Asia Europe Journal

, Volume 6, Issue 3–4, pp 487–505 | Cite as

EU in ASEM: its role in framing inter-regional cooperation with East Asian countries

Original paper
First Online:
  • 384 Downloads

Abstract

This study is an institutional analysis that aims at answering the questions: What are the underlying rules or principles of the existing structure within ASEM? What will be the results of functioning of this mechanism? What do these results imply on the future relations of the two regions? The institutional structure of ASEM is based on four main principles: promoting regional integration, enhancing multilateralism inside and outside ASEM, decentralizing transnational cooperation and promoting issue-specific dialogue, and basing all activities, dialogues and discussions on willingness of members. As a consequence, the functioning of this mechanism leads to consolidation of multilateral structure in East Asia as well as to a promotion of knowledge-based policy discussion. The ASEM process have not realized a partnership among equals; rather it put the European members in an advantageous position vis-à-vis the Asian partners because Europeans are well-coordinated, able to mobilize more resource and equipped with various expertise.

Keywords

Regional Integration Foreign Affair Global Governance European Member Asian Member 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgment

This paper is based on my dissertation on ASEM, and the Chinese version is published in Chinese Journal of European Studies (Vol.24, No.1). I would like to thank Prof. Zhou Hong and Prof. Beate Kohler Koch for their encouragements, advices and comments. Previous drafts of this article were presented in an International Political Science Association Research Committee 3 (IPSA RC-3) conference and Conference on European Model under Discussion, and I would like to thank the participants for their valuable feedbacks. My gratitude also goes to Inst. of European Studies and European Studies Centre Programme for funding, MZES for hosting me during my stay in Europe, and the two anonymous referees and editors of AEJ for their work. All faults are mine.

References

  1. European Commission (1996a) Creating a new dynamic In EU–ASEAN Relations, COM(96) 314 finalGoogle Scholar
  2. European Commission (1996b) Communication from the commission to the Council and the European parliament regarding the Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM) to be held I Bangkok on 1–2March 1996, COM(1996) 4 finalGoogle Scholar
  3. European Commission (2000) Perspectives and priorities for the ASEM Process (Asia Europe Meeting) into the new decade, COM(2000) 241Google Scholar
  4. European Commission (2001b) Europe and Asia: A strategic framework for enhanced partnerships, COM(2001) 469Google Scholar
  5. European Commission (2001c) European governance: Preparatory work for the white paper report dated 2001Google Scholar
  6. Gilson J (2005) New interregionalism? The EU and East Asia. Eur Integr 27(3):307–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hettne B, Söderbaum F (2005) Civilian power or soft imperialism? The EU as a global actor and the role of interregionalism. Eur Foreign Aff Rev 10(4):535–552Google Scholar
  8. Kohler-Koch B et al (2004) Euroepaeishe integration-Europaeisches regieren, Chinese version. Chinese Social Sciences Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  9. March JG, Olsen JP (1984) The new institutionalism: organizational factors in political life. Am Polit Sci Rev 78(3):734–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. March JG, Olsen JP (1989) Rediscovering institutions: the organizational basis of politics. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Rüland J (2006) Interregionalism and the crisis of multilateralism: how to keep the Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM) relevant. Eur Foreign Aff Rev 11(1):45–62Google Scholar
  12. Söderbaum F, van Langenhove L (2005) Introduction: the EU as a global actor and the role of interregionalism. Eur Intgr 27(3):249–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Yeo LH (2003) Asia and Europe: the development and different dimensions of ASEM. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar

Further Reading

  1. Aalberts TE (2004) The future of sovereignty in multi-level governance Europe: a constructivist reading. J Common Mark Stud 42(1):23–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aspinwall MD, Schneider G (2000) Same menu, separate tables: the institutionalist turn in political science and the study of European integration. Eur J Polit Res 38(1):1–36Google Scholar
  3. Barnett M, Duvall R (2005) Power in international politics. Int Organ 59(1):39–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bersick S (1998) ASEM: Eine neue Qualitaet der Kooperation zwischen Europa und Asien, Muenster: LitGoogle Scholar
  5. Bersick S (2003) Das Asia–Europe-Meeting(ASEM): Akteure und Interessenlagen. KAS/Auslandsinformationen 12(3):61–63Google Scholar
  6. Bersick S (2004) Auf dem Weg in eine neue Weltordnung? Baden-Baden: Nomos VerlagsgesellschaftGoogle Scholar
  7. Blatter J (2003) Beyond hierarchies and networks: institutional logics and change in transboundary spaces. Governance 16(4):503–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Costa O, Foret F (2005) The European consociational model: an exportable institutional design? Eur Foreign Aff Rev 10(4):501–516Google Scholar
  9. Dehousse R, Majone G (1994) The Institutional dynamics of European integration: from the single act to the Maastricht treaty. In: Martin S (ed) The Construction of Europe. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 91–112Google Scholar
  10. Drysdale P, Vines D (1998) Europe, East Asia and APEC: a shared global agenda? University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Eberlein B, Kerwer D (2004) New governance in the European union: a theoretical perspective. J Common Mark Stud 42(1):121–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. European Commission (1994) Towards a new Asia strategy, COM(94) 314Google Scholar
  13. European Commission (1997a) Communication from the commission to the council, the European parliament and the economic and social committee on a Europe–Asia Co-operation strategy in the field of environment, COM(97) 490 finalGoogle Scholar
  14. European Commission (1997b) Communication from the commission to the council, the European parliament and the economic and social committee on a Europe–Asia co-operation strategy in the field of environment, COM(1997) 490 finalGoogle Scholar
  15. European Commission (2001a) European Union’s role in promoting human rights and democratisation in Third countries, COM(2001) 252 finalGoogle Scholar
  16. European Commission (2001d) Directorate General for external relations. Modalities for future ASEM dialogue: Taking the process forwardGoogle Scholar
  17. European Commission (2001e) Directorate General for external relations (2001) Consolidated version of measures taken by ASEM partners to address the consolidated and prioritesed list of the major generic trade barriers among ASEM partnersGoogle Scholar
  18. European Commission (2002) Unity in Diversity, SEC (2002) 874Google Scholar
  19. Farrell M (2005) EU external relations: exporting the EU model of governance? Eur Foreign Aff Rev 10(4):451–462Google Scholar
  20. Fawcett L (2004) Exploring regional domains: a comparative history of regionalism. