Suchergebnisse

This book provides an analysis of non-traditional security (NTS) crises and cooperation between the European Union (EU) and Southeast Asia. Using case studies - transboundary air pollution, marine life endangerment, illegal migration, and terrorism - from both Southeast Asia and Western Europe between 2009 and 2016, this book offers a contemporary understanding of the EU as a collective actor within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)-EU and Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) inter-regional dialogue formats and affiliated programmes. Through new empirical insights into the regional and inter-regional institutional dynamics of the EU and ASEAN in times of crisis and rising nationalism in both regions the author demonstrates, in particular, the relevance of the EU as a security and normative actor and the value of inter-regionalism as a foreign and security tool of the EU in Southeast Asia. Thus, this book underlines the importance of regional organisations in the management of contemporary transboundary NTS challenges within global governance. Enhancing topical debates and offering a timely assessment of crisis-induced regionalism and inter-regionalism in world affairs, this book will be of interest to scholars studying International Relations, International Security, Southeast Asian Studies, European Studies, and Public Policy.

"Amidst the Eurozone crisis, the European Union (EU) is stepping up its dialogue and engagement with and within Southeast Asia. The EU's contemporary approach towards Asia emphasises the importance of open economies and common challenges of the 21st Century. So-called non-traditional security issues have been portrayed increasingly as an avenue to share experiences and enhance cooperation between the EU and Southeast Asia. This contemporary conceptual re-orientation demands a closer look at the EU as an actor in Southeast Asia. This book is the first contemporary monograph-length discussion of the EU as a politico-security actor in Southeast Asia post-Cold War. Drawing upon the historical and institutional context and a broad range of empirical case studies, it illustrates that so-called non-traditional security crises are providing an increasingly important frame to enhance the EU as a politico-security influence in the region. It considers the non-traditional security crises of the late 1990s and early 2000s as triggers for enhanced regional and inter-regional cooperation. In doing so, the book construes new insights into our understanding of the EU as a global actor and its normative influence in regions far away from Europe"--

"Amidst the Eurozone crisis, the European Union (EU) is stepping up its dialogue and engagement with and within Southeast Asia. The EU's contemporary approach towards Asia emphasises the importance of open economies and common challenges of the 21st Century. So-called non-traditional security issues have been portrayed increasingly as an avenue to share experiences and enhance cooperation between the EU and Southeast Asia. This contemporary conceptual re-orientation demands a closer look at the EU as an actor in Southeast Asia. This book is the first contemporary monograph-length discussion of the EU as a politico-security actor in Southeast Asia post-Cold War. Drawing upon the historical and institutional context and a broad range of empirical case studies, it illustrates that so-called non-traditional security crises are providing an increasingly important frame to enhance the EU as a politico-security influence in the region. It considers the non-traditional security crises of the late 1990s and early 2000s as triggers for enhanced regional and inter-regional cooperation. In doing so, the book construes new insights into our understanding of the EU as a global actor and its normative influence in regions far away from Europe"--

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 region-to-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 identity-building 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.

Since the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, considerable institutional adaptation has taken place to manage the overlapping areas or the nexus between the EU's security and development policies. Current plans of the European Commission's Service for Foreign Policy Instruments (FPI) to build up structures suggest that this nexus is furthermore driving externalization and external institutionalization efforts of FPI, in particular in relation to FPI's Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP) in Southeast Asia. This envisaged institution-building beyond the EU's borders implies a transfer of the security-development nexus debate and pertinent responsibilities from the Brussels headquarters of FPI to the corresponding structures on site. This thus begs the question whether — if at all — the effectiveness of IcSP in Southeast Asia can be improved through an institutional shift of the nexus debate? Can inter-institutional issues of the EU arising from the nexus be attenuated or even dissolved through externalization processes? In light of the ongoing violent conflicts in Rakhine State and Marawi City at the time of writing, questions about effective crisis response and management in Southeast Asia are more relevant than ever and demand attention to the potential of international assistance providers, namely the EU's evolving security actor capability.

