This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of European Integration
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713393849
East Asian Regionalism and EU Studies
Philomena Murrayab a School of Social and Politics Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia b UNU- CRIS; College of Europe, Bruges; Institute for International Integration Studies, Trinity College Dublin, Online publication date: 09 November 2010
To cite this Article Murray, Philomena(2010) 'East Asian Regionalism and EU Studies', Journal of European Integration, 32:
6, 597 — 616
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2010.518718 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2010.518718
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
European Integration Vol. 32, No. 6, 597–616, November 2010
East Asian Regionalism and EU Studies
Downloaded By: [Murray, Philomena] At: 23:53 10 November 2010
School of Social and Politics Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia;, UNU- CRIS; College of Europe, Bruges; Institute for International Integration Studies, Trinity College Dublin
PhilomenaMurray Taylor 2010 0 6 32 firstname.lastname@example.org 00000December & Francis Journal 10.1080/07036337.2010.518718 GEUI_A_518718.sgm 0703-6337 Original and of Article European (print)/1477-2280 Francis2010 Integration (online)
ABSTRACT This article examines the development of Asian regionalism and the scholarship on regionalism in Asia in relation to EU studies. It provides a brief overview of the development and relative successes to date of East Asian regionalism. It then examines scholarship on the East Asian region — the principal approaches, concepts and methods before moving on to ask what, if anything, scholars of EU studies can learn from scholarship on the East Asian region and what, if anything, scholars of the East Asian region might learn from scholarship on the EU. It seeks to establish some pathways to deeper dialogue between scholarly understandings of the EU experience of integration and the East Asian experience of regionalism, aiming to contribute to comparative regional integration analysis. It argues that the key characteristic of European integration theory is an ‘institutions plus embedded norms’ framework and that the distinguishing feature of East Asian regionalism is a framework of architecture based on open economic regionalism, normative priors and security imperatives. KEY WORDS: Regionalism, economic integration, ASEAN, security, institutions
Introduction The study of Asia’s regional architecture has become an increasingly important field of research in recent years. The security politics of the region have altered, with the rise of China, the US’s re-engagement in the region (Feigenbaum and Manning 2009; Tow 2009; Wesley 2009), tensions between the two Koreas and territorial disputes. Debates focus on transnational issues and on changing power dynamics in the region. Scholarly analysis indicates concerns about power shifts between China and the US,
Correspondence Address: Philomena Murray, School of Social and Politics Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 2010, Australia. Email: email@example.com
ISSN 0703–6337 Print/ISSN 1477–2280 Online/10/060597-20 © 2010 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2010.518718
normative underpinnings also differ (Acharya 2009). according to Acharya Downloaded By: [Murray. if anything. normative priors and security imperatives. Normative priors are defined by Acharya (2009. He implies that they can also be rejected. concepts and methods. Indeed. of course. This article examines the development of Asian regionalism and the scholarship on regionalism in Asia in relation to EU studies. Philomena] At: 23:53 10 November 2010 . due to very different origins and normative settings. the EU is characterised by embedded institutionalism. Tow and Tayler 2010) although the term is utilised in Asia and more broadly in debates of scholars and epistemic communities regarding transnational cooperation. it asks what. security imperatives and the relationship with the US. The definitions of region. if anything. East Asian regionalism is characterised by a concept of architecture that is not clearly defined within Asia (Ayson and Taylor 2009. Deliberations on regionalism in Asia encompass concerns about a strong overarching security architecture.2 This architecture consists of open economic regionalism. Further. it examines scholarship on the East Asian region — the principal approaches. That is. economic integration and soft institutionalism. It argues that the key characteristic of European integration theory is an ‘institutions plus embedded norms’ framework and that the distinguishing feature of East Asian regionalism is a framework of architecture based on open economic regionalism. decisions and practices developed over time. regionalism and architecture remain contested in Asia. Realist concerns with sovereignty and security are often at odds with neo-functionalist notions of economic cooperation. scholars of the East Asian region might learn from scholarship on the EU. Dissatisfaction with current regionalism in Asia has opened up a new policy and discourse space in the debates on East Asian as well as in Asia Pacific regionalism. Secondly. such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) way of consultation. scholars of EU studies can learn from scholarship on the East Asian region and what. with recent debates regarding proposals for formalised regional architecture. 4) as existing local beliefs and practices that determine how external norms are incorporated. economic regionalism and norms. differing in the perception of sovereignty. normative priors. formal institutions and leadership — differences evident in debates regarding security. seeking to contribute to comparative regional integration analysis. Normative change and institution-building are best viewed.598 Philomena Murray reflected in examinations of security issues rather than institutional design. The study of Asian regionalism has a distinctive history compared to European integration. In contrast. consensus and adherence to state sovereignty. supranational institutions alongside intergovernnmentalism and a Treaty basis. Vogel (2010) argues that ‘the security balance in Asia is the single biggest issue confronting regionalism in the Asia-Pacific’. 188.1 The article firstly provides a brief overview of the development and relative successes to date of East Asian regionalism. Thirdly. It seeks to establish some pathways to deeper dialogue between scholarly understandings of the EU experience of integration and the East Asian experience of regionalism. supported by an acquis communautaire or body of norms.
the relationship among Asian states is most important. in a Cold War context. Rather. The key objective was to create a region of peace and stability. as ‘evolutionary processes contingent upon prior regional norms and processes’. ASEAN has brought about enduring peace and stability in the region. pandemics. It is in the area of norms that ASEAN is distinctive and where there are discernible normative priors. noninterference in other member states and a rejection of supranational institutions. development. includes norms of behaviour and interaction. while EU specialists regard them as an essential and necessary foundation of the integration process. response to natural disasters. These remain core elements of Southeast . Malaysia. neutralism and nationalism. peaceful resolution of conflicts. Vietnam. that are comparable with the EU. Its political imperative was — and remains — that of managing intra-regional conflicts. Philomena] At: 23:53 10 November 2010 There is no single understanding of an Asian region or of Asian regionalism. 4). Laos. It is noteworthy that the term ‘architecture’ can be confusing — and has even been rejected as inappropriate for scholars of Asian security: rather than an institution that brings states together. often EU-focused. Yet there are discernable features in ASEAN. due to the negative. Malaysia. Singapore. ASEAN is characterised — since its origins — by respect for sovereignty. He presents regionalism as a threat to national sovereignty and autonomy and argues that norms should constitute more than moral norms and include behavioural norms (Acharya 2009. He argues that the existence of normative priors constitutes the reason why some ideas and norms find acceptance while others do not (Acharya 2009. poverty reduction and peace monitoring. defined by Acharya (2009. its intergovernmental framework and processes. Regional integration in Southeast Asia has experienced significant progress since ASEAN was founded in 1967 by Indonesia. It has a firm commitment to multilateralism. are crucial (Ayson and Taylor 2009. 7). and so the rules and patterns of behaviour among major actors on a regular basis. social progress and cultural development. Its members are in agreement in their desire to confront common challenges such as trade liberalisation. The ASEAN way. Thailand. Singapore. The Experience of Regionalism in Asia Downloaded By: [Murray. terrorism. often referred to as the Asian Way (Acharya 2009). Philippines. connotations that the term ‘institution’ may carry. the principles of non-interference and respect for the core issue of sovereignty. 172). economic integration and norms. Its objectives were to accelerate economic growth. 44–6. the practice of consensus and consultation and avoidance of confrontation. Asian policymakers and many scholars tend not to examine formal institutions. 68–9) as the combination of anti-colonialism. Burma Myanmar and Cambodia — with a population of 591. as seen in Tables 1–3 regarding security.East Asian Regionalism an EU Studies 599 (2009.3 million. as well as nations’ political will to work together. Asianists use the term architecture instead. It currently consists of Brunei Darussalam. Philippines and Thailand in response to perceived military threats. for example. Indonesia. 193–4).
