Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Preface -- Contents -- About the Author -- Abbreviations -- Chapter 1 Introduction -- Regional Organizations and Normative Arguing -- Organization of the Book -- References -- Chapter 2 The Politics of Normative Arguing in Regional Organizations -- Regionalism and International Society -- Regional Primary and Secondary Institutions: A Framework -- Organizational Stability and Change -- Theoretical Benefits -- Analytical Approach and Methods -- References -- Chapter 3 Decolonization: Setting the Stage for Regionalism -- The Institutions of the Colonial International Society -- Dismantling Imperialism -- The Second World War and its Impact on Feedback Effects -- Normative Arguing and Asian Decolonization -- Summary -- References -- Chapter 4 Founding Years: Building Regional Organizations in Postcolonial Spaces -- The EEC's Association Framework and the Imperial Question, c. 1945-1963 -- The Empires Strike Back -- African Decolonization and the Emergence of Developmentalism -- ASEAN and the Issue of Nonalignment, c. 1945-1967 -- New Discursive Arenas, Nonintervention and Anti-hegemonism -- Building ASEAN -- Summary -- References -- Chapter 5 Legal Integration: Regionalizing Judicial Authority -- The Constitutionalization of EC Law and European Citizenship, c. 1961-1992 -- The Institution of Democracy and the Constitutionalization of Community Law -- Toward European Citizenship -- The ASEAN Charter and Dispute Settlement, c. 1976-2007 -- Building Momentum for Legal Integration -- The Charter-An ASEAN Constitution? -- Summary -- References -- Chapter 6 Enlargement: Redefining Regional Boundaries -- EU Enlargement and the European Neighbourhood Policy, c. 1961-2007 -- The Greek and Spanish Applications and the End of the Cold War as Exogenous Shocks -- Toward Copenhagen: Debating Membership Institutions -- Dealing with a New Neighborhood.

This book explores the normative foundations of ASEAN and the EU. It revives the history of the two organizations in an in-depth narrative of the protracted arguments surrounding their establishment, legal integration and enlargement. While political actors used norms to legitimize their ideas for institutional change, the complex and dynamic nature of these norms also provided the breeding ground for contestation and, sometimes, institutional sclerosis and failure. Recasting these processes in an innovative English School framework, the volume makes a crucial contribution to the literature of Comparative Regionalism that goes beyond Eurocentric perspectives. Kilian Spandler is researcher at the School of Global Studies of the University of Gothenburg, Sweden.--

ASEAN member states have invested substantially in cooperation on humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR). Despite broad support for the idea of 'localizing' HADR governance, the rise of regional agency has in practice led to uncertainty and frictions between humanitarian stakeholders. The article makes sense of these tensions by investigating the narratives through which intra- and extraregional agents construct the role of the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management (AHA Centre). Based on the assumption that narratives are central legitimating practices when new agents enter a governance arena, it analyzes textual material produced by different humanitarian organizations that operate in Southeast Asia, as well as interviews with representatives from these organizations. Their accounts of the AHA Centre's role can be grouped into four narratives that are bound up with competing ideas about regional humanitarian order: an affirmative one, a skeptical one, a critical one and a transformative one. The article thus rejects characterizations of regional HADR as a rationally designed 'architecture' and instead defines it as a deeply political arena where different conceptions of order are asserted, contested and negotiated. (Pac Rev/GIGA)

"Regional Organizations in Southeast Asia" published on by Oxford University Press.

Der Beitrag argumentiert, dass die variierende Erklärungskraft klassischer Theorien regionaler Integration auf normativ eingebettete Diskursdynamiken zurückzuführen ist. Grundlegend für diese These ist ein Modell regionaler Integration, das Anleihen bei Theorien kommunikativen und strategischen Handelns einerseits und der English School andererseits nimmt. Im Gegensatz zu den rationalistischen Frameworks von Intergouvernementalismus und Neofunktionalismus stellt es die diskursive Verfasstheit von Integration in den Vordergrund. Dementsprechend begreife ich konkurrierende Integrationslogiken nicht als objektive Kausalmechanismen, sondern als Diskursmotive. Deren Resonanz in konkreten Aushandlungsprozessen von institutionellem Wandel wird von einem normativen Kontext bedingt, der sich aus regionalen Primärinstitutionen konstituiert. Durch eine vergleichende Studie von Verrechtlichungsprozessen in der Europäischen Union (EU) und der Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) zeigt der Beitrag die variable Bedeutung funktionalistischer frames für institutionellen Wandel in Regionalorganisationen und erweitert so unser Verständnis der 'scope conditions' klassischer Theorien. Damit schlägt er eine Brücke zwischen der Europäischen Integrations- und der Vergleichenden Regionalismusforschung.

This article intends to contribute to the theorising of institutional change. Specifically, it asks how dynamics in the 'deep structure' of international society correspond to changes in more specific institutions as embodied by regimes and international organisations. It does so by taking up the distinction of primary and secondary institutions in international society advocated by scholars of the English School. It argues that, while the differentiation offers analytical potential, the School has largely failed to study secondary institutions such as international organisations and regimes as autonomous objects of analysis, seeing them as mere materialisations of primary institutions. Engaging with the concepts of structuration and path dependence will allow scholars working in an English School framework to explore more deeply the relation between the two kinds of institutions, and as a consequence devise more elaborate theories of institutional change. Based on this argument, the article develops a theoretical model that sees primary and secondary institutions entangled in distinctive processes of constitution and institutionalisation. This model helps to establish international organisations and regimes as a crucial part of the English School agenda, and to enlighten the political mechanisms that lead to continuity and change in international institutions more broadly. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractThis article intends to contribute to the theorising of institutional change. Specifically, it asks how dynamics in the 'deep structure' of international society correspond to changes in more specific institutions as embodied by regimes and international organisations. It does so by taking up the distinction of primary and secondary institutions in international society advocated by scholars of the English School. It argues that, while the differentiation offers analytical potential, the School has largely failed to study secondary institutions such as international organisations and regimes as autonomous objects of analysis, seeing them as mere materialisations of primary institutions. Engaging with the concepts of structuration and path dependence will allow scholars working in an English School framework to explore more deeply the relation between the two kinds of institutions, and as a consequence devise more elaborate theories of institutional change. Based on this argument, the article develops a theoretical model that sees primary and secondary institutions entangled in distinctive processes of constitution and institutionalisation. This model helps to establish international organisations and regimes as a crucial part of the English School agenda, and to enlighten the political mechanisms that lead to continuity and change in international institutions more broadly.

AbstractThis article compares the European Union's (EU) actorness in foreign financial policy to that of the US and ASEAN. It thus contributes to the dialogue between EU studies and the New Regionalism by putting it into practice through comparative research. It argues that a process‐oriented interpretation of the actorness concept can be used to compare the EU to both nation‐states and international organizations at the same time. This makes it possible to examine the 'nature of the beast' in specific foreign policy contexts on empirical grounds. The case study analyses EU, US and ASEAN actorness in the IMF reform negotiations within the G20 framework. The findings suggest that a 'two‐way comparison' of the EU is not only possible but also provides valuable empirical insights into the role of informal politics in the EU and other regions.