Suchergebnisse

The region of Southeast Asia is faced with a complex set of challenges stemming from political, economic and religious developments at the national, regional and global level. This paper sets out to examine trade-, foreign- and security policy implications of the issues confronting the region. In ASEAN, the Southeast Asian countries are continuing their ambitious attempts at further integration. Plans outlining deeper security and economic communities have been adopted. However, huge differences in political systems, economic development and ethnic/religious structures are hampering prospects of closer cooperation. The highly controversial conflict case of Burma/Myanmar is testing the much adhered-to principle of non-interference and at the same time complicating relations with external powers. Among these, the United States and China are dramatically strengthening their interests in the region. American influence is not least manifesting itself in light of the war against terrorism, which the region is adapting to in different ways and at different speeds. By contrast, the European Union does not seem to answer Southeast Asian calls for further engagement. A flurry of bilateral and regional trade agreements is another prominent feature of the economic landscape of the region. This is to a certain degree a reflex ion of impatience with trade liberalization in the WTO and within ASEAN itself. Structures of economic cooperation are under rapid alteration in Southeast Asia. The paper analyses the above-mentioned developments with a view to assessing the prospects of future stability, economic development and integration in and among ASEAN countries. It is concluded that although the scope for increased economic benefit and political harmonization through ASEAN integration alone is limited, the organization could still prove useful as a common regional point of reference in tackling more important policy determinants at national and global level.

Selv om Danmark efter sigende fik »verdens bedste miljølov« i 1973 præges miljøbeskyttelsesloven af iværksættelsesproblemer. Halvdelen af de særligt forurenende virksomheder modtager ikke et eneste tilsynsbesøg om året, og halvdelen af virksomhederne har stadig ikke en miljøgodkendelse. Da reguleringen er altovervejende baseret på ren administrativ styring med et imponerende ressourcekrav, må markarbejderne i miljøforvaltningerne udvikle særlig konsulentrolle som reaktion på et administrativt overload. Implementeringen af miljøbeskyttelsesloven må ses som en genuin politisk proces, snarere end en mekanisk af en vedtagen lov. Stærke interesser af økonomisk og bureaukratisk karakter fik under udformningen af lovgivningen indbygget en række indflydelsesmuligheder og vetopunkter med henblik på implementeringen, hvor aktørerne såvel legitimt som illegitimt fortsætte spillet fra beslutningsprocessen om reguleringen. ; The basic danish environmental law, passed in 1973, was structured with extention of the traditional patterns of participation, not only delegating local authorities a major responsibility, also allowing interest organizations of the regulated to play a major role during implementation. chosen regulation was solely administrative and during the decision-making process the different actors managed to complicate the law with further vetopoints as well as accesspoints influence. The implementation gap in Danish environmental regulation is to be explained the genuine political character of the implementation proces. The complicated procedures rules are defended by the strong interests, and the resulting administrative overload influences strategies of the street-level environmental bureaucracy. Often ignoring formal rules the local inspectors seek an advisor-role helping companies to comply, but leaving more than half of the especially polluting firms unattended, according to offical figures. The prevailing neo-corporative regulation seems unable to cope with the need for change arising from the ecological crisis.