Beyond Actorness: Structure and Agency in EU-ASEAN lnterregionalism

Author(s): Lukas Maximilian Müller

Source: European Journal of East Asian Studies , 2016, Vol. 15, No. 2 (2016), pp. 257-288
Published by: Brill

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44162383

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Brill is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to European Journal
of East Asian Studies

This content downloaded from

1.129.106.165 on Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:52:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 European Journal

ià)
Uti
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF
EAST ASIAN STUDIES 15 (2016) 257-288
of
East Asian Studies

BRILL brill.com/ejea

Beyond Actorness
Structure and Agency in E u-asean Interregionalism

Lukas Maximilian Müller*

University of Freiburg
Lukas, maximilian. mueller@poUtik uni-freiburg. de

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the determining factors of the interregional relationship
between the European Union (eu) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(asean), specifically its institutional proliferation on the three institutional levels of
EU-to-ASEAN relations (bi-regionalism), relations inside as e m (trans-regionalism) as
well as relations between the eu and individual asean member states (region-to-
state). Commonly, interregional relations are seen as depending on the actorness of the
regional organisations involved. This paper proposes an alternative approach, focusing
on structural interdependence and agency on the part of both regional actors as the
two main determinants of the institutional proliferation. The analysis suggests that
levels of political and economic interdependence are low at the bi-regional level and
higher at both the trans-regional and region-to-state level, leading to a proliferation of
institutional structures at these levels. Additionally, the analysis reveals three unique
strategies by asean and the eu contributing to the design of their interregional rela-
tionship. For asean, these strategies consist of (1) omni-enmeshment, (2) vertical and
horizontal hedging, and (3) the rule of relative institutionalisation. For the eu, these
strategies consist of (1) a pragmatic approach towards asean, (2) a widening of inter-
est towards East Asia, and (3) capacity-building bi-regionalism.

Keywords

actorness - asean - European Union - international relations - interregionalism

* The author wishes to thank Astrid Carrapatoso, Arndt Michael, Stefan Rother, Jürgen Rüland,
and Anne-Kathrin Weber for constructive comments at different stages of the study. Natu-
rally, the author bears full responsibility for any errors of omission and commission.

© KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2017 | DOI: 10.1163/15700615-01502005

This content downloaded from

1.129.106.165 on Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:52:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 258 MÜLLER

Introduction

The interregional relationship between the European Union (eu) and the Asso-
ciation of Southeast Asian Nations (asean) is the oldest genuine group-to-
group dialogue between regional organisations and the one that has attracted
the majority of scientific attention on interregionalism. Despite keen and con-
stant analytical interest, researchers have been challenged by the very intangi-
ble nature of interregionalism, consisting of shallow institutions, diffuse objec-
tives and unclear institutional dividends, both in the relationship per se as well
as in multilateral forums such as the un. Despite high expectations following
the end of the Cold War, a deepening of political or economic cooperation
between the eu and asean has not materialised. In recent years, frustration has
crept into many analyses of their relationship. Mainstream approaches have
chalked up the lack of legal deepening and intensification of the eu-asean
dialogue to the asymmetry between the organisations in terms of their institu-
tional capability and coherence.
In a wider political context, the original eu-asean group-to-group dialogue
is increasingly rivalled by other interregional linkages between the organisa-
tions, both trans-regional (institutional relationships containing at least one
regional organisation as well as other states) and region-to-state (institutional
relationships between a regional organisation and individual states). Specifi-
cally, these are the Asia Europe Meeting (as em) as well as the recent Free Trade
and Partnership and Cooperation Agreements (ftas and pc as) between the eu
and individual asean states. At the time of their creation, both types of rela-
tionships were expected to revive interregional cooperation that had stalled
for a variety of reasons and provide a way to bypass the group-to-group dia-
logue at least temporarily. While this did indeed happen in some cases, the
trans-regional and region-to-state dialogues have not only become a perma-
nent feature of the interregional relationship between the eu and asean, but
appear to fulfil similar functions in the realm of economic and political gov-
ernance. An additional feature of the interregional relationship is the financ-
ing of the asean secretariat by the eu with €240 million from 2007 to 2020,
which has puzzled many observers. These persistent overlaps in membership
and objectives have led researchers to the employment of the term 'complex
interregionalism' in order to denote the permanently multilayered system of
interregional relations on different political levels.1

1 Alan Hardacre and Michael Smith, 'The eu and the diplomacy of complex interregionalism',
The Hague Journal of Diplomacy , No. 4 (2009), pp. 167-188.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EAST ASIAN STUDIES 15 (2016) 257-288

This content downloaded from

1.129.106.165 on Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:52:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 BEYOND ACTORNESS 259

Interregionalism re
determines interreg
increasingly focused o
posing few questions
relations. While the
such as the one betw
not yet led to a reinv
there are a range of st
and the ftas and pca
factors influencing
encompassing all three
is difficult to accept
ally and theoretically
fact, the problem lies
orising of particular p
from the under-rese
of interregionalism o
erated in the 1990s a
dialogues, and bilater
ing regional integrat
This paper challenges
ting forward interreg
ables for the system
First, the prevailing
the theoretical alter
operationalised. Thir
highlighted. For asea
vertical and horizont

2 Christopher M. Dent, T
economy?', in J. Rüland
(London: Routledge, 2006)
3 Anjajetschke and Clara P
security significance?', gi
4 Francis Baert, Tiziana S
regionalism', in F. Baert
ism: Regions, Global Gove
12.