although they came under renewed scrutiny after the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997–98. also supranationalism Asian regionalism. communist Yes. There remain bitter divisions between each pair of Northeastern member states. Certainly. or the resolution of issues relating to human rights. The three Northeast Asian states differ markedly from ASEAN. ASEAN’s security concerns are increasingly filtered through the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). 409). To utilise Acharya’s concept. liberal Yes. enmity and rivalry. rule of law norms Capitalist member states Communist member states Common religious traditions Ideology Consensus Sovereignty Identity Reconciliation Supranational institutions Intergovernmentalism Downloaded By: [Murray. with light institutionalisation. ratified in 2008. Thus economic cooperation can proceed without the resolution of normative priors or of security concerns. Scholars agree there has never been a single .600 Philomena Murray Table 1. ASEAN Plus Three established the Chiang Mai currency swap initiative after the Asian Financial Crisis as a network of bilateral agreements to swap and repurchase central bank reserves among ASEAN Plus Three countries. Jetschke 2009. Selected comparison of normative context in ASEAN and the EU Features Democracy.3 While some scholars and policy leaders regard ASEAN as the core body to drive future Asian regionalism. efforts have been made to bring the ASEAN states closer together. in order to provide some financial mechanism for support in the aftermath of the Asian Financial Crisis. when the ASEAN way did not lead to the resolution of that crisis. with the ASEAN Charter. informal Intact Limited Some achieved No Yes EU Yes Yes No Yes Capitalist. and others as a symbol of stability and peace in a fraught region (Morada 2008. ASEAN Plus Three — ASEAN plus China. with little organisational coherence as a grouping. Philomena] At: 23:53 10 November 2010 ASEAN Since ASEAN Charter 2008 Yes Yes No Capitalist. ASEAN’s role in soft institutionalism and its non-interference principle are regarded as impeding its development into a harder and more formalised entity (Dent 2008. inefficient. Scholars and policymakers alike are divided in assessments of ASEAN’s role — some see it as less relevant. Japan and South Korea — became institutionalised in 1999. 91). Normative priors can explain a preference for a looser architecture. and the resistance to the creation of a set of institutions with binding decision-making. formal Shared Yes Yes Yes Yes. or umbrella structure of networks and webs of alliances. Tay (2009) argues that these mechanisms are strengthening and ‘can foster greater coordination in currency and finance’. Despite considerable scepticism among many analysts. normative priors are distrust.
further. investment. New Zealand and India as members. Its objectives are to foster constructive dialogue and consultation on political and security issues of common interest and concern and to make significant contributions to efforts towards confidence-building and preventive diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific. Philomena] At: 23:53 10 November 2010 regional security architecture in the Asia-Pacific — only competing architectures. and the freer flow of capital’ (Koh 2008. In 2000. a considerable improvement on earlier decades. 170–71). http://www. seeking to attenuate territorial disputes between ASEAN states and China in the South China Sea and other territories and. at the ASEAN Plus Three summit in Singapore. Selected comparison of security architecture in East Asia and the EU Features World War II Origins Cold War origins Security community International actor aims Architecture Reconciliation US involvement Intergovernmentalism ASEAN Partly Yes Disputed No ASEAN Regional Forum Limited Security anchor. with the roles of the US and China clarified. 9). to keep the US anchored in the region as a security guarantor. ASEAN has managed to create a partially integrated market and production base. services. The ARF is the only regional security dialogue forum in Asia. thus the score card for ASEAN remains mixed. This EAS first met in December 2005 and discussed the development of a free trade area or agreement (Dent 2008. The criteria for EAS membership are that the country must already be a dialogue partner of ASEAN.org/ 18137. as illustrated by Table 3. business. Intra-regional trade in ASEAN stands at 26. 4 Recent debates have examined whether the ARF’s role should be strengthened as the major security body of the region. Table 2 illustrates some comparative features regarding security in Europe and East Asia. The EAS brings together leaders in a regional forum on strategic dialogue and action relating to important challenges facing the East Asian region.8% as a share of total trade (ASEAN.aseansec. the idea of an East Asia Summit (EAS) was first proposed. a set of tangled webs of interconnectivity (Tow 2008). must subscribe to ASEAN’s Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC).East Asian Regionalism an EU Studies 601 Downloaded By: [Murray. there is continuing deliberation about how best to advance regional integration. professional people and skilled labour. ARF Yes EU Yes Yes Disputed/yes Yes Common Foreign and Security and Common Security and Defence Policy Yes NATO Yes. While these achievements are significant.htm). With regard to economic regionalism. also supranationalism . and must Table 2. It seeks to bring about closer regional cooperation. with Australia. There remain problems in creating a single market and increasing intra-regional trade. with increasingly free flow of ‘goods. The ‘tangled’ characteristic renders the task of redesigning architectures a major challenge.
whose political system is still authoritarian. and setting up the principles of organising and creating a regional community’ (He 2009. Acharya 2009). The normative commitment to democracy as a binding principle is not an accepted normative prior in all of East Asia — unlike the EU.602 Philomena Murray Table 3. due to longstanding and bitter relationships between China and Japan. 10). They must however be placed in context by the normative context of the practice of consensus. Selected comparison of economic integration in ASEAN and the EU Features Single market Free Trade Area Economic community Development levels Economic and social development levels Deregulation Regulation Functional cooperation Neofunctional cooperation ASEAN No AFTA 2015 Huge disparities Low to mid Limited Limited Yes Limited EU Yes EU 1993 Few disparities Mid to high Yes Yes Yes Yes Downloaded By: [Murray. consultation and the desire for reconciliation. Philomena] At: 23:53 10 November 2010 have substantive relations with the grouping (Tow 2008. he argues in favour of the participation of civil society and NGOs in Asian regionalism . 47). providing vision for. ‘has ruled out a democracy requirement for East Asian regionalism. and that Singapore. 10). He points to the diversity of political systems. the fact that the most powerful state that has shaped Asian regionalism is China. Like many Asianist scholars. Baogong He (2008. Integration analysts agree that the EU’s achievement of peace and stability is a sine qua non of its success. If democracy was imposed as a necessary condition. 2009) argues in favour of what he calls normative regionalism playing a key role in ‘guiding. Malaysia and Cambodia only have an electoral form of democracy. Comparing Regional Bodies Two particular areas of concern in the study of Asian regionalism — and scholarly focus — are economic and security issues. While security is the key concern here. although there are elements of it in the ASEAN Charter (2008). This uneven political development. This leads to the question of what norms and values are evident and important in the region and whether democracy is a key value for regional partners (Levine 2007. he argues. the EAS has also facilitated economic cooperation. In some cases there may be a normative commitment to democracy. It is not at the basis of any regional body in Asia. Japan and Korea and Korea and China. such a normative requirement would inhibit the development of East Asian regionalism’ (He 2009. Some Asianist scholars argue that there cannot be any effective regional entity if the need for reconciliation is not tackled.
