Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Half Title -- Title -- Copyright -- Contents -- Tables -- Preface -- Abbreviations and Acronyms -- 1. American Policies Toward the Global South in the Post-Cold War, Post-Bipolar Era: An Introduction -- 2. American Foreign Policy: Between Isolationism and Internationalism, Unilateralism and Multilateralism -- 3. Decision-Making Processes and Actors in American Foreign Policy Formulation: Is There a Third World Lobby? -- 4. American Foreign Policy Toward Latin America in the Post-Cold War Era: A Case of Benign Neglect? -- 5. American Policy in the Post-Cold War Middle East

There is a dearth of studies exploring the construction of ideas on regionalism outside Europe. This article seeks to make a contribution to close this gap. It examines the construction of ideas on regionalism in Indonesia, the largest member country of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Theoretically, the paper draws from Acharya's concept of 'constitutive localization' which it develops further. It offers an alternative explanation to studies which argue that as a result of mimetic behavior, social learning, and cost-benefit calculations, regional organizations across the world become increasingly similar. While this may be the case in terms of rhetoric and organizational structure, it is not necessarily the case at a normative level. The Indonesian case shows that even though foreign policy stakeholders have increasingly championed European ideas of regional integration after the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997/1998, they have skillfully amalgamated them with older local worldviews through framing, grafting, and pruning. European ideas of regional integration thereby served to modernize and relegitimize a foreign policy agenda which seeks to establish Indonesia as a regional leader with ambitions to play a major role in global politics. Adapted from the source document.

This article addresses the problem of interest representation in regional organizations. Departing from a theory-guided four-dimensional typology, the study explores how the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) responded to normative challenges of its system of interest representation. The findings suggest that ASEAN has skilfully countered external democracy promotion and domestic pressures for democratizing regional governance through variable strategies including rejection, isomorphic adaptation and localization. The multiple strategies employed by the grouping have largely kept intact its 'cognitive prior' which rests on a blending of imported European and older local organicist ideas. Given the resilience of this cognitive prior, the prospects for a wholesale liberal-pluralist transformation of ASEAN's system of interest representation appear dim. [Reprinted by permission; copyright Sage Publications Ltd. & ECPR-European Consortium for Political Research.]

Regional organizations are widely regarded as building blocks of a multilateral order. But this view ignores the fact that regional organizations vary in their contribution to multilateralism, This article therefore adds to Dent's established concept of "multilateral utility" the concept of "hedging utility" which I claim better captures the behaviour of many non-Western regional organizations including the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). In the theory-guided part the article develops six indicators to distinguish the two types of regional organizations: level of institutionalization, governance costs, nesting, agenda-setting, norm entrepreneurship and mode of interaction. Based on these categories, the article examines ASEAN's role as a contributor to a multilateral order. The findings illustrate that indeed "hedging utility" rather than "multilateral utility" better describes ASEAN's agency in shaping international order. The hedging concept resonates well with elite notions of Southeast Asian political culture and also captures the institutional balancing dimension of ASEAN's (security) policies. Adapted from the source document.

This article presents an overview on the state of the art of research on interregional relations. It clarifies underlying concepts and focuses on the theory-guided literature exploring the functions of interregional forums for the emerging global governance architecture. Empirical evidence provided by many of the reviewed studies suggests that interregional relations are part of complex institutional balancing games played by regions which curtail their potential as multilateral utilities. Empirical studies examining norm diffusion between regions are still in their infancy. This leaves considerable space for innovative research going beyond the notion of the EU as a 'normative power' trying to persuade other regions to adopt its model of regional integration. Adapted from the source document.

Southeast Asia's strategic location at major sea-lanes of communication, its previous role as a theatre of super power rivalries, its neighbourhood to China & India, its increasing economic prosperity & its inherent political instability have secured the region unrelenting attention of political scientists. Yet, the region is politically, economically & culturally highly diverse & fragmented. This diversity is also reflected in research on the politics of the region. Southeast Asian politics -- more than any other Asian sub-region -- thus defies sweeping generalizations about the state of the art. However, a paper committed to identify new research trends can not do justice to the diverging research agendas in the region's different countries. It must search for common themes which are relevant for understanding the political dynamics of the region & at the same time enrich the general discourses of the discipline. While this amounts to the squaring of the circle, the following sections nevertheless try to pinpoint where political scientists have made innovative contributions & where lacunae exist. It starts with a few general observations on recent trends in the study of Southeast Asian politics & then proceeds to international relations & comparative politics, two major sub-disciplines of political science. It focuses, albeit not exclusively, on regionalism & democratization as the dominant themes in the post-Cold War period. The paper concludes with a few proposals to improve the institutional context of (German) political scientists working on Southeast Asia. References. Adapted from the source document.