5 David Camroux, 'Interregionalism or merely a fourth-level game? An examination of the E u-

ASEAN relationship', East Asia, Vol. 27, No. 1 (2010), pp. 57-77.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EAST ASIAN STUDIES 15 (2016) 257-288

This content downloaded from

1.129.106.165 on Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:52:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 260 MÜLLER

tion. For the

asean, (2) a w
bi-regionalis
The article is based on a review of the relevant literature on eu-asean
interregionalism of the past 20 years as well as a series of interviews conducted
with policy-makers from both eu and asean member states, conducted on
two separate occasions in September 2014 and in June 2015 (five interviews
total).

Actorness as a Determinant of Interregionalism

The dominant school of thought regarding the institutional development and

performance of interregionalism is that of actorness. While there is a large
amount of research focused on how regional organisations may or may not
be analysed as actors in the international sphere, the conceptual background
of actorness is rather dated, stemming from Sjöstedt's investigation of eu
external policies.6 While there have been several updates on actorness the-
ory, the basic tenets of the concept of actorness have remained the same:
The central question is whether or not regional organisations can act in a
purposive manner. While Sjöstedt was mostly focused on the existence of
external agents and channels of communication, as well as internal decision-
making mechanisms, the range of empirical features on which actorness may
depend has constantly widened. Allen and Smith expanded the understand-
ing of actorness by theorising that presence - which is conditional upon both
material and immaterial factors - is an important feature of actorness and may
affect the influence an actor has in the international arena.7 Jupille and Capo-
raso assert that regional organisations may have a complex agency structure
and demonstrate that external recognition may also provide an organisation
with actorness.8 While these analyses recognise that actors in international
relations may be complex systems rather than state-like hierarchical struc-

6 Gunnar Sjöstedt, The External Role of the European Community (Farnborough, Hampshire:
Saxon House, 1977).
7 David Allen and Michael Smith, 'Western Europe's presence in the contemporaiy interna-
tional arena', in M. Holland (ed.), The Future of European Political Cooperation: Essays on
Theory and Practice (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1991).
8 Joseph Jupille and James A. Caporaso, 'States, agency and rules: the European Union in
global environment polities', in C. Rhodes (ed.), The European Union in the World Community
(Boulder, co: Lynne Rienner, 1998).

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EAST ASIAN STUDIES 15 (2016) 257-288

This content downloaded from

1.129.106.165 on Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:52:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 BEYOND ACTORNESS 261

tures, a state-centric
legalised regional pr
autonomy.9
The ability of the eu
asean has been of part
political conditionalit
in the behaviour of th
to the acceptance of
characterised as an in
of its organisational s
economic and political
and are generally non
place. This has often
coordinating commo
In line with this, the
been highlighted as b
Conversely, asean of
partners, which were
negotiate their positio
the case of the polit
throughout the 199
such as the cases of
terrorism, with the r
as being under the p
been highlighted is th
meaning that there
unite the positions a
statements.

9 Mathew Doidge, ' "East is east ...": inter- and transregionalism and the eu-asean relation
ship', dissertation, University of Canterbury (2004).
10 Dent, 'The Asia-Europe Meeting (asem) process'; Doidge, '"East is east Alfred
C. Robles, 'The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (asean) and the Europea
Union - limited interregionalism', in J. Rüland and R. Roloif (eds), Interregionalism and
International Relations (London: Routledge, 2006), pp. 97-112.
1 1 Doidge, '"East is east
12 David M. Jones and Michael L. Smith, 'Making process, not progress: ASEAN and th
evolving East Asian regional order', International Security , Vol. 32, No. 1 (2007), pp. 148
184.

13 Doidge, '"East is east

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EAST ASIAN STUDIES 15 (2016) 257-288

This content downloaded from

1.129.106.165 on Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:52:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 262 MÜLLER

The describe
demics as th
the reasonin
theregional
between the
interregional
butable to th

asean as a re
ism, is curre
is that the s
tion is reduc

This observed
themselves. G
from dissatis
often found
exemplified b

Union offici
a hurdle th
real bloc, te
acknowledge
constitute on
EU.16

The conclusions in the actorness-centric literature concerning asymmetrical

relationships such as the one between eu and asean rarely stray from the
generally accepted proposition that the lack of tangible outcomes from the eu-

14 Laura Allison, The e u, asean and Interregionalism: Regionalism Support and Norm Diffu-
sion between the E u and asean (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015); T.J. Fehrmann,
Die Effektivität interregionaler Kooperation: Eine vergleichende Untersuchung der interre-
gionalen Handlungsfähigkeit von Regionalorganisationen am Beispiel von asean, eu und
Mercosur (The Effectiveness of Interregional Cooperation: A Comparative Analysis of
the Interregional Capacity for Action of Regional Organisations Using the Example of
asean, the eu and Mercosur), (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2014).
1 5 Doidge, ' "East is east p. 152.
1 6 Mathew Doidge, 'Joined at the hip: regionalism and interregionalism', Journal of European
Integration, Vol. 29, No. 2 (2007), pp. 229-248.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EAST ASIAN STUDIES 15 (2016) 257-288

This content downloaded from

1.129.106.165 on Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:52:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 BEYOND ACTORNESS 263

asean relationship is d
gation of other relatio
cooperation may be d
advantage of eu-us int
compared to those wh
trade agreements with
The use of actornes
be criticised empirica
approach purely by l
There are several cas
the shallowness of its
factors other than an
eu-asean interregiona
Looking at the agenc
maintenance of institu
that the structure of
lowest common denom
dependent on a certain
from what interregion

Testing Actorness

The weakness of the

alism can be illustrat
ment found in the li
their interregional tr
the eu with its intern
economies.19 This is c
due to actorness asym
Another case is the re

17 Allison, The eu, asean

Kooperation.
1 8 Ralf Roloff, Europa, Amerika und Asien zwischen Globalisierung und Regionalisierung: Das
interregionale Konzert und die ökonomische Dimension internationaler Politik (Europe,
America, and Asia between Globalizaton and Regionalisation), (Paderborn: Schöningh,
2001); J. McCall Smith, 'The politics of dispute settlement design: explainaing legalism in
regional trade pacts', International Organization , Vol. 54, No. 1 (2000), pp. 137-180.
1 9 Doidge, ' "East is east

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EAST ASIAN STUDIES 15 (2016) 257-288

This content downloaded from

1.129.106.165 on Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:52:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 264 MÜLLER

access follow
to engage a p
been noted,
more an outc
Looking at t
argument bec
bi-regional c
forum is clea
ment with N
membership
Economic Ca
eu also suppo
faction with
China and Ea
tional transi
strategic pre
When it com
actorness arg
states are see
lowness of re
clusion of th
cient econom
which asean
New Zealand
argument fal
state institu
other point i
over time.

This leads to a more general line of criticism that can be held against the
actorness argument: the fact that it is not a good explanatory variable owing

20 Doidge, '"East is east Paul J. Lim, 'asean's relations with the eu: obstacles and
opportunities', eu External Affairs Review (2012), pp. 46-58; Jetschke and Portela, 'asean-
eu relations'.

21 Mely Caballero-Anthony, 'Understanding asean's centrality: bases and prospects in an

evolving regional architecture', The Pacific Review, Vol. 27, No. 4 (2014), pp. 563-584;
AC. Robles, The Asia-Europe Meeting: The Theory and Practice of Interregionalism (New
York: Routledge, 2008).
22 Julie Gilson, 'New interregionalism? The eu and East Asia', Journal of European Integra-
tion, Vol. 27, No. 3 (2005), pp. 307-326.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EAST ASIAN STUDIES 15 (2016) 257-288

This content downloaded from

1.129.106.165 on Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:52:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
BEYOND ACTORNESS 265

to its unchanged nat

ASEAN interregionalis
able of actorness, th
eu and asean are diff
stable over time and
strategic culture or un
linear spectrum of act
This can be seen in th
is seen as a permanen
tations towards an in
such as 'personalism, p
making, lean institut
ference principle'.23
norms of regional org
His findings strongl
mental decision-makin
tionalism are the pro
the regional organisat
asean's state as a regi
tion 'goes a long way
and its avoidance of su
gle variable appears
interregionalism. It im
alism research that ex
which asean agency h
leads to an analysis th
relationship with the e
that the individual po
system, as well as the
not sufficiently appre

23 Heiner Hänggi, Ralf R

International Relations', i
Relations (London: Routl
24 Jens-Uwe Wunderlic
actorness', jcms: Journal
2 5 Wunderlich, The eu a

EUROPEAN JOURNAL

This content downloaded from

1.129.106.165 on Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:52:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
266 MÜLLER

Interdepen

The two alte

paper are int
first suggeste
can be extend
time and be
are the stru
by influenci
The fact tha
interregional
is the inside-
order to expl
relationship.
interregional
rather than j
In its simple
as a relation
from interc
pendence is
one or both
reap reward
believed to d
given region
cal arena, a r
of bi-regiona
in order. In
between the
member sta
regionalism)

26 Ralf Roloff
Interregionalis
27 Hänggi et
process, not pr
Europa, Ameri
28 R.O. Keohane
Little Brown, 1
29 Roloff, 'Inte

EUROPEAN

This content downloaded from

1.129.106.165 on Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:52:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
BEYOND ACTORNESS 267

While existing pers

knowledge the fact th
the construction of in
in the ideas of comp
too crude a distinct
ism given the asymm
the concept of instit
plemented with the
building sees a horizo
ment of competition
of vertically nested
has been employed by
tutional system that
between vertically a
states to engage in f
and achieve their obje
tical institutional pr
defines as:

a set of strategies a
a situation in which
alternatives such as
cultivate a middle po
side (or one straigh
another.33

The processes of horiz

bership) or vertical (u
ture) institutional h
employed by small a

30 Hänggi et al, 'Interr

31 Jürgen Rüland, 'Inter
cent research agenda?',
Interregionalism: Region
lands, 2014), pp. 15-35-
32 Jürgen Rüland, The r
shopping in global gover
33 E. Goh, 'PacNet #43 -
.org/files/media/csis/pu