The second tendency examines the central role of state sovereignty. and. The design approach examines institutional architecture with regard to ASEAN. ASEAN Plus Three (China. whether these are best encapsulated in the term ‘regional architecture’. feature (Caballaro-Antony 2008). and tends to focus on the endogenous factors of East Asian. Tay 2009). along with the pivotal role of the US as a security guarantor (Tow 2009). and also as to whether ASEAN is the cradle of intensified regionalism. Tackling transnational traditional and non-traditional security challenges in regional bodies such as ASEAN and the ASEAN Regional Forum. have a role to play in facilitating Asian regional integration. Hatoyama 2009. The first tendency regards the state’s vulnerability as a justification and context for regionalism to become a viable approach to cooperative decision-making. there is debate as to whether a dominant Asian hegemon is crucial to — or undermining of — the development of serious regional integration. Asianists are examining how an Asian qua Asian theory or set of theories of regionalism could develop and how this might interact with EU studies.East Asian Regionalism an EU Studies 603 Downloaded By: [Murray. such as the EU and Australia. Although Japan put forward a proposal for East Asian regionalism in 2009 (Hatoyama 2009). Design choices have been framed as the choice between institutionalisation and flexibility or between closed and open regionalism. to a lesser extent. concerns about — and some disappointment with — the current state of regionalism in Asia has opened up a new policy and discourse space in contemporary debates. There is a need to further explore whether there are distinctively non-European. White 2008. especially in trade — as an impetus for the creation of regional bodies or the intensification of regional linkages and transnational cooperation. APEC. Philomena] At: 23:53 10 November 2010 There is a burgeoning discussion across the Asia Pacific regarding the EU’s integration experience. Considerable attention is devoted to the role of the external hegemon — the US — and how it might support or undermine attempts at more formalised regionalism (Vogel 2010). Asian concepts of regionalism and. a focus of much of the literature on ASEAN. Scholarship on Asian Regionalism In scholarship on the Asian region. Japan and South Korea). It has been noted by Acharya (2009) and Mahbubani (2008) that the Western approach to the literature on regional integration can appear hegemonic. Finally. security and economy. The state-focused approach relates to the role of the state. The recent Australian proposal (Rudd 2008) for an ‘overarching architecture’ is examined as a means of reconceptualising regionalism. if so. state. The third scholarly approach examines increasing interdependence — and the need to tackle globalisation. regional bodies. in broad terms. with two tendencies particularly pertinent. The Asian Financial Crisis in 1997–98 illustrated the vulnerability of East Asian financial markets and the limitations of economic and financial . and particularly Southeast Asian. Approaches have tended to focus on design. particularly in the wake of the 2008 Australian proposal for an Asia Pacific community and the 2009 Japanese proposal for an Asian Community (Rudd 2008. Questions are being raised as to whether non-Asian actors. Soesastro 2009.
with a general lack of commitment to the region arising from a ‘failure to recognise the nexus between the region’s economic integration. ASEAN has had limited success in encouraging regionalism beyond support in principle (Morada 2008). They examine how the region is dealing with the rise of China and the changing role of the US in the region. prompting analysis of intensifying regional cooperation (Kawai 2007). 73). A third cleavage is among those who seek formal bodies and those who regard informal norms and practices as the most appropriate organising principles for the region. and the welfare of the individual member states and their regimes on the other’. The commitment to common norms has not been easy. While increased intra-regional trade is a sound basis for further regional integration. such as the fact that businesses in ASEAN do not regard regional market integration as being in their interest and thus do not apply pressure on their governments to take the necessary measures (Severino 2008. there is a distinction between those who regard ASEAN as the core regional body in Asia and the Asia Pacific and those who argue that a broader Asia Pacific regional body is most appropriate. Philomena] At: 23:53 10 November 2010 . a result of ‘protectiveness and narrow economic nationalism’ (Wah 2007. its common prosperity and the political stability that it brings on the one hand. Vogel 2010) — or whether bodies should be strengthened. 422). Firstly. Severino (2007. They debate about whether Asia needs to move beyond soft regionalism (Vogel 2010) and the key issue of who should lead in Asian regionalism (White 2009). Secondly. A further challenge is the lack of agreement on which grouping would be best to move integration forward in Asia (Kawai 2007). three cleavages appear. Current debates among scholars of East Asian regionalism focus on concerns as to whether a new regional body or architecture is necessary in East Asia (Tow 2009. with ASEAN’s regional integration slow though progressing (Tay 2009). Recent analysis points to the Global Financial Crisis leading to individual national responses rather than a coordinated regional response (Rillo 2009). some analysts point to significant problems undermining deeper economic and financial cooperation in Southeast Asia. 203) and the ASEAN tendency ‘to pursue economic integration and political cohesion discretely and independently of each other’ (Severino 2007. For the first time there is serious consideration of options that move beyond open and closed regionalism (Ravenhill 2007) and beyond the two traditional concerns of Asian regionalism scholars — economic cooperation and security. there is division among those who regard the current bodies as satisfactory basis of regionalism and those who seek new bodies.604 Philomena Murray interconnections. 415–16) regards ASEAN’s economic integration as ineffectual. China is not a driver of regionalism although it has signed a key free trade agreement with ASEAN recently and is increasingly embedded in East Asian intra-regional trade. In this regard. These are increasingly discussed as part of a larger problem — the shadow cast by China’s economic weight and its free trade agreement with ASEAN as well as security concerns. East Asian nations have not been fully successful in managing economic affairs on a regional level (Soesastro and Drysdale 2009). The shadow of the past is evident in rela- Downloaded By: [Murray.
