Suchergebnisse

The European Union (EU) perceives itself as a model for regional integration, which it seeks to diffuse by actively promoting the development of genuine (intra-) regional economic and political cooperation, the building of issue- related regimes, and the creation of joint institutions for consultation and decision-making in its neighbourhood and beyond as well as between the world regions and the EU. In this paper, we explore the extent to which EU has sought to promote regional integration beyond its borders. More specifically, we analyze what exactly the EU seeks to export and how it has used its external relations and foreign policy to foster the cooperation between regions (inter-regionalism), on the one hand, and regional cooperation among third countries, on the other. We proceed in three steps. The first part of the paper outlines the mechanisms and instruments through which the EU diffuses the idea of regional integration to other regions and fosters regional integration among third countries. In the second part, we take stock of the EU's attempts to export regional integration focusing on the mechanisms it has drawn upon. We conclude with some considerations to what extent the promotion of regional integration constitutes a genuine EU agenda for global governance.

Abstract Brazil-European Union relations punch below their weight. Cooperation takes place at three levels: relations with European Union (EU) member states, Brazil`s partnership with Brussels, and EU-MERCOSUR negotiations. This multilevel governance contrasts with poor results: there is no free trade agreement, development cooperation became irrelevant, and international positions rarely converge. The article explores the reasons for the underperformance by comparing foreign policy shifts in Brazil and the EU, and analyzing multilevel governance in selected sectors of cooperation. It is based on four assumptions: multilevel relations are uncoordinated, idealist inter-regionalism doesn't work, and crisis-driven, liberal realist foreign policies in Brazil and the EU facilitate bilateralism.

The COVID-19 pandemic is testing international cooperation and presents a particularly daunting challenge to regionalism. The transboundary nature of pandemics requires regional cooperation for successful pandemic management. However, even the two most successful regional organisations, the European Union (EU) and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), seemed unable to muster a sufficient regional response. This was in stark contrast to timely securitisation and robust responses at the national level. Several months into the pandemic, both the EU and ASEAN are somewhat recovering from their initial COVID-19 paralysis. In particular, the EU has responded belated but comprehensively to the pandemic. This report investigates how both organisations responded in the months following the global COVID-19 outbreak, how ASEAN can look towards the EU for regional pandemic management best-practices, and how both organisations can explore greater EU-ASEAN cooperation by building on existing strong inter-regional ties.

This inception paper expatiates on the conditions that are necessary in determining the effectiveness of the European Union's (the EU's) leadership in science and cultural diplomacy (SCD) on regionalism and inter-regionalism in the South. These conditions include willingness, capacity and acceptance. Willingness delineates the scope of the ambition of the EU in SCD. Capacity covers elements that pertain to breadth and depth/ quality and quantity of resources mobilized and available to lead SCD that delivers results. Acceptance refers to the nature of the credibility that the EU is able to command both within and outside the Union respecting its influence to attract followers both amongst Member States of the Union as well as third states, regional and international organizations. The emphasis of the paper is on effectiveness in terms of impact on regionalism and inter-regionalism in the South. Focus is placed on regional and inter-regional processes/ initiatives in Africa, Southeast Asia and Latin America.

In response to the 2015–2016 migration crisis, the European Union established the Emergency Trust Fund for Africa that aimed 'to address the root causes of instability, forced displacement and irregular migration and to contribute to better migration management.' This article questions the logic of this approach to migration management by asking whether African regions can 'better manage migration.' The article examines the normative bases of migration policies amongst the African Union (AU) and six regional economic communities (RECs), as well as the normative bases of the development strategies pursued by the AU and these RECs. The article proposes normative policy coherence for development as an approach to better understand the relationships between regional integration, sustainable development and migration management in Africa.