In this essay on the relationship of globalization to state capacities, the author argues that the growing need to manage complex interdependence has paved the way for an acceleration of vertical & horizontal differentiation of international institutions. Interregional dialogue forums between the EU & ASEAN such as the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM), although forming new layers of international interaction & intra-regional institution-building, have had a disappointing overall impact. Four obstacles to interregionalism are identified & discussed in terms of multilateralism & security. The authors propose five points for the maintenance of the relevancy of the ASEM to avoid policy oblivion. The authors conclude that ASEM is valuable as a soft institution with multilateral utility, & a genuine building block for emerging global governance. J. Harwell

Many of the goals of the ZIB have been realized in the last ten years, & the journal today is an internationally comparable exemplary model of German international relations research & a forum for interparadigm discourse, although the empirical association of theoretical contributions has not always been successful & German-language publication inhibits international recognition. However, the journal's strong OECD orientation with only 7.33% of articles that primarily handle nonwestern regions & themes requires revision to forestall a lapse into reproduction of parochial characteristics of German political science. Such emphasis on western regions & themes from a leading publication becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy & leaves the theories of many regional scientists suspect. Fortunately, those few ZIB published articles that handle these nonwestern conflict regions offer a response. Stronger inclusion of nonwestern themes, better interconnection of theory & empiricism, & greater consideration of cultural factors will only sharpen the profile of the ZIB. 10 References. L. Kehl

Soon after the terrorist attacks of September 11 (2001), Southeast Asia became a focus of American anti-terror strategy. Indonesia is not only the world's largest Muslim nation but also a politically unstable state & in a desperate economic condition. The region as a whole still suffers from the aftereffects of the Asian crisis of 1997. On top of that religious & social changes have lead to growing instability & anti-American tendencies in Southeast Asian societies. The governments, however, have pledged support to US-antiterrorist policies. In the US view, Southeast Asia has gained in strategic importance. However, the US & its Southeast Asian allies are walking a tight line: if their anti-terrorist measures go too far, this might undermine democratic reforms & increase the attractiveness of Islamism to the public. 2 Tables, 26 References. Adapted from the source document.

Conclusion: The lessons to be learnt from Europe's inter- and transregional cooperation with Asia may thus be summarized as follows: First, more than any other regional organization – perhaps with the exception of ASEAN – the EU has played an active role in establishing a novel level in international policy-making. Second, more than anything else, the EU's involvement in inter- and transregional fora is marked by balancing. This had, third, repercussions on densifiying international institutions. The dominance of balancing and an unfavorable opportunity-governance cost ratio explain why institutionalizing is based on "soft law" and "soft institutions"; rationalizing, agenda-setting and crisis management performances are less than satisfactory. Fourth and last, the shortcomings of inter- and transregional fora notwithstanding, it would be too pessimistic to conclude with Wolfgang Reinecke that "the current state of global governance resembles at best a loose set of crossnational policy patchworks, conspicuous for their missing links and unnecessary overlaps". Inter- and transregional dialogues established by and with the EU definitely have the potential to become important intermediaries of a multilayered system of global governance with global institutions, regional organizations and the nation states as nodal points.

Globalization has not only created conflict, but also new forms of international order. It has given rise to a multilayered system of global governance that is characterized by increasing functional & spatial differentiation. Much of this differentiation has occurred at the regional level. However, the majority of organizations formed under the auspices of what is known as "New Regionalism" is characterized by soft law & a rather lean institutionalization. This begs the question of how effective these regional organizations are. The article challenges recent findings, which contend that regional organizations with lean institutions display a better performance as crises managers. It argues that regional organizations exhibit variance in terms of crisis management capacities as well as institutionalization. Thus, institutionalization is at best a necessary condition to explain their response to crises. The relationship between opportunity & governance costs, which is further influenced by a number of context factors is a more important determinant. 128 References. Adapted from the source document.