First. Some. The issue of hard power is being examined in the context of the US. Architectural design is a concern of some Asianist scholars. Moreover. 373) argues that while the EU’s regionalism Downloaded By: [Murray. The challenges to regional entities are regarded as pressing. such as Wesley (2009). types of FTAs. There are greater economic. is one of the key factors to successful integration’. and to be regarded as new drivers of Asian regionalism. Other scholars have focused on security concerns — the role of the ARF. in part occasioned by the Australian and Japanese proposals. A further set of scholars examine interdependence in terms of common problems at both regional and global levels. such as haze pollution and counterterrorism. The traditional role of the US as soft — and hard — power appears to be partially counterbalanced by other soft powers in the region — China and to a lesser extent the EU. Japan seeks a more active role in the region based on a desire to mend relations with its neighbours and to build a regional body that excludes the US. Past examinations of Asian regionalism have tended to focus on economic concerns relating to the choices between open or closed regionalism (Ravenhill 2007). systematically different patterns of politics and policies’. Asian regional cooperation has been driven by markets (Hidetaka 2007. social and political disparities in Asia than in Europe as well as differences of religion. Katzenstein (2007. Capannelli 2009. the US. Both the Rudd and Hatoyama proposals sought to embrace. 396) suggests that Asia and Europe have ‘regionally specific. Others see a core role for ASEAN and the ARF in seeking to maintain stability (Morada N 2009). China and global terrorism and people movement issues. in policy and conceptual terms. but also of China. Okagaki 2009) as a result of its specific history and geography (Nair 2008). analyse the region with a concert of power approach that involves only major players in the Asia Pacific. unlike Asia at present. European integration is seen as ‘internally’ oriented while Asian integration is focused towards the external sphere and the need to remain open to global markets (Capannelli 2009) — regarded as the difference between closed and open regionalism. and to exert pressure on the national governments for its realisation. Differences are evident in comparative examinations.East Asian Regionalism an EU Studies 605 tions of Southeast Asian states with the US and the EU. in different ways. Acharya (2007. Philomena] At: 23:53 10 November 2010 . regional cooperation in Europe has been driven by policy (Capannelli 2009. This is significant as it differs from existing bodies and perceived choices. in different ways and historical contexts and with different outcomes (Murray 2010). The Australian proposal is based on a desire for increased activism as a middle power in the Asia Pacific region. these often overlapping challenges. based on the perception of China as unpredictable and a potential threat. political and economic regional bodies into an overarching architecture. and intra-regional trade. There is scholarly agreement that the processes of regionalism in Europe and Asia have occurred for different reasons. development levels and democratic structures and norms. a commitment to the US remaining in the region and an objective to bring together security. Okagaki 2009) and Hidetaka (2007: 243) argues that ‘European experiences indicate that the existence of business associations with the ability to set up a far-reaching agenda. In this regard. Second. In contrast.
He (2009. however. Rillo (2009. recommends stimulating demand within the region for regional products. regionalism and nationalism. epitomised by the principle of non-interference in ASEAN states. while Yeo (2006. Agreed norms are indispensable for the success of regionalism and shared values essential for its solidity. there are recent calls for increased cooperation. Some themes emerge in considering further developing regional integration. with proposals that ‘low intensity internal conflict’ could be dealt with through regional support for mediation and conflict resolution (Vatikiotis 2009. On the security front. legitimacy and authority’. Morada (2008) reflects policy elites’ discussions regarding a need for an ‘ASEAN Community’ incorporating security. Few policy proposals have emerged. 269) sees ASEAN’s role as that of creating opportunities for enhanced cooperation between Japan and China and to ‘serve as the binding force for institutionbuilding’. in particular. In the process of regionalism the shared norms and values of normative regionalism provide conflict resolution mechanisms. to promote regional peace. as is evident in the focus on sovereignty. 70) regards ASEAN as the means to shape the ‘emerging regional security architecture’. 26). have long ‘enjoyed a symbiotic relationship’ in Asia. 34). stability and security (Rolfe 2008. in adjusting national norms and establishing regional identities and values. 136) proposes a focus on multilateral cooperation and specific functional projects as end goals in themselves. and the practice of consensus as a fundamental norm in ASEAN and ASEAN Plus Three. He argues that Regionalisation involves substantial changes in normative thinking and behaviour. the two processes. Scholars concur that territorial disputes remain a key problem. Severino (2007.606 Philomena Murray Downloaded By: [Murray. B. 414) sees a need for a shared regional approaches to political and economic issues. Desker (2008. Nair (2008. the coordination of monetary and fiscal policies and the establishment of regional financial architecture. arguing that ASEAN should take advantage of ‘the increasing momentum on regional economic integration’. while providing greater support for non-elite grassroots regionalisation to prevent regional projects from suffering a loss of credibility due to a growing deficit between expectations and results. The role of the nation state differs considerably from Europe. and for an acceptance of the alignment of regional interests and national interests. emphasising the need for ‘common outlooks and positions and in the exercise of collective leadership’ built on economic cooperation. with ‘merit in terms of representation. Philomena] At: 23:53 10 November 2010 came about from a failure of nationalism. Transnational cooperation in order to deal with global threats and regional disasters remains a key challenge for policymakers. 109) and the Rudd proposal identifies the need for a more structured regional security architecture. economic and socio-cultural forums. CaballeroAnthony (2008) sees it as incumbent on ASEAN and its partners to deal with threats. 7) regards the Rudd proposal as inclusive. both those posed by instability and those arising from environmental and health crises. .
its impact on its neighbourhood. the analysis of the EU remained firmly EU-centric (Murray 2009b). The domestic impact of the EU and Europeanisation and. Firstly. Past engagement had been limited for a number of reasons. Can we create a coherent body of comparative regional integration analysis across the EU and ASEAN and ASEAN Plus Three? What are the problems in comparing European and Asian regionalism? A challenge identified by Huber (2003. which she explains as follows: (1) They can increase confidence in the usefulness of our concepts and theories. 1–3) is relevant here — analysing several cases in two or more regions demands significantly increased investment in knowledge of cases. of comparative regional integration. The international impact of the EU was often examined in the context of bilateral relations or development aid. Rumford and Murray 2003). Yet she points out the benefits immediately: ‘refinement of concepts and theories. and within a development (donor–recipient) paradigm in Asia. Downloaded By: [Murray. it has long been the case that EU studies have not engaged adequately with global and transnational trends. scholars in the fields of European integration. Philomena] At: 23:53 10 November 2010 . (3) They can highlight the existence of different paths to the same outcome and thus the need to develop new theories. Fourthly. and cross-regional comparison deserves a central place among our research designs’. as it sought to manage or to domesticate globalisation trends and impacts (European Council 2001. remained a focus of EU studies and a substantial body of work has developed on this (Borzel and Risse 2009) and the ‘Europeanisation beyond Europe’ literature focuses on how the EU seeks to directly induce non-member actors to adopt and follow its rules and its indirect modes of EU external governance (Schimmelfennig 2009). for many years. scholars of Asia did not observe in the EU useful comparative potential. and of Asian regionalism often belonged to different disciplines. whether within their disciplines or sub-disciplines or across them. it is difficult to be a specialist on both European and Asian regionalism when each remains within their area of specialisation (Murray 2005). She suggests that cross-regional comparisons can do at least three things. Secondly. if we find similar processes in widely different contexts. globalisation was regarded as a challenge for the EU. Indeed. (2) They can force us to modify concepts and better specify theories with regard to contextual variables. not acknowledging the multi-dimensionality of globalisation and its uneven or contradictory impact on the EU (Rumford and Murray 2003). Comparative examinations tended to be EU-focused. Thirdly. although some scholars developed research agendas on the international impact of the EU and new regionalism (van Langehhove and Marchesi 2008). with the EU regarded as either intrusive and so the antithesis of the Asian Way or as simply so advanced as to have little comparative value.East Asian Regionalism an EU Studies European Integration and Asian Regionalism — Towards a Fruitful Dialogue 607 Engagement between scholars of the EU and of East Asia is growing. subsequently. Further.
