Suchergebnisse

This book provides the first systematic analysis of new Asian regionalism as a paradigm shift in international economic law. It argues that new Asian regionalism has emerged amid the Third Regionalism and contributed to the New Regional Economic Order, which reinvigorates the role of developing countries in shaping international trade norms. To substantiate the claims, the book introduces theoretical debates and evaluates major regional economic initiatives and institutions, including the ASEAN+6 framework, APEC, the CPTPP and the RCEP. It also sheds light on legal issues involving the US-China trade war and the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as trade policies of Asian powers, the European Union and the United States. Hence, the legal analysis and case studies offer a fresh perspective of Asian integration and bridge the gap between academia and practice.

Relations between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the European Union (EU) have enriched the multifaceted concept of interregionalism from legal and international relations perspectives. The article argues that the transformative ASEAN-EU frameworks have shaped the Third Interregionalism. Brussels' building-block approach envisions pathfinder agreements with individual ASEAN states as the basis for the ASEAN-EU FTA, which will help realize the EU's Indo-Pacific strategy and the ASEAN-EU Strategic Partnership. The designs of the EU's trade and investment agreements with Singapore and Vietnam are therefore critical. The article assesses core areas such as tariff liberalization and ASEAN cumulative rules of origin, as well as commitments of trade in services and non-tariff barriers in key industries. Contributors to the special issue further analyse cutting-edge issues involving electronic commerce and sustainable development. These on-the-ground insights contribute to a new understanding of ASEAN-EU legal frameworks and evolving interregionalism in the post-pandemic era.
ASEAN-EU FTA – CPTPP – Indo-Pacific strategy – Investment Protection – Singapore – RCEP – Sustainable Development – Third Interregionalism – Vietnam

This article re-examines the theories of recognition and non-recognition in the context of the evolving framework of the European Union (EU)'s trade and investment relations with Taiwan from legal and international relations perspectives. Notwithstanding its one-China policy, the EU has developed a pragmatic approach to engaging Taiwan under bilateral consultations and World Trade Organization negotiations that have built the foundation for the bilateral investment agreement (BIA). The article argues that since the 1980s, the EU has accorded diverse forms of recognition to Taiwan and the BIA will buttress the process. To substantiate the contention, the article systemically explores the political and trade policies of European states and EU institutions in line with their strategies toward cross-strait relations.By deciphering the new momentum that has galvanized the European Commission's strategy towards the EU-Taiwan BIA, the research sheds light on the implications of European Parliament resolutions and the EU's investment talks with China. The structure and impact of the BIA are also analysed in light of EU investment protection agreements with Singapore and Vietnam. Hence, the findings contribute to the interdisciplinary study of international law and international relations and enhance the understanding of the EU's Asia-Pacific trade and investment agreements.

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly disrupted the international economic order. According to the World Trade Organization (WTO), the unprecedented health crisis may sink global trade by 32% in 2020.236 As an island state highly dependent on trade, Singapore is expected to encounter a 5.8% contraction in gross domestic product, marking its "worst recession since independence."237 The number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in Singapore surpassed the 45,000 mark on July 7, 2020.238 Most cases have occurred in foreign worker dormitories, whereas the spread of the disease in the rest of the community has been limited. To gradually resume economic activities and ease border controls, the Singapore government embarked on a three-phased approach when "circuit breaker" measures that imposed lockdown ended on June 1, 2020.239 Much discussion focuses on Singapore's domestic policy such as stimulus packages and fiscal measures that provide relief to companies and citizens. 240 Nevertheless, Singapore's lessreported international law strategy toward the crisis yields salient global implications. Selected Asian states that have reasonably managed the coronavirus outbreak, including Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam, have been able to do so without international assistance. Notably different from the self-reliance approach, Singapore has resorted to a two-pronged legal strategy that is built upon international economic agreements at bilateral and regional levels.

The Trump administration declared the "Free and Open Indo-Pacific" (FOIP) strategy as the new U.S. policy on Asia in 2017. This new strategy will have far-reaching implications for U.S.-Asia relations and global governance. The FOIP is conventionally perceived to focus on security dimensions. By "free," the United States expects all countries "to exercise their sovereignty free from coercion by other countries."1 The qualifier, "open," is meant to refer to regional connectivity, in particular including freedom of navigation.2 Notably, the economic dimensions of this component also envision "fair and reciprocal trade" and "transparent agreements."

The article examines the evolution of Taiwan's engagement in Southeast Asia since the 1990s as a unique case study in international law and international relations (IR). Under the one-China policy, the evolution of bilateral relations with Taiwan highlights the theoretical concept of recognition premised on identity and status in interstate affairs. The article argues that the states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have established diverse forms of recognition of Taiwan in line with a policy of non-recognition. While such recognition has not amounted to recognition of statehood in international law, it demonstrates the IR concept of recognition as a gradual process in state practice. To substantiate the contention, the article examines the diplomatic privileges and immunities that ASEAN countries have accorded to Taiwan. The conclusion of bilateral trade and investment agreements has also galvanized various modes of recognizing Taiwan's treaty-making capacity and the legitimacy of official cooperation. Hence, the findings not only enrich the study of IR, but also contribute to a broader understanding of the role of China and contemporary Asia–Pacific politics.