Suchergebnisse

Sejak tahun 1970an ASEAN telah mengembangkan bi-regional arrangement dengan organisasi regional di luar kawasan Asia Tenggara dan hybrid interregionalism dengan negara-negara yang memiliki pengaruh di kawasan ini. Anggota-anggota ASEAN juga secara individual mengambil peran aktif dalam transregional arrangement dengan negara-negara non anggota ASEAN. Ragam interregionalisme semakin diperkuat sejak pemimpin-pemimpin ASEAN mencanangkan cita-cita pembentukan komunitas ASEAN di tahun 2003.Penelitian ini mengkaji kontribusi interregionalisme yang melibatkan ASEAN sebagai organisasi maupun negara-negara secara individual terhadap proses pembentukan komunitas ASEAN. Penelitian ini mengikuti argumentasi teoretisi Transaksionalisme, yang menyatakan bahwa interaksi intens dan ekstensif di antara aktor-aktor regional sangat penting untuk menghasilkan fondansi 'we feeling' yang fundamental bagi pembentukan komunitas regional. Berangkat dari konsepsi ini, penelitian ini melihat bahwa faktor determinan untuk penguatan institusi regional bersifat endogenous – terkait kemampuan bangsa-bangsa untuk mendefinisikan identitas regional, membangun kerangka normatif dan organisasional yang menjadi 'code of conduct' dalam interaksi reguler mereka; pendefinisian identitas regional ini merupakan hasil interaksi yang intens dan ekstensif di antara aktor-aktor yang menjadi bagian dalam proses integrasi. Pertanyaan penelitian tentang hubungan interregionalisme dan pembentukan komunitas ASEAN ini menjadi menarik untuk dikaji lebih jauh karena interregionalisme bersentuhan erat dengan faktor yang bersifat exogenous yang berpotensi untuk memperlemah pembentukan 'identitas regional'.Penelitian ini menemukan bahwa bi-regional arrangement dan hybrid interregionalism yang dikembangkan negara-negara ASEAN secara kolektif-institusional maupun transregional arrangement yang melibatkan negara-negara dengan kapasitas individual masing telah menjadikan konstruksi komunitas ASEAN lebih bersifat terbuka dan adaptif terhadap pengaruh ekstra regional. Interregionalisme telah membantu negara-negara anggota untuk memperkuat modalitas dan kapasitas bagi integrasi politik keamanan dan ekonomik dan memfasilitasi konektivitas di antara bangsa-bangsa Asia Tenggara; dan dengan demikian secara potensial menumbuhkan nilai-nilai ke-ASEAN-an di antara mereka. Namun demikian, interregionalisme membawa tantangan aktual serius bagi konsolidasi integrasi ASEAN di bidang ekonomik dan politik-keamanan; konstruksi ASEAN tetap akan dipengaruhi oleh pengaruh-pengaruh eksternal yang diciptakan oleh mitra-mitra interregional ASEAN.

This paper examines the impact of interregionalism on regulatory governance. Specifically, it analyses an underexplored aspect of the negotiation process for an interregional agreement between the European Union (EU) and the Common Market of the South (Mercosur): to what extent and how has this given rise to particular forms of regulatory governance in Mercosur? The paper empirically explores the trade and cooperation agendas involved in trade facilitation and education, and argues that the long negotiation process between the EU and Mercosur has affected the ways in which different forms of regulatory governance are expressed. Still, these show variation across policy issues. Both the type of norm promoted and the capacity-building mechanisms envisaged create a particular ideational and material context, all of which affects the actor constellation and leads in turn to different regulatory governance regimes, yet within the same interregional negotiation process.

The article starts from an analysis of S.P. Huntington's theory of the clash of civilizations and puts in evidence one of its critical points, i.e. the fact that Huntington does not pay any attention to the development by the EU of a particular kind of actorness through the promotion of interregionalism worldwide. Tracing the history of the different phases of success and decline of both theories, the article attempts to test their persistent explanatory and analytical capacity in relation to current developments in the international arena as well as in the academic context.