EUROPEAN JOURNAL

This content downloaded from

1.129.106.165 on Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:52:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
268 MÜLLER

recognise the
of overlapping

Interdepen

The Bi-Regi
Taking Keoha
confronted w
dence actually
there is a lac
making some
a proper venu
the eu only p
not perceived
dialogues con
dependence, t
embodying p
cept supposes
common gro
United Natio
dence of inter
the bi-regiona
gionalism actu
to the multil
a convergenc
critique of th
Cambodia in t
ment on Trad
of General A
additional cle
common nego

34 Evelyn Goh,
security strategi
35 Camroux, 'In
3 6 Jetschke an
37 Doidge, '"Ea
and the Europe

EUROPEAN

This content downloaded from

1.129.106.165 on Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:52:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 BEYOND ACTORNESS 269

contingent on the in
peting interests of
in the WTO and as re
process of supranati
The first conclusion
fore that the failure
of a lack of overlap i
dialogues.
Casting the analytical net a bit wider to consider competing interregional
and trans-regional arrangements, the lack of multilateral utility as an outcome
of interregionalism is not limited to eu-asean bi-regionalism. Forums such
as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (apec) and the East Asia Summit
(eas), as well as as em, have also failed to provide much in the way of multilat-
eral utility. This is no surprise given the even more heterogeneous membership
of these forums: apec, maybe the most diverse forum of all, includes a dazzling
array of states, many of which have no history of economic or political cooper-
ation. asem, with its membership drawn along the lines of Asia and Europe
instead of developed and developing countries, has also not contributed to
multilateral negotiations in a tangible fashion.39 While both forums, particu-
larly apec, have been used to draft agreements that were then discussed in
the context of the wto, neither of them have managed to establish themselves
as reliable clearing-houses.40 This observation highlights two points. First, the
potential for a convergence of political interests at the interregional level has
been overstated in the past. This may be due to a lack of political interde-
pendence between the members of these interregional arrangements. Second,
multilateral utility may be the wrong yardstick by which to judge interregional
institutional arrangements. Two other types of political interdependence at the
interregional level which have more merit with regard to empirical evidence
still need to be investigated: social interaction and collective identity-building,
as well as legalisation and political conditionality, which operate more strongly
at the trans-regional and region-to-state-level, respectively.
Another feature of the bi-regional relationship that may be seen as political
interdependence is the technical capacity-building between the eu and central
asean institutions. Through its development cooperation budget, the eu pro-
vides financing to asean's central institutions as well as for additional projects

38 Robles, The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (asean) and the European Union'.
39 Gilson, 'New interregionalism?'.
40 John Ravenhill, 'apec and the wto: which way forward for trade liberalization?', Contem-
porary Southeast Asia, Vol. 21, No. 2 (1999), pp. 220-237.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EAST ASIAN STUDIES 15 (2016) 257-288

This content downloaded from

1.129.106.165 on Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:52:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 270 MÜLLER

in the field o
health and no
cant funding
for the 2014-
paid,41 techn
ating at the b
the section o
With regard
tionship also
The bi-regio
integration o
interdepende
edged that a
mentary, wh
the region, e
trade has rem
eu has rema
on external
dependencies
regional level
dence: While
makes up on
Asia, bi-regi
eu and East A
level with individual asean member states.
All things considered, neither political nor economic interdependence
seems to provide an argument for institutional engagement between the two
regions. No political issues unite the eu and asean and since asean is not a
customs union, much less a common market, economic interdependence may
not be translated into a closer relationship between the two regions.

4 1 Allison, 'The E u, as e an and Interregionalism'. D. Martin, 'Toes in the water. The "makabil-
ity" of asean and European Commission support to economic integration in Southeast
Asia under apris', in D. Lombaerde and M. Schulz (eds), The eu and World Regionalis: The
Makability of Regions in the 21st Century (London: Ashgate, 2009), pp. 83-100.
42 Lim, 'as e an's relations with the eu'; Katharina L. Meissner, A case of failed interregion-
alism? Analyzing the eu-asean free trade agreement negotiations', Asia Europe Journal,
Vol. 13, No. 3 (2016), pp. 1-18; e e as bureaucrat, personal communication (16 June 2015).
43 All statistics taken from 1 M F Direction of Trade Statistics

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EAST ASIAN STUDIES 15 (2016) 257-288

This content downloaded from

1.129.106.165 on Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:52:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 BEYOND ACTORNESS 271

The Trans-Regiona
While asem was at f
opening a channel t
of the eu- asean dia
to those affecting pr
While asem, replacin
did not push the inte
cooperation between
as a forum which 'p
making decisions'.45
in relation to multila
is its function as a f
then be articulated t
in his view that ase
that their relationshi
appears to fulfil fr
of an alternative ven
of a conflict of objec
asem, however, doe
record of eu-asean b
of conflict between
and multilateral dia
Political interdepend
more merit when th
tion are considered. Both the eu and asean derive discursive benefits from

being present in a plethora of forums by way of being recognised as actors in

their own right, which has an impact on their internal dynamics and strength-
ens their identity as regional actors. It remains an important concern for asean
to be present in as many forums as possible, a fact which has been attributed
to the aim of creating 'clout' for the regional organisation.48 Likewise, it has
been noted that the eu also derives a benefit from being present at political
dialogues and being perceived as a globally active actor.49 Social interaction
and collective identity formation are two separate features that are served by