Downloaded By: [Murray. The core principle of sovereignty is central in East Asia. Katzenstein (2007. modest in scope and clear as to what is and is not shared. the regions themselves often contrast starkly with each other. for example. serious comparative examination is warranted regarding the role of the US’s huband-spokes approach in the Asia-Pacific and the distinctive position it adopted regarding the construction of a European Community. if we find similar processes in Europe and Asia. Levels of development and living standards vary considerably. Drawing on Huber. if used with some flexibility. Europe could be regarded (especially from a distance) as homogeneous. there is considerable room for comparative analysis. ‘should be able to illuminate and explain aspects of social and political life irrespective of where we apply them’. Great power competition could necessitate regional strategies to deal with the changing US role in Asia (e. in terms of religion. which is heterogeneous in terms of race. as well as multilateralism and regionalism. for example. our comparative regional integration study could usefully increase scholarly confidence in the usefulness of the concepts and theories. In terms of security. individual trade and development aid agreements and by a inter-regionalism. It is also useful to compare the US approach to bilateral agreements in the Asian region with the EU. It should comprehend pathways of elites and civil society and businesses to regional integration. It can lead scholars to modify concepts and better specify theories with regard to contextual variables in Asia and Europe. also characterised by a hub-and-spokes approach of. norms and economic integration. including colonisation. the US is a more important soft power there. We have seen that the study of East Asia has been primarily in the fields of security. relatively high levels of economic and social development and a common economic ideology. Democracy co-exists with authoritarianism and communism. and there is no common economic ideology. Finally. 399) proposes that theoretical models of integration. is the only effective hard power in Asia. religion and the different historical experiences. it is important to undertake a comparative examination of different paths to a regional architecture so that students of regions see the need to develop new theories over time. Although the EU advances an image of itself as a soft or normative power in the Asian region. Our analysis must be comparative in context. Comparisons can be problematic when we recall that not only are regional structures different. In these three areas. in what I call opportunistic regionalism. The EU utilises bilateralism when it suits its own interests. a security guarantor traditionally in both Asia and Europe.608 Philomena Murray It is important to ensure that the study of Asian regionalism does not privilege the European experience over others. ethnicity. Wesley 2009). Where the EU differs normatively from the US is in its attempt to export and promote regional integration as a distinctive EU norm. A further field for fruitful comparison of the EU and Asia is that the US. This is in considerable contrast with East Asia. Philomena] At: 23:53 10 November 2010 . with ASEAN on trade and functionalist issues. race and historical experiences.g. The EU is distinguished by democratic systems and the rule of law.
Can Asia Draw on Europe’s Experience? Although there is general agreement that there are considerable differences between European and Asian regionalism. comparative analysis sometimes has not examined the EU. The role of the state. Similarly-named structures in different regional settings rarely produce similar results and consequences. and whether the EU experience might seriously be considered as a field of comparative analysis for Asian regionalism. as we have seen. 134) argue. EU specialists and Asianists have engaged fruitfully over the last decade or so. sees realism and neo-realism as scholarly prisms through which to examine Asian regionalism. suggesting that Asian policy elites consider governance principles such as EU-style consensus and subsidiarity (Capannelli 2009). bringing together EU–Asia relations specialists in conferences. Higgott 2007. Some scholars have contended that Asia can draw on the European experience. or relevance for. and was in its own silo with little serous analysis of the differences and comparators of the EU and Asia. A further challenge is that the EU has been a benchmark in scholarly analysis as much as it has been in policymakers’ discourse (Murray 2010). similar nomenclature does not imply similar functions. Capanelli (2009) is not alone in suggesting that Asia needs to find its own path to increased cooperation and integration. and how to develop regional integration in the ‘backyard’ of major regional powers (Aggarwal and Koo 2007. Ravenhill 2007. Philomena] At: 23:53 10 November 2010 In terms of architecture. Asia and vice versa. the European experience is increasingly debated in the literature on Asian regionalism. Thus. This engagement has been valuable. strengthening networks of transnational scholarship. This resulted in two developments. This has meant that the EU was regarded as so ‘advanced’ in integration that it was not comparable to other regional bodies with more ‘open’ regionalism.East Asian Regionalism an EU Studies 609 Downloaded By: [Murray. However. however. that ‘Europe’s way is not directly transferable to East Asia’. The roles of the Committee of Permanent Representatives in the EU and in ASEAN differ considerably. However. Morada 2008). A Japanese scholar recently suggested that: . seeking to examine EU–Asia relations and whether EU theory might have any applicability to. although the ASEAN Charter provides scope for comparative analysis. measures to effectively use regional institutions to deal with security issues (Giessmann 2007). White 2009). Caution is required in seeking to identify those features that are not comparable and those that might be conflated. means to engage civil society in consultation about regional integration (Giessmann 2007. efforts to deal with trans-border issues and institutions to enhance compliance (Higgott 2007). yardstick or even as model. being state-centric and focused on the importance of state sovereignty and non-interference in East Asian intergovernmental structures. The second is the centrality of the EU in comparative regional integration analysis as benchmark. relatively little work has been carried out into how the EU might learn from Asian regionalism. Park and Wyplosz (2008. The first is a dichotomy of what can be referred to as open and closed regionalism scholars.
