Abstract
Although studies on interregionalism currently struggle with a deadlock, the author argues that there is still space for innovation. The argument is developed in three steps: first, the author summarises major findings of previous studies on interregional relations. This is followed by a discussion of Robles’ sweeping critique of the state-of-the-art of interregionalism studies with the objective of showing that much of this critique is unfounded and that it is possible to take previous studies on interregionalism as a point of departure for more innovative work. From there, the author proceeds in a third step towards sketching an agenda for future research built around institutional balancing and hedging, network analysis and interregional relations as norm transmitters. At the end of the chapter, the author identifies three points in need of future attention: (i) interregionalism research is still a highly Eurocentric research agenda, aggravating the Western-centric tendencies in theorising on international relations; (ii) comparative studies on interregionalism are almost entirely absent; and (iii) if interregionalism is to become more than an epiphenomenon of international relations and regionalism, scholars should also act as policy advisors, stressing the significance of a legalised, contractualised and institutionalised system of global governance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Acharya, A. (2004). How ideas spread: Whose norms matter? Norm localization and institutional change in Asian regionalism. International Organization, 58, 239–275.
Acharya, A. (2005, December 6 and 7). International relations and area studies: Towards a new synthesis? Revised version of a Paper presented to the workshop on the future of interdisciplinary area studies in the UK. Oxford: St. Anthony’s College, Oxford University.
Acharya, A. (2009). Whose ideas matter? Agency and power in Asian regionalism. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press.
Adelmann, M. (2012). SADC – An actor in international relations? Freiburg: Arnold-Bergstraesser Institut.
Aggarwal, V. K. (1998). Analyzing institutional transformation in the Asia–Pacific. In V. K. Aggarwal & C. E. Morrison (Eds.), Asia–Pacific crossroads: Regime creation and the future of APEC (pp. 23–64). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Aggarwal, V. K., & Fogarty, E. (2004). Explaining trends in EU interregionalism. In V. K. Aggarwal & E. Fogarty (Eds.), European Union trade strategies: Between globalism and regionalism (pp. 207–240). London: Palgrave.
Ayoob, M. (2002). Inequality and theorizing in international relations: The case for Subaltern realism. International Studies Review, 4(2), 27–48.
Barkin, S. J. (2003). Realist constructivism. International Studies Review, 5, 325–342.
Barnett, M., & Duvall, R. (2005, Winter). Power in international politics. International Organization, 59(1), 39–77.
Bersick, S. (2004). Auf dem Weg in eine neue Weltordnung? Zur Politik der interregionalen Beziehungen am Beispiel des ASEM Prozesses. Baden Baden: Nomos.
Bersick, S. (2008). The democratization of inter- and transregional dialogues. The role of civil society, NGO and parliaments. In J. Rüland, G. Schubert, G. Schucher, & C. Storz (Eds.), Asian–European relations: Building blocks for global governance? (pp. 244–269). London: Routledge.
Bessa Rodrigues, P. (1999). The European Union–Mercosur: In search of a ‘new’ relationship? European Foreign Affairs Review, 4(4), 81–98.
Bicchi, F. (2006, March). ‘Our size fits all’: Normative power Europe and the Mediterranean. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(2), 286–303.
Börzel, T., & Risse, T. (2003). Conceptualizing the domestic impact of Europe. In K. Featherstone & C. Radaelli (Eds.), The politics of Europeanization (pp. 57–80). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Börzel, T. A., & Risse, T. (2004, October 4 and 5). One size fits all! EU policies for the promotion of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Paper presented for the workshop on democracy promotion. Stanford: Stanford University, Center for Development, Democracy, and the Rule of Law.
Bretherton, C., & Vogler, J. (1999). The European Union as a global actor. London: Routledge.
Camroux, D. (2010). Interregionalism or merely a fourth-level game?: An examination of the EU–ASEAN relationship. East Asia, 27(1), 57–77.
Carrapatoso, A. (2011). Climate policy diffusion: Interregional dialogue in China–EU relations. Global Change, Peace & Security, 23(2), 177–194.
Checkel, J. (1999). Norms, institutions and national identity in contemporary Europe. International Studies Quarterly, 43(1), 83–114.
Chen, C. C. (2011). The absence of non-Western IR theory in Asia reconsidered. International Relations of the Asia–Pacific, 11(1), 1–23.
Dent, C. M. (2004). The Asia–Europe meeting and interregionalism: Toward a theory of multilateral utility. Asian Survey, 44(2), 213–236.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
Doctor, M. (2007). Why bother with interregionalism? Negotiations for a European Union–Mercosur agreement. Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(2), 281–314.