44 Gilson, 'New interregionalism?'.

45 Gilson, 'New interregionalism?', p. 323.
46 Dent, 'The Asia-Europe Meeting (asem) process'.
47 Dent, 'The Asia-Europe Meeting (asem) process', p. 119.
48 C. Tingsabadh, personal communication, 24 August 2014
49 Fredrik Söderbaum, Patrik Stâlgren and Luk van Langenhove, 'The eu as a global actor

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EAST ASIAN STUDIES 15 (2016) 257-288

This content downloaded from

1.129.106.165 on Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:52:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 272 MÜLLER

the same inst

process of lif
this process

between sm
improved in
the develop
well as norm

Collective ide
alism on the
and externall
has taken pl
by asean, soli
external acto
been noted, t
main, objecti
cess of intera
formation is
trans-regiona
of social inte
bi-regional p
ical interdepe
members, as
affects a larg
forum for th
ber states, w
Cold War. Ad
benefit of p
Stone,

[F]or Asian recipients of European norms, venues like asem represent an

even playing field of peer-to-peer networks which allow them to engage

and the dynamics of interregionalism: a comparative analysis', Journal of European Inte-

gration, Vol. 27, No. 3 (2005), pp. 365-380.
50 Roloff, 'Interregionalism in theoretical perspective'.
5 1 Goh, 'Great powers and hierarchical order in Southeast Asia', p. 131.
52 Doidge, '"East is east
53 Doidge, ' "East is east ..."', p. 320 ff.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EAST ASIAN STUDIES 15 (2016) 257-288

This content downloaded from

1.129.106.165 on Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:52:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 BEYOND ACTORNESS 273

Europe selectively an
endemic to asymmet

The eu, on the other

possibly highlighting
be extracted to a leve
dialogues, trans-regi
of social interaction a
More regular social i
tive identity formati
forums are all shallow
The institutional laye
fore be explained by
ising with a larger set
has also offered both
the issue of Myanmar
to political impasses.
Taking stock of econ
interlinkages also em
relations after the As
ners in the region an
dence with China. In
its mutual dependency
Dependency on China
makes up for more t
has stagnated. The pat
dependence with ase
approximately simila
China as a trading pa
up 4 per cent of tot
and asean are embedd
cant than the bi-regio

54 Mark Beeson and Dian

global financial crisis', Eur
190.

55 Julie Gilson, The Asia-Europe Meeting (asem)', in M. Beeson and R. Stubbs (eds), Rout-
Ledge Handbook of Asian Regionalism (New York: Routledge, 2012), pp. 394-405.
56 Eurostat, available at http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/main/home.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EAST ASIAN STUDIES 15 (2016) 257-288

This content downloaded from

1.129.106.165 on Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:52:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
274 MÜLLER

Put together
highlights th
more intense
unclear wheth
a forum, soci
both asean an
larger trans-r

The Region-
The region-to
the eu strateg
ative economi
duce political
in the case o
tively ties ec
making politi
to avoid a po
ical condition
been geared
states signing
vidually rema
the eu-asean
key documen
Joint Declara
negotiations
Preferences (
ing Committ
moved toward
notably, the e
prior to lettin
the failed neg
terms on poli
issue, the eu h
its current jo
The fact that
recently, inev

57 Lim, 'asean's
58 Lim, 'as e an

EUROPEAN

This content downloaded from

1.129.106.165 on Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:52:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 BEYOND ACTORNESS 275

organisation lacked a
agreements with exter
ments with partner
individual agreements
remains questionable
ducive to the eu's poli
in the 1990s highlight
When untangling th
ent that when it co
are created equal. The
asean states, namely
the eu is currently ne
negotiated (Singapor
Thailand and Vietnam
is relevant in terms o
the four fta partner
well as 76.5 per cent
interdependence tha
to-state patterns is
up about 40 per cen
located in the region.
in Indonesia, 0.5 per
states falling below th
inward fdi. Out of 1.9
eu, 1.8 per cent comes
Taken together, pol
region-to-state level w
ment cooperation. Tak
consideration, it is c
of political and econom
appear to be politicall
tion. The region-to-st
legalisation. In the e
levels appear to have
level.

59 Doidge, '"East is east

60 Eurostat

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EAST ASIAN STUDIES 15 (2016) 257-288

This content downloaded from

1.129.106.165 on Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:52:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 276 MÜLLER

Agency

To make judgements about as ean's and the eu's political strategies with regard
to one another, one must first assess what objectives both actors have been
trying to accomplish. Starting with asean, three key elements have featured
prominently in its regional and interregional strategies: first, the principle
of omni-enmeshment of potentially hegemonic actors; second, the principle
of horizontal and vertical institutional hedging, allowing for more room in
negotiations when faced with asymmetrically distributed institutional power;
third, the logic of relative institutionalisation with the objective of preventing
a displacement of as ean's institutional norms and mechanisms through other
institutions set up by outsiders, such as apec or asem.
Having discussed as ean's strategy vis-à-vis the eu, the opposite perspective
needs to be considered, eu strategy towards asean interregionalism also has
three dimensions. First, there has been a move towards pragmatism in the
relationship with asean in order to maintain engagement in the region with
regard to competing actors; second, the eu has refocused its regional relations
from bi-regionalism to East Asia more generally, with an increasing focus on
China; third, there is a continuation of capacity-building with the aim of future
political interdependence and closer partnership at the bi-regional level.