These range from industrial policy (Chang 2006) to open regionalism. It is instructive for EU policymakers and scholars to examine varieties of regionalism. Philomena] At: 23:53 10 November 2010 . it ‘is that spirit we need to capture in our hemisphere. Asian regionalism. Europeans could dwell on the Asian approach of open regionalism. they suggest. while recognising that the EU ‘does not represent an identikit model’. Security is central to Asia. examining why open regionalism is seen as so important in Asia and where. he continued. has been driven by informal interaction and the growth of economic transactions (through the operation of multinational corporations and Chinese networks) without policy coordination or state-based negotiation. scholars can carry out a comparative analysis of the ASEAN Way with the acquis communautaire as well as norms and the creation of identity (Acharya Downloaded By: [Murray. The EU is addressing changing security concerns both in Europe and beyond and it could draw on an understanding of the security web of alliances and bilateral arrangements in Asia in order to develop foreign policy approaches in that region. Formal treaties or negotiations precede increased interaction in Europe — making regionalism in Europe politics-led or policy-induced. (Okagaki. Kevin Rudd (2008) made the case that ‘most people would now agree that the goal of the visionaries … to build prosperity and a common sense of a security community has been achieved’ and. the extensive experience of negotiating FTAs. and the distinctive approach to multilateralism and globalisation in a less formalised manner than that adopted by the EU. in contrast. there might be a role for open regionalism in Europe. post-Global Financial Crisis. comparing the debates on norms and behaviour and developing conceptual understandings of patterns of normative behaviour in comparative perspective (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998). In this regard. to clearly define powers both among regional institutions and between regional and national institutions. There is scope to examine how and why norms are understood differently in Europe and Asia. 2009) The recent Australian initiative for an Asia Pacific community recognises EU ideas and vision. Capellini and Filippini (2009) suggest that the EU provides a useful example of ‘the importance of creating a backbone of economic laws and good market governance. prosperity and a security community rather than an economic context only.610 Philomena Murray Regional cooperation in Europe is extensive in scope and intensive in formal institutions and legal norms. The consensus style of decision-making can be studied as an alternative to the Monnet method. and to introduce specific rules for proportional contributions to the budget — all useful for the Asian context’. The role of reconciliation and choosing a reconciliation moment may be of use for Asian scholars to reflect on. Can Europe Draw on Asia’s Experience? There is a small but growing body of literature on how Europe can learn from Asia.
such as trade issues. Thailand and the Philippines wish to advance. There is comparative scope for a research project on ethnic and territorial disputes in each region. They could explore the role of individual member states in leadership — and. Both ASEAN and the EU have been contributors to peace in their respective regions — ASEAN with Cambodia and the EU in civilian crisis management (Huxley 1996. as illustrated above. while Singapore is an advocate of increased economic integration. Both EU and Asian studies can benefit from an analysis of this literature on realism. Both can engage equally profitably on normative actorness and normative regionalism and on soft and hard power. There are tensions that have deepened over the last decade. This could include EU–Asia cooperation in multilateralism and the Asia Europe Meeting. migration and terrorism. flexible engagement is one which Indonesia. they have experience in inter-regional peace support in the Aceh Monitoring Mission. haze). AIDS. They have some common features — such as incrementalist approaches to policymaking — and there are others that are unique and distinctive. Collaborative transnational projects could examine the challenges of migration. Comparative responses to the Global Financial Crisis require examination.East Asian Regionalism an EU Studies 611 2007) and the role of constructivist approaches in both regions (Acharya and Stubbs 2006. on the US as a regional hegemon. They constitute attempts within historical time-frames to move towards interstate cooperation and even beyond national sovereignty. These include environmental protection (pollution. transnational challenges. Responses to the challenges of globalisation. Katsumata 2006). Scholarly dialogue is increasing. In this regard there is scope for both comparative analysis and examination of commonalities. Philomena] At: 23:53 10 November 2010 . Dosch and Mols 1998. in democracy promotion and in economic regionalism. Conclusion: What is Common and Trans-regional? The Potential for Research Agendas There is a field of cases to be analysed across time. The nexus of state. Issues relating to human rights and to Burma Myanmar remain a focus for research. regular and frank Asia-Europe dialogue which would allow both sides to forge a common stance on key security threats’ (Islam 2010. Narine 2009). people movements. refugees. soft security. hard security and the role of the US. It has recently been argued that ‘[W]hat is missing is a vibrant. in the case of ASEAN. A research programme could examine commonalities of EU and ASEAN responses to similar. The centrality of realism and security studies to the study of Asian regionalism is not to be ignored. and on China’s influence on regionalism. 16). Regions are characterised by some commonalities of objectives. In addition. all come together to present a more complex and arguably more interesting research programme for scholars. In terms of priorities. reach and achievement. There is little comparative work to date on Downloaded By: [Murray. scope. region and globalisation require further analysis. along with lessons for both regions from the Asian Financial Crisis.
Wesley 2009). individual liberty. the leaders need to be in concert and agreement. There is growing potential for EU and Asian concepts of regionalism to enrich each other. These competing conceptions of regional normative order create different expectations and visions of how the East Asia regions should evolve. In a scholarly context. statist power and Asian culture or values (He 2004. which renders East Asian commitment to sovereignty an impediment to tackling common intra-regional issues (He 2004.612 Philomena Murray the US as a regionalising agent in the EU and as a hub-and-spokes agent in Asia and regarding the differing roles of US national interest in the two regions. and the creation of regional organisations able to override national governments.g. Levine 2007. 2009. the aims and gains have to be identifiable. A robust research agenda is feasible. individualism and free trade or closed regionalism to Asian states (He 2004). Thirdly. Acharya 2009). Downloaded By: [Murray. whether advocating open regionalism. the reduction of national sovereignty. Asia might consider the adoption of some of the EU’s governance principles and possibly enhance Asia’s capabilities of economic cooperation (Capannelli 2009). Yet there are different normative elements and tensions between European and East Asian regionalism: the EU’s normative foundation is democracy. This article has sought to draw out the differences and commonalities in East Asia and the EU. yet states are challenged to be flexible enough to surrender some sovereignty to regional organisations in order to make them effective. an Asian qua Asian theory or set of concepts of regionalism is developing. while not necessarily adopting the institutional structures and extensive practices and acquis of the European Union. Tow 2009. Europe and Asia can learn from each other. they tend in the Asian case to relate to either community-building based on the Asian way or on security norms of balance of power (e. human rights. the norms and interests need to be discernible and of benefit. 122). the value of human rights. democracy. Further. Although norms matter in these dialogues. In both regions. a study of region-building in comparative terms will usefully focus on key issues. with respect for national sovereignty. while the normative foundation of Asian regionalism is nationalist doctrine. the examination of the US–China relationship and the role of multilateral fora for security. Secondly. The degree to which security issues feature in the Asian debates have some resonance for Europeans’ concern about the rise and potential threat of China. Philomena] At: 23:53 10 November 2010 . there is scope for these to engage with other studies of regionalism more than in the past. Recognition of these distinctive issues may well counterbalance a current Western approach to regional integration as the dominant research pathway. in both contexts (e. He 2008. Firstly. 107). Nationalism is the driving force behind East Asian regionalism. Conceptual frameworks relating to norms are increasingly drawn on.g. There are differences in normative underpinnings of these regions and proposals for closer cooperation. Europeans might seriously consider examining Asia’s open regionalism to minimise discrimination against non-members. The Asian regionalism literature may well continue to have as its focus the notion of architecture.