Doidge, M. (2004). ‘East is East’. Inter- and transregionalism and the EU–ASEAN relationship. Ph.D. thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch.
Doidge, M. (2008). Regional organizations as actors in international relations. Interregionalism and asymmetric dialogues. In J. Rüland, G. Schubert, G. Schucher, & C. Storz (Eds.), Asian–European relations: Building blocks for global governance? (pp. 32–55). London: Routledge.
Doidge, M. (2011). The European Union and interregionalism. Patterns of engagement. Avebury: Ashgate.
Dosch, J., & Jacob, O. (Eds.). (2010). Asia and Latin America: The encounter of two continents political, economic and social dynamics. London: Routledge.
Farrell, M. (2004). The EU and interregional cooperation: In search of global presence (UNU–CRIS eWorking Papers, 9). Bruges: UNU–CRIS.
Faust, J. (2006). The European Union’s relations with Mercosur: The issue of interregional trade liberalization. In H. Hänggi, R. Roloff, & J. Rüland (Eds.), Interregionalism and international relations (pp. 155–167). London: Routledge.
Featherstone, K., & Radaelli, C. (Eds.). (2003). The politics of Europeanization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Forman, S., & Segaar, D. (2006). New coalitions for global governance: The changing dynamics of multilateralism. Global Governance, 12(2), 205–225.
Gaens, B. (Ed.). (2008). Europe-Asia interregional relations. A decade of ASEM. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Gilson, J. (2002). Asia meets Europe: Interregionalism and the Asia–Europe meeting. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Gilson, J. (2005). New interregionalism? The EU and East Asia. European Integration, 27(3), 421–456.
Goh, E. (2005). Meeting the China challenge: The US in Southeast Asian regional security strategies (Policy studies, 16). Washington, DC: East–West Center Washington.
Grabendorff, W., & Seidelmann, R. (Eds.). (2005). Relations between the European Union and Latin America: Biregionalism in a changing global system. Baden Baden: Nomos.
Grugel, J. (2004). New regionalism and modes of governance. Comparing US and EU strategies in Latin America. European Journal of International Relations, 10(4), 603–626.
Grugel, J. (2007). Democratization and ideational diffusion: Europe, Mercosur and social citizenship. Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(1), 43–68.
Hafner-Burton, E. M., Kahler, M., & Montgomery, A. H. (2009). Network analysis for international relations. International Organization, 63(3), 559–592.
Hänggi, H. (2000, May 18). Interregionalism: Empirical and theoretical perspective. Paper prepared for the workshop dollars, democracy and trade: External influence on economic integration in the Americas. Los Angeles.
Hänggi, H. (2003). Regionalism through interregionalism: East Asia and ASEM. In F. K. Liu & P. Régnier (Eds.), Regionalism in East Asia: Paradigm shifting (pp. 197–219). London: Curzon Press.
Hänggi, H. (2006). Interregionalism as a multifaceted phenomenon. In H. Hänggi, R. Roloff, & J. Rüland (Eds.), Interregionalism and international relations (pp. 31–62). London: Routledge.
Hardacre, A. (2011). The rise and fall of interregionalism in EU external relations. Dordrecht: Republic of Letters Publishing.
Haubrich Seco, M. (2009). Die Europäische Union als externer Föderator? Region-Building durch Interregionalismus. Eine Fallstudie der institutionellen Zusammenarbeit zwischen Mercosur und EU. M.A. thesis, University of Freiburg.
He, K. (2008). Institutional balancing and international, relations theory: Economic interdependence and balance of power strategies in Southeast Asia. European Journal of International Relations, 14(3), 489–518.
He, K., & Feng, H. (2008). If not soft balancing, then what? Reconsidering soft balancing and US policy toward China. Security Studies, 17, 363–395.
Hemmer, C., & Katzenstein, P. J. (2002). Why is there no NATO in Asia? Collective identity, regionalism and the origins of multilateralism. International Organization, 56(3), 575–607.
Hettne, B. (2003). The new regionalism revisited. In F. Söderbaum & T. M. Shaw (Eds.), Theories of new regionalism. A Palgrave reader (pp. 22–42). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hettne, B., Inotai, A., & Sunkel, O. (Eds.). (1999). Globalism and the new regionalism. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Holland, M. (2006). ‘Imagined’ interregionalism: Europe’s relations with Africa, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP). In H. Hänggi, R. Roloff, & J. Rüland (Eds.), Interregionalism and international relations (pp. 254–271). London: Routledge.
Jetschke, A. (2009). Institutionalizing ASEAN: Celebrating Europe through network governance. Cambridge Review of International Relations, 22(3), 407–426.