Inter-regionalism as a form of effective networking multilateralism comes to be suggested for the task of restructuring a crumbling architecture of global governance unsafe for humankind. Safe for the Commonwealth of Citizens turns to be the global governance of networked global institutions within the multilateral system, raised instead of previous differently power-centred forms of international system (unipolar /hegemonic, bipolar, polycentric multipolar). Assessment of merits and disadvantages of Leaders' Twenty (L20) multilateral initiative proves that inter-regionalism offers the best service for effective restructuring of global governance. Out of cross-cutting agencies of states, civil society networks, and international organizations in inter-regional hubs, as the most reliable producers of effective networking multilateralism, much needed building of global institutions will come and their systemic harnessing safe for humankind will eventually set off. ; Interregionalizam kao oblik delotvornog umrežavajućeg multilateralizma učestalo biva preporučivan za 'sanaciju' oronule arhitekture globalne vladavine koja nije bezbedna za čovečanstvo. Bezbedna za komonvelt građana je globalna vladavina koju daje multilateralni sistem umreženih globalnih ustanova, umesto dosadašnjih različito centriranih međunarodnih sistema (jednopolarni/hegemoni, dvopolni/bipolarni, policentrični/ multipolarni). Ispitivanje dobrih strana i slabosti inicijative Dvadeset predvodnika (P20/L20) potvrđuje interregionalizam kao izlaz za delotvorno restrukturiranje globalne vladavine. Iz ukrštajućeg delatništva i država, i društvenih mreža, i međunarodnih organizacija u interregionalnim čvorištima kao najpouzdanijim proizvođačima delotvornog umrežavajućeg multilateralizma može proisteći neophodno pravljenje globalnih ustanova i njihovo sistemsko sprezanje bezbedno za čovečanstvo.

The birregional strategic partnership between the EU and LAC initiated in 1999, has evolved to adapt to both; changes in the global context and the restructuring of power, and changes in regional integration processes that have altered the balance and nature of the relationship. Currently the EU and LAC have multiple levels of relationship - inter-regional, trans-regional and sub-regional - comprising a heterogeneous set of actors in a complex interregionalism scheme, surpassing the traditional categories of the studies on nterregionalism. ; La Asociación estratégica birregional entre la UE y ALC iniciada en 1999, ha evolucionado para adaptarse tanto los cambios en el contexto global y la re-estructuración del poder, como a transformaciones en los procesos de integración regional que han alterado el equilibrio y la naturaleza de la relación. Actualmente la UE y ALC tienen múltiples niveles de relación –global, inter-regional, transregional y sub-regional– abarcando un conjunto de actores heterogéneos en un esquema de interregionalismo complejo, que sobrepasa las categorías tradicionales de los estudios sobre interregionalismo.

On the centenary of the establishment of modern Germany's first democratic republic, this special issue explores how the wealth of scholarship on Weimar culture from the last two and a half decades, since re-unification, has contributed specifically to the discipline of art history and vice versa. It also interrogates where art historical research on the Weimar Republic might be heading? What role, if any, do the Republic's intellectuals, artists and cultural producers continue to play in the present? The issue explores the cultural practices, production and reception of art from across Germany's towns, cities and rural provinces. It includes in-depth analyses of art made by historiographically under-represented Berlin-based women Lotte Laserstein and Jeanne Mammen, as well as by regionally-based artists including lesser-known work by Elsa Haensgen-Dingkuhn, Gela Forster and Heinrich Hoerle. It also includes essays on the overlooked material and iconographic contexts for the Merz collages of the more celebrated Kurt Schwitters, as well as in-depth research on the production and appearance of Notgeld - the vast sums of emergency money that were produced during Germany's period of hyper-inflation, between 1914 and 1923.

We review and analyze some recent research on regionalism. We begin by discussing how various studies have defined regions and regionalism. Because much of the work has been conducted by economists, we then turn to a summary of the economics of regionalism. However, it is widely held that economic factors alone are insufficient to explain regionalism's causes and consequences and that political factors are centrally important. We analyze how domestic and international political factors have guided both economic regionalism and security regionalism. We conclude by outlining some avenues for future research, placing particular emphasis on the need to better integrate insights from political economy and international security in the study of regionalism. Copyright © 2010 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved.

This is a unique and intelligent work that challenges the dominant normative approaches towards regionalism. Based on the author's PhD research, the book navi- gates away from the overused regional comparisons with the European Union (EU), moving towards a South–South comparison; it also avoids treating regionalism in the South as sui generis. Mattheis analyses two regional organisations – Mercosur1 and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) – to answer two major ques- tions: how do regionalisms produce regions; and how does inter-regionalism change the nature of regionalism?