The main question this paper is dealing with is the following: are the EU relations with Latin America moving from an interregional approach to a bilateral one?

The aim of this article is to assess the European Union's (EU) engagement with and within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member states in the field of non-traditional security (NTS) between 1997 and 2009, prior to the Lisbon Treaty becoming effective. The analysis concentrates on the EU's response to five NTS crises and the interregional level of interaction from a sector-specific governance and social-constructivist approach. These crises are the avian influenza, the political conflict and the tsunami in Aceh, the Bali bombings and the Asian financial crisis (AFC) in South-East Asia. The case studies illustrate EU NTS action and gauge EU NTS actorness from a South-East Asian perspective to substantiate the EU's interregional interaction and external actorness quality in specific fields of governance in a region so far away.

Dieser Artikel analysiert die Zusammenarbeit der Europäischen Union (EU) mit den Mitgliedsstaaten der Vereinigung südostasiatischer Nationen (ASEAN) im Bereich nicht-traditioneller Sicherheit (NTS) zwischen 1997 und 2009, also noch vor Inkrafttreten des Vertrages von Lissabon. Fünf NTS-Krisen (Vogelgrippe, politischer Konflikt und Tsunami in Aceh, Bombenanschläge auf Bali sowie Asien-Finanzkrise), die Reaktionen der EU auf diese, sowie die entsprechenden Interaktionen auf der interregionalen Kooperationsebene stehen im Mittelpunkt der Analyse, welche einen sozialkonstruktivistischen und sektorspezifischen Governance-Ansatz verfolgt. Die Fallstudien legen die NTS-Aktivitäten der EU dar und bieten eine Einschätzung ihrer Akteursqualität aus südostasiatischer Perspektive. Des Weiteren wird versucht, die Qualität der interregionalen europäisch-südostasiatischen Interaktionen und der EU-Akteursqualität in ausgewählten Governance-Bereichen in einer derart weit entfernten Region darzustellen. ; The aim of this article is to assess the European Union's (EU) engagement with and within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member states in the field of non-traditional security (NTS) between 1997 and 2009, prior to the Lisbon Treaty becoming effective. The analysis concentrates on the EU's response to five NTS crises and the interregional level of interaction from a sector-specific governance and social-constructivist approach. These crises are the avian influenza, the political conflict and the tsunami in Aceh, the Bali bombings and the Asian financial crisis (AFC) in South-East Asia. The case studies illustrate EU NTS action and gauge EU NTS actorness from a South-East Asian perspective to substantiate the EU's interregional interaction and external actorness quality in specific fields of governance in a region so far away.

Since the early 1990s, the European Union has developed new instruments to consolidate its external action, especially in 'low politics'. These new instruments include the signing of interregional arrangements with other regional groups. The EU's region–to–region strategy towards the Common Market of the South (Mercosur) is in keeping with the latest trends of interregionalism. Since the birth of Mercosur, the EU has given technical, financial and diplomatic support to South America's new regional- ism. The long–term goal is to conclude a region–to–region agreement in the political, cooperation and trade fields. By providing this support, the EU plays a role as an 'exter- nal federator' for new regional experiences through its interregionalist projects. Although 'new interregionalism' is a corollary of the new regionalism, interregionalism can contribute to the consolidation of regionalism. Moreover, by encouraging economic multilateralism, interregional arrangements can improve the governance of globalisation. ; Peer reviewed

Abstract Interregionalism has been increasingly used to advance cooperation on regional and global security challenges. This study examines three interregional dialogues comprising East Asia, Europe, and Latin America. Each interregional security agenda reflects specific concerns and different evolving paths. Insights from 'multilateral security governance' approaches can reinforce the analysis of how security agendas emerge and change, and how their related norms and practices evolve.