Jetschke, A., & Rüland, J. (2009). Decoupling rhetoric and practice: The cultural limits of ASEAN cooperation. The Pacific Review, 22(2), 179–203.
Johnston, A. I. (1995). Cultural realism: Strategic culture and grand strategy in China in Chinese history. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Johnston, A. I. (1996). Cultural realism and strategy in China. In P. J. Katzenstein (Ed.), The culture of national security: Norms and identity in world politics (pp. 216–268). New York: Columbia University Press.
Katzenstein, P., & Sil, R. (2008). Eclectic theorizing in the study and practice of international relations. In C. Reus Smit & D. Snidal (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international relations (pp. 109–130). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Keck, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Keohane, R., & Nye, J. S. (1977). Power and interdependence: World politics in transition. Boston: Little, Brown.
Kernic, F. (2007). Die Außenbeziehungen der Europäischen Union: eine Einführung. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
Kiatpongsarn, C. (2010). The EU–Thailand relations: Tracing the patterns of the new regionalism. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Krebs, V. (2008). Social network analysis: A brief introduction. http://www.orgnet.com/sna.html. Accessed 20 Oct 2011.
Kuik, C. C. (2008). The essence of hedging: Malaysia and Singapore’s response to a rising China. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 30(2), 159–185.
Kupchan, C. (2002). The end of the American era: US foreign policy and the geopolitics of the twenty-first century. New York: Knopf.
Loewen, H. (2004). Theorie und Empirie transregionaler Kooperation am Beispiel des Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM). Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovac.
Low, L. (2006). The forum for East Asia–Latin America cooperation (FEALAC): Embryonic interregionalism. In H. Hänggi, R. Roloff, & J. Rüland (Eds.), Interregionalism and international relations (pp. 85–96). London: Routledge.
Manea, M. G. (2008). Human rights and the interregional dialogue between Asia and Europe: ASEAN–EU Relations and ASEM. The Pacific Review, 21(3), 369–396.
Manea, M. G. (2009). How and why interaction matters. Cooperation and Conflict, 44(1), 27–49.
Manners, I. (2002). Normative power Europe: A contradiction in terms? Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(2), 235–258.
Maull, H., & Okfen, N. (2006). Comparing interregionalism. The Asia–Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and the Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM). In H. Hänggi, R. Roloff, & J. Rüland (Eds.), Interregionalism and international relations (pp. 217–233). London: Routledge.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations. Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.
Michael, A. (2013). India’s foreign policy and regional multilateralism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mitrany, D. (1943). A working peace system. An argument for the functional development of international organization. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs.
Moravcsik, A. (1999). Negotiating the Single European Act. In B. F. Nelsen & A. C. G. Stubb (Eds.), The European Union: Readings on the theory and practice of European integration (pp. 217–240). Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Olsen, G. R. (2006). The Africa–Europe (Cairo Summit) process: An expression of symbolic politics. In H. Hänggi, R. Roloff, & J. Rüland (Eds.), Interregionalism and international relations (pp. 199–214). London: Routledge.
Pape, T. V. (2005). Soft balancing in the age of US primacy. International Security, 30(1), 46–71.
Pareira, A. (2003). ASEM (Asia–Europe Meeting). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Pedersen, T. (2002). Cooperative hegemony: Power, ideas and institutions in regional integration. Review of International Studies, 28, 677–696.
Radaelli, C. (2000). Whither Europeanization? Concept stretching and substantive change. European Integration Online Papers (EIoP), 4(8). http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2000-008a.htm. Accessed 28 July 2008.
Randeria, S. (2006). Entangled histories of uneven modernities: Civil society, caste councils and family law in India. In J. Keane (Ed.), Civil society. Berlin perspectives (pp. 213–242). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ravenhill, J. (2001). APEC and the construction of Pacific Rim regionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reiterer, M. (2002). Asia–Europe: Do they meet? Reflections on the Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM). Singapore: Asia–Europe Foundation.
Risse, T. (2000). ‘Let’s argue!’ Communicative action in world politics. International Organization, 54(1), 1–39.
Robles, A. C. (2004). The political economy of interregional relations: ASEAN and the EU. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Robles, A. C. (2008). The Asia–Europe meeting: The theory and practice of interregionalism. London: Routledge.
Roloff, R. (2001). Europa, Amerika und Asien zwischen Globalisierung und Regionalisierung. Das Interregionale Konzert und die ökonomische Dimension internationaler Politik. Paderborn: Schoeningh.
