Suchergebnisse

Die Doktorarbeit analysiert den Einfluss der Europäischen Union auf andere regionale Organisationen wie den Südostasiatischen Staatenverbund im Bereich der Menschenrechte und geht insbesondere der Frage nach, wie die interregionale Interaktion im Bereich der Menschenrechte zu der Bildung von regionalen Identitäten in Südostasien führt. Die Arbeit trägt in diesem Sinne zu der Forschung über die Diffusion von Ideen und Normen in der internationalen Politik bei. Jedoch relativiert diese Studie die eindimensionale Betrachtung der EU als "normative Macht" und attraktives Modell des regionalen Regierens, die durch ihre Außenpolitik die "Soft-Macht" besitzt, ideelle Veränderungen in den Ländern und Regionen des globalen Südens hervorzurufen. Stattdessen knüpft die Dissertation an die Regionalforschung über Südostasien an, welche die relative Autonomie der lokalen und intraregionalen Ideen, Akteure und Machtstrukturen betont. Zwischen diesen beiden konzeptionellen Polen entwickelt diese Arbeit eine Zwischenposition, die verstärkt den Fokus auf die Interaktion zwischen den normativen Machtansprüchen der EU und den intraregionalen Dynamiken im Bereich der Institutionalisierung auf regionaler und nationaler Ebene von Menschenrechten legt. Der Erfolg der EU-Menschenrechtsbemühungen ist von der Entwicklung regionaler und menschenrechtskonformer Identitäten in Südostasien/ASEAN abhängig. Dieser Prozess kann nur durch die Einbindung der lokalen Akteure und ihre Deutungsmuster sowie durch Berücksichtigung ihrer strategischen Interessen gelingen. Deshalb hat die EU in diesem Kontext weit weniger Einfluss als man in der bisherigen Forschungsarbeit zur EU-Außenpolitik anzuerkennen bereit war. Jedoch zeigt die Forschungsarbeit, dass die kontinuierliche Auseinandersetzung zwischen der EU und ASEAN im Rahmen ihrer interregionalen Dialoge durchaus zu einem Umdenken in Bezug auf die Akzeptanz der Menschenrechte in ASEAN geführt hat. Der Stand der intraregionalen Veränderungsprozesse variiert jedoch zwischen den unterschiedlichen lokalen Akteuren wie auch den einzelnen Staaten. Im Zuge dieser intraregionalen Verhandlungsprozesse ist es einigen staatlichen Akteuren, Staaten und der zunehmend transregionalen Zivilgesellschaft gelungen, auch einige regionale Beschlüsse zu erzwingen oder durchzusetzen, wodurch die Institutionalisierung des Menschenrechtenschutzes im ASEAN-Raum vorangetrieben werden konnte. Die Dynamik steht aber sehr am Anfang und es ist noch ungewiss inwieweit die Gruppe der regionalen Akteuren, die tatsächlich den regionalen Menschenrechtenschutz in ASEAN ausbauen wollen, sich innerhalb der ASEAN-Gemeinschaft konsolidieren und ihre Ideen umsetzen können.

Reacting to the devastating effects of the Asian financial crisis of 1997/8, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has recently increasingly embarked upon a range of reforms aiming at greater regional integration. At the same time, the various states and societies in Southeast Asia have undergone complex political, economic, and social transformations that have led to greater levels of democratization and more empowered civil society actors, as well as new elites. Consequently, the ASEAN leadership has come under both internal and external pressure to become more inclusive in its decision making and to adopt not only greater economic liberalism but also the political dimensions thereof, of which human rights, democracy, and civil society are all essential features. These principles have gradually been included in ASEAN's regional governance architecture. This article focuses on the role of regional civil society (RCS) in this process of transformation, especially regarding the incorporation of human rights into the normative core of ASEAN. Unlike the criticism that has been spread dismissing RCS as a weak and negligible force due to the authoritarian inclination of ASEAN states, I argue that RCS has actually consistently developed its capacity to shape human rights regionalism in ASEAN. I conclude that RCS exerts always productive power and sometimes also compulsory power - thereby formulating a different regional identity discourse in ASEAN, specifically one that is human rights-conforming. However RCS is indeed weak in terms of institutional and structural power, and thus there is still a long way to go before it becomes a fully empowered actor in the policymaking and political processes of ASEAN. (Asien/GIGA)

The aftermath of the Cold War has brought a shift in the West's position on the acceptance and promotion of international human rights standards in developing countries. In this context, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member countries challenge the West's position based on two contradictory principles — comprehensibility and cultural embedment of human rights. In this article, I argue that interactions with regard to human rights involving state and non-state actors in ASEAN have become part of the process of regional identity formation. How ASEAN has responded to external pressures in terms of compliance with international human rights norms, and how it has developed its own normative and procedural approach to human rights at the regional level, are inherent in the dynamics of `Self' definition. A mixed pattern of `rhetorical' and `communicative action' explains how interaction has led to different phases — differentiation, affirmation, contestation and re-orientation — in the dynamics of `Self' definition of ASEAN with regard to human rights.

Since the early 1990s, human rights have been a contentious issue for relations between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the European Union (EU), especially in the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM). It is an issue that has constantly led to tensions in interregional cooperation. However, the ASEAN-EU dialogue on human rights has, in fact, had a significant impact on regional dynamics by stimulating the process of regional identity formation, especially in Southeast Asia. The core mechanism through which this development takes place is that of interaction, the process in which the two regional groupings engage while negotiating human rights policy. It can be argued, therefore, that interregional and intraregional human rights interactions are mutually dependent. ASEAN's rather confrontational mode of interaction with the European Union in relation to human rights has served as a catalyst for the dynamic growth of a collective definition of self in ASEAN. It has led to an 'essentialization' of ASEAN's idea of self as opposed to a common other, something which has undermined the possibility of maintaining an interregional dialogue that is not confrontational. However, it has also contributed to the development of a regional space for communicating about human rights and has thus played a central role in the gradual transformation of ASEAN's collective identity formation. (Pac Rev/GIGA)

This volume examines why democratization and military reforms stagnate in newly democratizing countries. It blends historical, ideational, cultural and structural explanatory factors to analyze the trajectories of military reform in Indonesia and Nigeria

This volume seeks to explain why democratization and military reforms stagnate in newly democratizing countries. The contributions blend historical, ideational, cultural and structural explanatory factors to analyze the trajectories of military reform in Indonesia and Nigeria, two major regional powers that share many structural commonalities. In the tradition of the literature on security sector reform (SSR), the book not only scrutinizes executive initiatives toward military reform, but also provides ample coverage of societal actors. Findings show that while military reform is stagnating in both countries, societal forces ought to be taken into account more as major driving forces in explaining military reform. Several chapters study how legislatures, non-governmental organizations and the civilian defence epistemic community contribute to the transformation of military institutions. The last part of the book tackles another aspect rarely studied in the literature on military reform, namely, the role of militias in military reform.