This article is part of the 'EU-NormCon research project' ('Normative contestation in Europe: Implications for the EU in a changing global order') funded by the National R+D Plan of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (CSO2016-79205-P). ; Interregionalism has been increasingly used to advance cooperation on regional and global security challenges. This study examines three interregional dialogues comprising East Asia, Europe, and Latin America. Each interregional security agenda reflects specific concerns and different evolving paths. Insights from 'multilateral security governance' approaches can reinforce the analysis of how security agendas emerge and change, and how their related norms and practices evolve.

Abstract Brazil-European Union relations punch below their weight. Cooperation takes place at three levels: relations with European Union (EU) member states, Brazil`s partnership with Brussels, and EU-MERCOSUR negotiations. This multilevel governance contrasts with poor results: there is no free trade agreement, development cooperation became irrelevant, and international positions rarely converge. The article explores the reasons for the underperformance by comparing foreign policy shifts in Brazil and the EU, and analyzing multilevel governance in selected sectors of cooperation. It is based on four assumptions: multilevel relations are uncoordinated, idealist inter-regionalism doesn't work, and crisis-driven, liberal realist foreign policies in Brazil and the EU facilitate bilateralism.

European regional integration processes have gradually covered most of the world regions. First of all, regions were strengthened internally and after that they began increasingly interact with each other, thus consolidating interregional relations as an integral part of their foreign policy. European Union decided to activate foreign policy actions in Latin America due to its growing economical and political significance. However, EU member's different interests have increased the gap between the official statements of EU and concrete practical policies. Such inequality of attention to Latin America led other great players of the international system to renew their interest in the region

European regional integration processes have gradually covered most of the world regions. First of all, regions were strengthened internally and after that they began increasingly interact with each other, thus consolidating interregional relations as an integral part of their foreign policy. European Union decided to activate foreign policy actions in Latin America due to its growing economical and political significance. However, EU member's different interests have increased the gap between the official statements of EU and concrete practical policies. Such inequality of attention to Latin America led other great players of the international system to renew their interest in the region

European regional integration processes have gradually covered most of the world regions. First of all, regions were strengthened internally and after that they began increasingly interact with each other, thus consolidating interregional relations as an integral part of their foreign policy. European Union decided to activate foreign policy actions in Latin America due to its growing economical and political significance. However, EU member's different interests have increased the gap between the official statements of EU and concrete practical policies. Such inequality of attention to Latin America led other great players of the international system to renew their interest in the region

Many among the emerging generation of political elites in Africa see the role the European Union (EU) plays in the maintenance of an unprecedented period of peace in Western Europe as an inspirational example of the manner in which the African Union (AU) can contribute to peace and stability in Africa. This doctoral thesis examines security cooperation between the EU and the AU, with a particular focus on the nature and substance of that cooperation. It suggests that despite the establishment of various EU–AU institutions and ties with a role in security policy and cooperation, such security cooperation is limited in substance. This study argues that EU–AU security cooperation is especially constrained by the emergence of alternative partners, most notably China, and by failures of implementation and follow-through. Two case studies, the first dealing with EU–AU cooperation in peacekeeping, and the second addressing the silent water crisis along with the link between water and security, have been analysed in detail to determine the effectiveness and sustainability of the EU–AU partnership. A number of important lessons for regionalism, interregionalism and multilateralism are drawn from the bond between the EU and the AU. This doctoral thesis will prove that, despite an emphasis on the problematic term 'strategic' by both EU and AU policymakers, EU–AU cooperation is limited and somewhat lacking in strategic direction. The cooperation between the EU and the AU focuses mainly on EU financial support for AU peacekeeping and specific projects in Africa (e.g. in the water sector), as well as on a limited political dialogue. Nonetheless, the EU–AU link represents the most comprehensive partnership the AU has with any non-African actor. This study will furthermore demonstrate that the United Nations (UN) is an indispensable third-party to their relationship and it is therefore more appropriate to speak of the AU–EU–UN nexus. This doctoral thesis concludes that the AU–EU–UN nexus is an important example of interregionalism in a global context and that such interregionalism is an important emerging part of global governance.

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.