R. 2009. and B. under Article 20. Laos. for example. Acharya. Journal of East Asian Studies. ed. The concept of an Asia Pacific community remains contested as to whether it can be regarded as a region or simply refers to the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC). Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat. Aggarwal. 2007. 3. Cambodia.aspx). because transnational and trans-regional scholarly dialogue has grown. Kolleg-Forschergruppe The transformative power of Europe. 4. See. Risse. and Risse. summit diplomacy.. 2008.org/). New Zealand. Journal of East Asian Studies 3: 360–69.org/AboutUs/tabid/57/Default. This paper focuses on East Asia — ASEAN Plus Three.aseanregionalforum. European Union. roundtable: Peter J. based in Jakarta (ASEAN 2008. Indonesia. ASEAN. Its members are: Australia. democracy and human rights and the role of the US. ‘Made in America? Agency and power in Asian regionalism’. The European Union and the diffusion of ideas. Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea. 2009. Downloaded By: [Murray. Theorizing Southeast Asian relations: an introduction. The ASEAN Charter. 2: 125–34. Timor Leste. V. T. The emphasis on consultation and consensus remains a key feature of the Charter. R. 2009. . and M. 2009. The Charter stipulates that there will be an ASEAN Summit twice yearly. The Pacific Review 19.A. Canada.East Asian Regionalism an EU Studies 613 Finally. Börzel. Working Paper no. Canberra: ANU E Press Börzel. It appears the time has come for the taboo to be placed to one side and for existing fruitful dialogue to be increased.eastasiaforum. Chapter VII. Pakistan. 2. India. Architectural alternatives or alternatives to architecture? In Rising China: Power and Reassurance. Japan. May.. The past lack of dialogue among scholars of Asian regionalism and European integration has now moved from silo experiences. there is a Committee of Member States’ Permanent Representatives to ASEAN. Ayson. scholars of EU studies can learn from the policy of and scholarship on the East Asian region and scholars of the Asian region can learn from the policy of and scholarship on the EU. The Transformative Power of Europe. Cook (2009. Kolleg-Forschergruppe The Transformative Power of Europe. markets. Papua New Guinea. Sri Lanka. Republic of Korea. References Acharya A. the East Asia Forum (http://www. In addition. 3: 370–78. United States and Vietnam (see http:// www. The transformative power of Europe. Taylor. 2007. Mongolia. The evolution of regionalism in East Asia.org/) and the ASEAN Institute of Strategic and International Studies (http://siiaonline. Thailand. and T.. Brunei Darussalam.. Scholars can learn from mutual sharing of conceptual and theoretical understanding of regionalism in comparative perspective — on security. Bangladesh. the Singapore Institute for International Affairs (http://www. A.org/?q=node/3144). that ASEAN Foreign Ministers serve as the ASEAN Coordinating Council and that there is a single Chairmanship for key high-level ASEAN bodies. Huisken. Article 12). The European Union and the Diffusion of Ideas. A. 1. T. 2006. Philomena] At: 23:53 10 November 2010 Notes 1. Philippines. Stubbs. 185–99. and R. Katzenstein’s contributions to the study of East Asian regionalism. T. Singapore. 1) recently suggested that referring to the EU experience is both ‘taboo and unavoidable at the same time in the increasingly esoteric world of Asian regionalism’.siiaonline. NY: Cornell University Press. Working Paper 1.. Russian Federation. Malaysia. Myanmar. Koo. Whose ideas matter? Agency and power in Asian regionalism. Ithaca. Acharya. no. China.
New York. Asian regionalism: how does it compare to Europe’s? East Asian Forum. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Normative regionalism in East Asia. 2008. Asia-Pacific Review 15. 14 and 15 December. Lee. ASEAN at forty: perception and reality. ASEAN at 40: prospects for community building in Southeast Asia. Hatoyama. International norms and political change. 2008. 2007. G. D. July 2010. B. 2003. 2006. 63–8. 2009. 2010. He. Y. no. The new Asian hemisphere. European Council. 77′83. 102–35. M. Mols. Industrial policy in East Asia — lessons for Europe. H. Paper presented at workshop on Asian regionalism. S. no. 26 November. Morada. P. constructing talking shop or a ‘norm brewery’. 2007. The Pacific Review 9 . Japan’s regionalism choice. ‘ASEAN at 40: prospects for community building in Southeast Asia’. Brussels. Kawai. Melbourne. Regionalism reconsidered. Asia-Pacific Review 14. M. no. 24 September. Evolving regional financial architecture in East Asia. G. Tokyo: United Nations University Press. B. no. Council for Foreign Relations.. Capannelli. Australian Journal of International Affairs. 1. Sikkink. Timmermann and J. 3: 407–26. 2: 1–6. Dosch. 2: 62–81. 71–85. Higgott. The ASEAN charter: an opportunity missed or one that cannot be missed? Southeast Asian Affairs. no. no. M. Hidetaka. C. 2007. 2009. and Filippini.614 Philomena Murray Caballero-Anthony. Thirty years of ASEAN: achievements and challenges.. 26 November. 14. Morada N. T. 2009. K. R. 2008. Southeast Asia in the study of international relations: the rise and decline of a region. Baogang 2004. APSA — CP. 2008. speech by Ong Keng Yong. 58(1): 105–25. Deakin University. Asia-Pacific Review 15. N. Journal of East Asian Studies 3: 378–87. London: Routledge. The Pacific Review 19. C. The role of cross-regional comparison. no. The Organized Section in Comparative Politics of the American Political Science Association.. Politics and Policy 35. 1998. The irresistible shift of global power to the East. 21 April. ‘ASEAN community building: challenges and prospects’. Letter from the president. Jetschke. Paper presented to workshop on Asian regionalism. Huber. M. 1996. 2: 167–82. Presidency conclusions. H-J. 2009. T. Working Paper Series on Regional Economic Integration No. 50. East Asian and European Economic Integration: A Comparative Analysis. New York: Public Affairs. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. 2: 181–98. Address by H. Y. M. Huxley. 2008. Europe and Asia as global security actors. E. In Regional outlook Southeast Asia 2008–2009. Regionalism and crisis prevention in (Western) Europe and (Eastern) Asia: a systematic comparison. and R. Institutionalizing ASEAN: celebrating Europe through network governance. Prime Minister of Japan at the sixty-fourth session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. eds. Manning. 1: 36–55. Cook. 2008. Tsuchiyama. 2009. Yukio Hatoyama. Mahbubani. Desker. Giessmann. S. 15–18. Asian Development Bank. November. Philomena] At: 23:53 10 November 2010 . and K. 2007. Dent. Levine. Page 21 Chang. Capellini. J. 2008. 2001. Deakin University. Establishment of the ASEAN Regional Forum. Ong KY 2007. no. He.A. ‘East Asian ideas of regionalism: a normative critique’. 2007. New security dimensions in the Asia-Pacific. B. E. In Institutionalising Northeast Asia: Regional Steps towards Global Governance. 2009. A. no. no. 1998. Secretary- Downloaded By: [Murray. 2007. 2: 217–43. May. East Asian regionalism. no. The cultural dimension of Rudd’s Asia Pacific community. Koh. Dr. eds. ASEM 8 visibility support in view of the ASEM 8 summit Brussels. Journal of East Asian Studies 3: 395–412. Feigenbaum. 2006. 29. EIB Papers 11. Council Special Report no. Laeken..E. pp. 2008. The United States in the New Asia. Regional Outlook Southeast Asia 2007–2008. European Journal of East Asian Studies 6. Nair and P. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 22. The Pacific Review 11. 2: 106–32. Katzenstein. Finnemore. and M. 8–11. He. Asian values and the Asia Pacific community: shared interests and common concerns. The theory and practice of regionalism in East Asia.M. Katsumata. In International Organization (Autumn): 887–917. Melbourne. Islam.A. H. 2: 199–288. 2009. 1: 56–75. Regional integration and business interests: a comparative study of Europe and Southeast Asia.O.