Rüland, J. (1996). The Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM): Towards a new Euro–Asian relationship? (Rostocker Informationen zu Politik und Verwaltung, Heft 5). Rostock: Universitat Rostock, Institut fur Politik- und Verwaltungswissenschaften.
Rüland, J. (1999a). The future of the ASEM process: Who, how, why and what? In W. Stokhof & P. van der Velde (Eds.), ASEM. The Asia–Europe meeting: A window of opportunity (pp. 126–151). London: Paul Kegan International.
Rüland, J. (1999b, August 19 and 20). Transregional relations: The Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM). A functional analysis. Paper prepared for the international conference on Asia and Europe on the eve of the 21st Century. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University.
Rüland, J. (2001). ASEAN and the European Union: A bumpy interregional relationship (Discussion Paper, C 95). Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich Wilhelms Universität Bonn, Zentrum für Europäische Integrationsforschung.
Rüland, J. (2006a). Interregionalism: An unfinished agenda. In H. Hänggi, R. Roloff, & J. Rüland (Eds.), Interregionalism and international relations (pp. 295–313). London: Routledge.
Rüland, J. (2006b). Interregionalism and the crisis of multilateralism: How to keep the Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM) relevant. European Foreign Affairs Review, 11(1), 45–62
Rüland, J. (2010). Balancers, multilateral utilities or identity builders? International relations and the study of interregionalism. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(8), 1268–1280.
Rüland, J. (2011). Southeast Asian regionalism and global governance: ‘Multilateral utility’ or ‘hedging utility’? Contemporary Southeast Asia, 33(1), 83–112.
Rüland, J., & Bechle, K. (2010). Interregionalism without regions: IBSA as a form of shallow multilateralism. In J. Dosch & O. Jacobs (Eds.), Asia and Latin America: The encounter of two continents political, economic and social dynamics (pp. 157–176). London: Routledge.
Santander, S. (2005). The European partnership with Mercosur: A relationship based on strategic and neoliberal principles. Journal of European Integration, 27(3), 285–306.
Schimmelfennig, F. (2003). The EU, NATO and the integration of Europe, rules and rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schimmelfennig, F., & Sedelmeier, U. (Eds.). (2005). The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Sjöstedt, G. (1977). The external role of the European Community (Swedish studies in international relations, 7). Farnborough: Saxon House.
Smith, J., & Tsatsas, M. (2002). The new bilateralism: The UK’s relations with the EU. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs.
Söderbaum, F., & Van Langenhove, L. (2005). Introduction: The EU as a global actor and the role of interregionalism. European Integration, 27(3), 249–262.
Söderbaum, F., Stålgren, P., & Van Langenhove, L. (2005, September). The EU as a global actor and the dynamics of interregionalism: A comparative analysis. European Integration, 27(3), 365–380.
Soesastro, H., & Nuttall, S. (1997). The institutional dimension. In C. G. Hernandez, S. Nuttall, & H. Soesastro (Eds.), The rationale and common agenda for Asia–Europe cooperation (pp. 75–85). Tokyo/London: Council for Asia Europe Cooperation.
Solis, M., & Katada, S. N. (2007). Understanding East Asian cross-regionalism: An analytical framework. Pacific Affairs, 80(2), 229–257.
Telò, M. (2006). Europe: A civilian power?: European Union, global governance, world order. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
University of Helsinki. (2006). An evaluation of ASEM in its first decade and an exploration of its future possibilities. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Network for European Studies.
Wagner, C. (2006). Between regionalism and transregionalism: The Indian Ocean Rim-Association for Regional Cooperation (IOR–ARC). In H. Hänggi, R. Roloff, & J. Rüland (Eds.), Interregionalism and international relations (pp. 284–292). London: Routledge.
Wang, P. C. (2012). Normative power Europe and Asia–Europe relations (Occasional paper, 10). Freiburg: University of Freiburg, Southeast Asian Studies.
Warkotsch, A. (2007). Internationale Institutionen als Sozialisationsinstanzen? Die Europäische Union im postsowjetischen Raum. Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, 17(2), 333–356.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wendt, A. (1999). A social theory of international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wunderlich, J. U. (2012). The EU as actor sui generis? A comparison of EU and ASEAN actorness. Journal of Common Market Studies, 50(4), 653–669.
Yeo, L. H. (2003). Asia and Europe. The development and different dimensions of ASEM. London: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rüland, J. (2014). Interregionalism and International Relations: Reanimating an Obsolescent Research Agenda?. In: Baert, F., Scaramagli, T., Söderbaum, F. (eds) Intersecting Interregionalism. United Nations University Series on Regionalism, vol 7. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7566-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7566-4_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-7565-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-7566-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)