where the G20 has a comparative advantage. The authors put forward a set of policy options for the G20 to support inclusive international trade and investment.

The outlook for Southeast Asia for 2017 reflects more than challenges this broader view. 2016 saw changes to major power interests in the region as well as disruptive political dynamics in five of the six most populous Southeast Asian countries. These will play out in 2017 and beyond.

Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen led a large delegation to attend the first Belt and Road Forum in Beijing on May 14 and 15 this year, and followed it up with a state visit from May 16 to 17. During the visit, China pledged US$240 million in grant to Cambodia, and both countries signed 13 agreements focusing on a wide range of areas including infrastructure development, production capacity, trade, finance, maritime cooperation, and tourism under the Belt and Road framework. Cambodia regards BRI as a new catalyst for its economic development strategy and for regional integration and connectivity.

ASEAN has been working towards the free movement of goods in the region. Although significant progress has been made in the opening up of markets through tariff elimination, addressing the issues of non-tariff measures (NTMs) remain. With the reduction in tariffs across the globe, increasing attention has thus shifted to the effects of these NTMs that become simply non-tariff barriers (NTBs) to trade. Non-Tariff Measures (NTMs) could be justified for different reasons such as health, security, environment, and consumer protection. However, they could adversely affect the global and regional production chains by unnecessarily increasing the cost of doing business. This paper reviews existing studies in Non-Tariff Measures for better understanding of NTM implications to international trade as well as local business and to propose some ways forward. For additional insights, it presents the results of the small sample survey (perception) among exporters on the types of NTMs encountered within and outside ASEAN and the perceived operating cost impact of NTMs. The survey identifies three main NTBs affecting operations of their businesses either within or outside ASEAN- these are (i) Custom Formalities (ii) Rules of Origin (iii) Technical Barriers to Trade. These are consistent with the findings of an International Trade Center (ITC) Business Survey on NTMs in the Philippines 2015-2016. Some of the policy recommendations of the paper are creating a comprehensive and updated database of NTMs, intensive reforms to streamline NTM procedures, improvements in testing laboratories and facilities, accreditation and certification process and capacity building on what and how to comply with applicable SPS and TBTs.

The Thailand Development Research Institute Foundation was established in 1984 to conduct policy research and disseminate results to the public and private sectors. TDRI was conceived, created and registered as a non-profit, non-governmental foundation, and is recognized as such by the Royal Thai Government. The Institute does technical and policy analyses to support the formulation of policies with long-term implications for sustaining social and economic development. This review contains to articles: Social Protection System in Thailand: An Overview and It's Time for a new Governance Framework.

Rising protectionism has recently become an increasing concern amongst a number of trade economists and policymakers. At the 2017 G20 Hamburg summit, G20 leaders agreed to fight protectionism includ-ing all unfair trade practices. However, the language of the final decla-ration on trade was weak and ambiguous. It did not suggest any promis-ing way forward. Although international organizations and fora including the World Trade Organization (WTO) have made an effort to fight against protectionism, we have yet to see much progress. It has become more common these days to see domestic politics win over global agenda.

To measure Ad valorem tariff equivalents (AVEs) of non-tariff measures (NTMs), we propose a new alternative that relies on the estimation of bilateral trade flows on two-way panels at the HS 2-digit level with importer, exporter, and product fixed effects and interaction terms between NTM variables and a full vector of country-specific characters. Our results show AVEs for technical barriers to trade measures on manufactured products, for ASEAN countries and the whole sample are 4.5% and 5%, respectively. The AVEs for sanitary and phytosanitary measures on agricultural and food products for ASEAN countries and the whole sample are 6.5% and 6.7%, respectively. It should be noted that AVEs can mean very different things depending on whether they play as correction of a market failure. This depends on the technical capabilities of domestic regulatory agencies.

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), now being negotiated between ASEAN and its six existing trade agreement partners 2 , is an opportunity of underappreciated global significance. If the negotiations are successfully concluded and the agreement is ratified and implemented, it will be the largest trade deal in GDP and population terms since the GATT Uruguay Round agreement in 1994 which established the World Trade Organization.

Southeast Asian perspectives on US–China competition is a series of articles discussing the issues facing this region. In order to explore and elevate Southeast Asian perspectives on US–China competition, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Lowy Institute in April 2016 convened nearly two dozen Southeast Asian scholars and policymakers from around the region to discuss their perspectives and those of their governments at a conference in Singapore. The discussion at the conference focused on five areas: the role of the United States and China in Southeast Asia; the regional trade and investment architecture; regional maritime issues; transnational issues in the region; and the future of ASEAN.