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)

The ruling on 12 July 2016 by the Arbitral Tribunal in the case of the South China Sea dispute between the Philippines and China has had positive impact on the credibility of the Philippines and other Southeast Asian claimant countries. This improved positioning for Southeast Asia vis-à-vis China has however mainly seen the promotion of bilateral country relationships with China and displayed limited utility for the Southeast Asian region as a whole. Despite contemporary unpalatability of multilateralism as a viable means for dispute resolution to the claimant countries, there is an inherent multilateral opportunity to the rise of Sino-Southeast Asian bilateralisms post-ruling, especially favourable for regional, inter-regional, and global for a in which Southeast Asian countries and China interact with international partners. Primary aim of this article is to illustrate this indirect opportunity for multilateralism with focus on the extent to which there has been and is enhanced space for the European Union (EU) and its Member States as international partners to express their commitment to peace and security in the Asia-Pacific in the specific context of the South China Sea arbitration.

Since the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, considerable institutional adaptation has taken place to manage the overlapping areas or the nexus between the EU's security and development policies. Current plans of the European Commission's Service for Foreign Policy Instruments (FPI) to build up structures suggest that this nexus is furthermore driving externalization and external institutionalization efforts of FPI, in particular in relation to FPI's Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP) in Southeast Asia. This envisaged institution-building beyond the EU's borders implies a transfer of the security-development nexus debate and pertinent responsibilities from the Brussels headquarters of FPI to the corresponding structures on site. This thus begs the question whether - if at all - the effectiveness of IcSP in Southeast Asia can be improved through an institutional shift of the nexus debate? Can inter-institutional issues of the EU arising from the nexus be attenuated or even dissolved through externalization processes? In light of the ongoing violent conflicts in Rakhine State and Marawi City at the time of writing, questions about effective crisis response and management in Southeast Asia are more relevant than ever and demand attention to the potential of international assistance providers, namely the EU's evolving security actor capability. (Asien/Hamburg)

The arbitral award in 2016 has had a positive impact on the credibility of the Philippines and other Southeast Asian claimant countries in the South China Sea. However, questions about China's divisive influence in the neighbourhood remain more relevant than ever and necessitate inquiry into the use and utility of dialogue on non-traditional security (NTS) issues in building confidence in times of low confidence, with specific reference to the period of the arbitration process and ruling.

In December 2015, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) celebrated the official establishment of the ASEAN Community. Having emerged in 1967 as a regional grouping of developing countries with minimal shared interests—beyond the common concern of economic growth and national resilience, ASEAN now has established regional structures which have been vital in enhancing development and dialogue on a broad range of issues across the Southeast Asian region. Over the years, the institutional development at the regional level has been accompanied by various efforts to promote regional unity and identity. The more recent years have also displayed that the international community has been supporting these efforts for ASEAN unity and identity by showing greater recognition of ASEAN as an international actor in its own right, for example, through the establishment of numerous country delegations to ASEAN.

The rise of China raises questions about international order and whether traditional power structures will be transformed peacefully or confrontationally. Actively engaged in trade and investment activities with its Southeast Asian neighbourhood, China has been exerting political influence on many Southeast Asian states, cleaving regional cohesion and raising levels of tensity in the region. This article presupposes that within so-called non-traditional security (NTS) areas, there is room for China and Southeast Asian countries to circumvent the political tensions, to some extent. It presumes that NTS issues facilitate greater interaction with/on China for Southeast Asian states, including enhanced European Union (EU)-Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) engagement on China. Recognising the increasing and rather underexplored importance of the NTS perspective on the official and scholarly levels, this article delves into the rhetoric of NTS from a European perspective with particular view towards the South China Sea issue to demonstrate the use and utility of the NTS concept in the EU-ASEAN context against the backdrop of China's rise. (Pac Rev/GIGA)

Attempting to create greater understanding of the political dynamics that influence domestic disaster relief and management (DRM) in Thailand, this article takes a closer look at these dynamics by outlining the main actors involved in flood-related DRM. It acknowledges the importance of international and military actors but emphasises the role of national and subnational authorities. The article then identifies the central issues of DRM governance as capacity and bureaucracy and discusses these through a chronological assessment of the flood crisis in Thailand in 2011, interweaving the colourful domestic politics with various political cleavages and dichotomies, and thereby distinguishing between three main dichotomies which it considers as the central drivers of the political dynamics and institutional development of DRM. These issues can be summarised as old versus new institutions, technocracy versus bureaucracy and centralised (but with direct people-orientation through greater channels of citizenry participation) versus decentralised bureaucracy with an indirect orientation towards people. (JCSA/GIGA)