ASEAN

Omni-Enmeshment

The changing distribution of power after the end of the Cold War led to discord
inside asean as perceptions of threat differed between asean states.61 While
states like Indonesia and Malaysia at first were more concerned with China,
Singapore had stronger concerns about a re-emerging Japan. As of today, states
like Singapore and Malaysia have adopted a Look East policy,62 cooperating
with East Asian partners, while new cleavages have opened up in the region,
particularly concerning states' perspective on China. A point on which asean
positions have mostly galvanised, however, was the desire for a continued us
presence in the region. These conflicting interests led to what Goh describes
as a strategy of omni-enmeshment of the us and asean's powerful Northeast

6 1 Goh, 'Great powers and hierarchical order in Southeast Asia'.

62 Jörn Dosch, 'Mahathirism and its legacy in Malaysia's foreign policy', European Journal of
East Asian Studies , Vol. 13, No. 1 (2014), pp. 5-32.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EAST ASIAN STUDIES 15 (2016) 257-288

This content downloaded from

1.129.106.165 on Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:52:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 BEYOND ACTORNESS 277

Asian partners Chin

has been interpreted
more powerful state
embracing the princip
ference in domestic a
done with the intenti
the eu.

As has previously b
could credibly propos
igniting fears of heg
economic and finan
general East Asian dia
bours, asean has supp
with the intention o
of powers.65 asean u
has commonly been in
us security interests
recently India shows
order to contribute to
described best by Si
should be kept open
as this is most likely
countries big and sma
While the eu is not
ment may nonetheles
iour in the region an
involvement may also
in institutions, to giv
to criticise non-confor
the realm of economi
The Asian financial crisis has made asean states feel the need to reduce finan-

63 Goh, 'Great powers and hierarchical order in Southeast Asia', p. 123.

64 Mark Beeson, 'Living with giants: asean and the evolution of Asian regionalism', TRaNS:
Trans -Regional and -National Studies of Southeast Asia, Vol. 1, No. 02 (2013), pp. 303-322.
65 Goh, 'Great powers and hierarchical order in Southeast Asia'.
66 John Ravenhill, 'Mission creep or mission impossible? apec and security', in A. Acharya
and E. Goh (eds), Reassessing Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific: Competition, Con-
gruence, and Transformation (Cambridge, ma: mit, 2007), pp. 135-154.
67 L. Hsien Loong, 'Speech to the Asia Security Conference', Straits Times (3 June 2006).

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EAST ASIAN STUDIES 15 (2016) 257-288

This content downloaded from

1.129.106.165 on Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:52:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
278 MÜLLER

ciai dependenc
extremely un
of the eu in
be used to rai
versely, asean
relevance as a
membership.
nal process bu
move from b
function of th
What is impo
with regard
partner in its
and Japan, as
eu in its insti
the eu in rela
logue throug
asean requires
alliance-build
may build an
age against an
nomic bargain
on as e an's s
pursue a stra
on individual
ment partner
trade interd
the ASEAN-C
the two and
for closer eco
opment has ag
relations, wit
with outside a
of statist act

68 Doidge, ' "Ea

69 Goh, 'Great p
70 Goh, 'Great p
7 1 Goh, 'Great

EUROPEAN

This content downloaded from

1.129.106.165 on Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:52:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
BEYOND ACTORNESS 279

are still being negotia

trade and investment
With this backgroun
interregionalism sho
powers somehow eng
outsize amount of pow
has a similar relations
to remain present in t
vis-à-vis all other eng

Horizontal and Ver

While the strategy o
between outside pow
vertical hedging ensu
an interregional relati
cooperation. This beh
the bi-regional, trans-
The crisis of multilat
un security council
brought about so-calle
horizontally competit
issue areas in order to
institutional arrangem
the realisation of poli
strategy is being empl
itics, asean is a specia
the interaction with c
political levels, ranging
regional towards the
interregionalism but i
ship within Apec dev
complemented by th
and cooperation at th
move by asean away
Apec in which the us
commitments on fin

7 2 Riiland, 'The rise of "

73 Hanns W. Maull and N

EUROPEAN JOURNAL

This content downloaded from

fff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff on Thu, 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
280 MÜLLER

is particular
states and th
tionship. Clos
states such a
the us in or
more densely
Philippines, V
trans-region
actors, while
cooperation.
A similar log
processes in
asymmetry
institutional
is important
tal hedging i
the addition
ferent chann
ment of insti
made possib
groups to c
interregiona
aged to extra
opposition fr
mentation o
through the
political con
fully used th
push for cert
never manag
The same lo
organisation
Asian partne
individual a
of the inter

Cooperation (a
(eds), Interregi
74 Goh, 'Great
75 Robles, The

EUROPEAN

This content downloaded from

1.129.106.165 on Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:52:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 BEYOND ACTORNESS 281

While this is certainly

the fact remains that
of an additional layer
the relationship. The
the realm of external
external economic poli
than a feature of the