The consolidation of regionalism as a broad field of research attracting scholars across disciplines demands an inquiry on its scientific foundations. This inquiry should consider the object of research, the methods and the theories used. First, regionalism scholars lack a consensually agreed definition of their subject. Second, research focusses mainly in case studies, led by area specialists and comparative research is a rather occasional methodological occurrence. Finally, regionalism has not produced significant theoretical advances vis-à-vis neighbouring disciplines. In summary, regionalism contribution to knowledge is scarce and this paper suggests, instead, applying mainstream political science and international relations objects, methods and theories.

This article provides an account of Our Regionalism to supplement the many accounts of Our Federalism. After describing the legal forms regions assume in the United States — through interstate cooperation, organization of federal administrative agencies, and hybrid state-federal efforts — it explores how regions have shaped American governance across the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. In the years leading up to the New Deal, commentators invoked regions to resist centralization, arguing that state coordination could forestall expansion of the federal government. But regions were soon deployed to a different end, as the federal government relied on regional administration to develop its bureaucracy. Incorporating regional accommodations and regional organization into new programs allowed the federal government to expand its role in domestic policymaking. As interstate regionalism yielded to federal regionalism, the administrative state was propelled forward by a strategy that had arisen to resist it. Even as regions facilitated the expansion of the New Deal administrative state, however, the regional organization and argument that underpinned this development left room for state influence within federal programs and for new projects of multistate and joint state-federal governance. The century's next regional moment brought this potential to the fore, with regions brokering the resurgence of the states in Great Society programs. In the early twenty-first century, new regional undertakings have been celebrated as fluid, nonhierarchical networks. Although the network metaphor has been exhausted, this characterization anticipates the emergence of "regionalism without regions": collaborations among multiple state and federal actors that need not involve contiguous areas. Just as regional improvisation has responded to governance challenges of past decades, this nascent development responds to today's polarized partisanship. It betokens both the revival and the transformation of the political sectionalism that has always informed American regionalism even as it slipped behind an administrative veneer for much of the twentieth century.

Since the Asian crisis and with renewed impetus since the adoption of the ASEAN Charter in 2008, ASEAN has proved to be a formidable source of conceptual creativity pertaining to regional integration. While clinging to ASEAN's defining principle of non-interference, as expressed in the treaty of Amity and Cooperation and while maintaining a persisting aversion for any "Europe-like" transfer of national sovereignty to supranational entities, a new language, symbol of a renewed political rhetoric of integration, has emerged. Formulas, such as "visions", "roadmaps", "blueprints", "connectivity", "scorecards" and "soft regionalism" have served to keep a consensual narrative of a voluntary-based integration, while bringing a qualitative change to the initial 'ASEAN way' doctrine. Whereas neo-realists dismiss them as mere artifacts, aimed at maintaining the "delusion" of an Asian integration process, these new concepts and mechanisms, perhaps, encapsulate the dynamics necessary to fulfill the political commitments put forward by ASEAN leaders in the ASEAN Economic Blueprint, to turn ASEAN into a 'single market and production base' and a 'competitive region' but also the longer-term objective of promoting its centrality as a hub for regional integration in East Asia. ; ISSN: 2294-7828 ; info:eu-repo/semantics/published

This paper aims to elaborate the new circumstances of South East Asia and its impact to form of cooperation and architecture of ASEAN. Despite the ASEAN countries still maintain the state-led regionalism principle, but various changes that took place in this region has risen a various issues that push the emergence of new actors such as seen in the emergence of transnational advocacy netwoks. The limitations of the state-centric regionalism leave the problem of representation. This means that the state perspective will be more determined by political and technocratic calculations. By proposing multitrack regionalism concept, this paper try to show that state-led regionalism is needed to transform into community-led regionalism in order to realize a more democratic regionalism.

"Bibliographical note": p. xi-xii; bibliographical footnotes. ; Mode of access: Internet.