Regionalism in the Asia Pacific/East Asia: a frustrated regionalism? Contemporary Southeast Asia 31. 2010. Andreosso-O’Callaghan. Murray. Architectural momentum in Asia and the Pacific. Singapore. The EU’s norm diffusion in the promotion of regional integration in East Asia. D. L. at the Singaporean–German Chamber of Industry and Commerce monthly luncheon. Park. 6 May. Canberra. 57–71. Lee. International Politics 47. 1: 99–117. W. European Commission. 2005. Taylor. http://www. and B. W. Nair and L. Globalization and the limitations of European integration studies: interdisciplinary considerations. Tow. Marchesi. In Sage Handbook of European Studies. London: Sage.org/lreg-2009-3 Severino. http://ec. P.html (accessed 17 November 2009). 2009. East Asian Forum. http://www. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. 2008. 227–44. 2010. In search of an East Asian region: beyond network power. Rumford. C. Should Asia emulate Europe? In Regional integration — Europe and Asia compared. Murray. D.europa. P. Rumford. Rillo. Zimmek. Contemporary Southeast Asia 29. Tay. Drysdale. In Regional outlook Southeast Asia 2008–2009.aseansec. and C. W. Okagaki.org/?q=blog/ asean-a-re-think-needed (accessed 3 November 2009). R. 2009. 1: 91–118. Downloaded By: [Murray. 197–215. Wyplosz. Sydney. A. no. NOMOS. July. Europeanization beyond Europe. Asia Society Austral Asia Centre.org/21158.org. S.. and P. East Asian Forum. Murray. 3: 406–23. Murray P. 14 June. 2009. Tangled webs. Schimmelfennig. S.. A. A regional–global nexus? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 2008. 2009a. Nair. H. Freie Universität Berlin. no. 1: 85–93. Living Reviews in European Governance 4. Europe as a model of regionalism in the Asia-Pacific. Tow. Security politics in the Asia Pacific. 27 November. Australian Strategic Policy Institute. no. 6 December. ed. Rudd. 2009. Moon. Asia–Pacific Review. 72–3. W.htm [accessed 22 May 2010]. eds. 2009. It’s time to build an Asia Pacific community. T. ed. http://globalcitizens. European Economy. no.. Regional power Europe? The place of the EU in comparative regional integration analysis. Baden-Baden. and B. ASEAN beyond forty: towards political and economic integration. Katzenstein’s contributions to the study of East Asian regionalism.siiaonline.C. J. Journal of Contemporary European Studies 11. 3. P.au/speeches/speeches_current/s55_PM_Rudd_AD2008. 2009. roundtable: Peter J.eu/economy_finance/publications (accessed 8 November 2009) Ravenhill. eds. K. Ashgate: Aldershot.livingreviews. Narine. In Elements of Regional Integration: A Multidimensional Approach. 2009.. Soesastro. Y. Thinking about the Asia Pacific Community. Paper presented at the International Conference on the ‘Transformative Power of Europe’. no. H.eastasiaforum. available from http://www. September. Murray. What is Asian security architecture? Review of International Studies 36: 95–116. Kösler and M. eds.org/2009/05/06/relativising-europe-as-a-model-of-regionalism-for-theasia-pacific (accessed 20 September 2009).asiasociety. and P. 2007. Economic Papers 329. ASEAN economies: challenges and responses amid the crisis. 2008. 1: 110–42. no.. 308–29. Regional security for the Asia-Pacific: ends and means. Monetary and financial integration in East Asia: the relevance of European experience. Contemporary Southeast Asia 30. The Lisbon Treaty and the emergence of third generation regional integration. Regional economic integration and the ASEAN charter. http://www.P. OttoSuhr-Institute for Political Science. Southeast Asian Affairs: 17–27. ASEAN remains important. 2008. Van Langenhove. Murray. J. 2005. Uses and abuses of the concept of integration. 2009. Rolfe. 4 June. East Asian Forum. Tow. 10–11 December. 2008. 3–4. Soesastro. 2008. Security architectures in Asia. Comparative regional integration in the EU and East Asia: moving beyond integration snobbery. F. May–July. 2008.. 15(1): 36–55. and D. ASEAN and regional governance after the Cold War: from regional order to regional community? The Pacific Review 22. no. Philomena] At: 23:53 10 November 2010 . 2003. 2008. 2007. European Journal of Law Reform 4: 595–614. 2009b..East Asian Regionalism an EU Studies 615 General of ASEAN. Journal of East Asian Studies 3: 387–94. C. Severino. Global Citizens. R. Strategy Paper.
Vogel. ASEAN. Woolcott. White. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. R. White. 3: 395–405. Towards an Asia Pacific community. Japan. East Asian Forum. Asialink.H. 26 April. The Asialink Essays. 18 October. E. 2008. In Security Politics in the Asia Pacific.lowyinterpreter. http://www. and the construction of an East Asian community. 2009.aspx (accessed 12 November 2009). Regionalism in Asia: why we should stick with existing structures. A Regional-Global Nexus?.616 Philomena Murray Vatikiotis. no. Sydney: Lowy Institute. Institutions and power. R. Woolcott. H. Wesley. 2009b. The Interpreter. Asia Pacific institutions. http://www. Contemporary Southeast Asia 29. The Asia Pacific Community concept: right task. M. Wah. Managing armed conflict in Southeast Asia: the role of mediation. L.org/2010/03/30/regionalism-in-asia-why-we-should-stick-withexisting-structures/ (accessed 5 April 2010). November. The University of Melbourne.. ASEAN — facing the fifth decade. C. East Asia Forum. wrong tool? East Asian Forum.org/post/2008/06/17/Institutions-and-power. Southeast Asian Affairs: 28–35. 9. 49–66. ed. An Asia Pacific community: an idea whose time is coming. 2006. Yeo. Philomena] At: 23:53 10 November 2010 . 2010. Contemporary Southeast Asia 28. M. H. W. Downloaded By: [Murray. 2009. 2: 259–75. no.eastasiaforum. Tow. 2009a. 2009. 30 March. 2007.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.