Rule of Relative Ins

The principle of rela
appears to have implem
tions of which it is a m
organisation. Particula
of asean was called in
asean's potential subm
the following establi
paigned for looser for
tion, a feature that w
this strategy:

This pattern of leadership by default continues to explain asean's promi-

nence in regional forums; it also explains the fact that the price for its
leadership' has been the adoption of the 'asean Way', even for institu-
tions that are not exclusively East Asian.78

This point is closely connected to the collective identity of asean, particularly

in relation to its East Asian neighbours. Despite its regionalism initiatives with
East Asia, the ultimate goal of asean is to safeguard its own political inde-
pendence, freedom from economic and military threats and non-interference
from its political partners. The persistence of these principles has only recently
become a matter of debate within asean and remains central to the function-
ing of the organisation, even after the introduction of the asean Charter. In
order to ensure the preservation of these norms, asean cannot simply enter
into institutional arrangements that contain aspects of hard law, because its
internal rules, decision-making and implementation mechanisms continue to

76 Beeson, 'Living with giants'.

77 Jones and Smith, 'Making process, not progress'.
78 Beeson, 'Living with giants', p. 312.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EAST ASIAN STUDIES 15 (2016) 257-288

This content downloaded from

1.129.106.165 on Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:52:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 282 MÜLLER

be soft. But a
individual as
to politically
the past.79 Th
always emerg
assessment le
remains the
states.

EU

Pragmatic Approach
The limited institutional dividends in the 1990s and a general reframing of eu
foreign policy from a strong normative inclination towards a more pragmatic
approach has also had an effect on the eu-asean relationship. Particularly
after the completion of the eu common market, the eu came to be increasingly
eager in seeking foreign growth markets as opposed to its previous preoccupa-
tion with internal economic integration.80 Southeast Asia has some of the high-
est regional growth rates in the world and has been a key area of competition for
states seeking investment opportunities. The rapid increase in extra-regional
FDi inflow in asean is an indicator of how economically attractive and com-
petitive the region has become: extra-regional fdi increased from $36 billion
in 2005 and $63 billion in 2010 to $100 billion in 2013. Meanwhile, the compo-
sition of investors has remained much the same, indicating that investors are
increasing their stakes in asean economies.
Outside powers have also been competing to sign trade and investment
agreements with asean throughout the 2000s. There is a correlation in the
timing of region-to-state ftas between asean and its partners, starting with
China and India in 2003, followed by Japan, Russia and South Korea in 2004,
Australia in 2005, the us in 2009 and the eu in 2012. It is notable that these
economic agreements only materialised after the signing of the Treaty of Amity
and Cooperation (tac) (with the exception of China), a fact that speaks for
asean's strategic preference of ensuring the commitment to ASEAN-led East
Asian regionalism prior to accepting economic cooperation. The response of

79 L. Jones, asean, Sovereignly and Intervention in Southeast Asia (Basingstoke, Hampshire:

Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).
80 Doidge, '"East is east

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EAST ASIAN STUDIES 15 (2016) 257-288

This content downloaded from

1.129.106.165 on Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:52:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
BEYOND ACTORNESS 283

outside powers to this

ascription'.81 Conside
1976, the fact that ex
makes it clear that a
impact on the regional
which has been tied
indicative of a more p
norms with the intent
emergence of as e m a
as a response to the i
engagement with the
of engaging with the
as a response to apec
further supports the v
economic competition
Apart from the poli
has also been signifi
noted, communicatio
the asean fta to fast-
ahead of the us, Sout
the time.85 This eage
to the undermining of
and ftas. While it has
the region-to-state lev
the negotiations of b
the bi-regional dialog
strengthening ties wit
pragmatism of the eu
or is currently negoti
and Vietnam, the fir
have collectively outp
exports from and to
export growth of 41.4
between 2000 and 201

8 1 Goh, 'Great powers an

82 Jetschke and Portela,
83 Dent, 'The Asia-Euro
84 Gilson, 'New interreg
85 Lim, 'asean's relations

EUROPEAN JOURNAL

This content downloaded from

1.129.106.165 on Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:52:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 284 MÜLLER

of 31 per cen
particularly s
negotiations o
and the Philip
rights clause
Malaysia and
is willing to p
recent climat
At this point
an outsize inf
been relevant
prior to its a
particularly i
nature and th
German and Southeast Asian statesmen. Allison has noted that eu-asean
interregional dialogues made significant leaps under German presidencies in
1978, 1994 and 2007.89 In her survey of policy-makers, the uk, France and
Germany were identified as the members with the most significant impact on
the eu's Southeast Asia policy.
Still, it must be noted that a modicum of political conditionally remains in
the eu-asean bi-regional relationship. It has commonly been accepted that
the reason for the failure to conclude a bi-regional fta has been the inability of
both regions to settle on human rights issues in Myanmar, although it has since
emerged that the proposed economic characteristics of an interregional fta
were also a stumbling block.90 While other competitors in the region such as
China,Japan, Australia and South Korea did in fact negotiate ftas with asean
as a region (although caveats remain in all cases), the eu apparently refused to
settle for a bi-regional agreement due to the non-fulfilment of a certain thresh-
old of political conditionality on the bi-regional level. This suggests that the
eu still has certain strategic objectives in mind for its future relationships on
the bi-regional level, a fact which will be further addressed in the eu strategic
agency relating to capacity-building inside asean.

86 Jetschke and Portela, 'as E an- e u relations'.

87 Doidge, '"East is east ..."';Fehrmann, Die Effektivität interregionaler Kooperation.
88 eu Parliament bureaucrat, personal communication, 16 June 2015.
89 Allison, The eu, asean and interregionalism'.
90 Meissner, 'A case of failed interregionalism?'.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EAST ASIAN STUDIES 15 (2016) 257-288

This content downloaded from

1.129.106.165 on Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:52:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
BEYOND ACTORNESS 285

Widening to East A
A shift towards mor
complemented by an
relationship into the e
the need to increase it
advantage of its econ
undertaken with rega
network links in Sout
China, Japan and the
with China.91 Starting
of engaging asean and
high growth. This has
East Asia, which hav
more trans-regional
In the case of the eu,
more generally were
laid out plan for e a
relationship as a 'corn
been described as a r
asean as it did not a
Tellingly, this announ
as the emergence of a
interregional dialogu
with the East Asian r
Asia: a strategic fra
its Asia strategy in
main channel of inter
initiatives such as arf
economic objectives w
The trans-regional e
the current dynamic
asean is in the proces
as the origin of raw m
role of interlocutor

9 1 Beeson, 'Living with

92 Doidge, '"East is eas
93 Dent, 'The Asia-Euro
94 Beeson, 'Living with

EUROPEAN JOURNAL

This content downloaded from

1.129.106.165 on Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:52:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 286 MÜLLER

Apart from
also be seen a
of a trans-reg
into a commo
Asia as contai
is a symptom
of relying on
considers the r
to the emerg
relations.95 The fact that no similar reaction has been noted in the case of

asean lends support to the view that the eu strategy of regional engagement
was consistent with the objectives of asean.

The Puzzle of Interregional Capacity-Building

One feature that has received very little academic attention due to its technical
and little publicised nature is the process of capacity-building from the eu
towards asean. It has been noted that the eu remains the largest financial
contributor to the asean secretariat. This has meant contributions of €70
million from 2007 to 2014, rising to € 170 million from 2014 to 2020. Additionally,
the eu has capacity-building programmes with regard to regional integration
support (apris and arise), economic integration support (aeisp) and fta
negotiation capacity-building, in addition to smaller projects such as statistical
support and air transport integration support.96
The process of cooperation between the eu and the asean secretariat, the
main recipient of capacity-building measures, has mainly been interpreted as
the transfer of knowhow on regional integration in different sectors, ranging
from the political, through the economic, to negotiation capacity in external
relations. This strategy seems to align with the theoretical expectations of the
behaviour of an external federator, which has been described by Doidge: '[B]y
framing the areas of debate through which a collective identity will be estab-
lished, the strong actor is significantly affecting the nature of the collective
identity itself.'97 In her book on capacity-building, Allison mentions several rea-
sons for the eu policy. First, the eu has an interest in helping other regional
organisations succeed due to its positive experience with regional integration
in order to achieve political and economic security. Second, the eu supports

95 Gilson, 'New interregionalism?'.

96 Lim, 'asean's relations with the eu'; Martin, Toes in the wateť; Allison, 'The eu, asean
and interregionalism'.
97 Doidge, '"East is east p. 319.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EAST ASIAN STUDIES 15 (2016) 257-288

This content downloaded from

1.129.106.165 on Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:52:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 BEYOND ACTORNESS 287

asean integration bec

relations in the futu
than a disjointed reg
ports asean in order
identity-formation p
promote its own va
actor.98 Norms obvio
tions between the e
face value, the techni
to the current predom
regional level, it shou
in the future relation
of capacity-building a
cooperation despite
dence. Capacity-buildi
for influencing asean
partner for the eu in

Conclusion

As the perspectives of political and economic interdependence as well as

agency have shown, the complexity and perseverance of the interregional rela-
tionship between the eu and asean can be explained by underlying structural
features and the actors' preferences. Besides the ongoing capacity-building
between the eu and the asean secretariat, there are no other clear-cut cases
of political or economic interdependence at the bi-regional level. Instead,
both the region-to-state and trans-regional levels appear to provide the correct
venues for legalisation and socialisation, respectively, in the system of mutual
interdependence. These underlying patterns have led to strategic efforts by
both actors in reaction to their structural environment.
asean has employed a strategy of omni-enmeshment, and horizontal and
vertical hedging, all the while pursuing the principle of relative institution-
alisation in its bi- and trans-regional relations. The eu, on the other hand,
has pursued a pragmatic approach in relation to asean as a reaction to eco-
nomic competition from other actors. Additionally, it has widened its regional

98 Naila Maier-Knapp, The European Union as a normative actor and its external relations
with Southeast Asia', Journal of Contemporary European Research , Vol. 10, No. 2 (2014).

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EAST ASIAN STUDIES 15 (2016) 257-288

This content downloaded from

1.129.106.165 on Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:52:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
288 MÜLLER

focus from So
economic int
building at th
asean partner
European and
The main obj
vailing actor
gionalism. Wh
organisations
level have sad
agency of as
remain under
both to mor
arrangements
Western regio
tions of West

EUROPEAN

This content downloaded from

1.129.106.165 on Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:52:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms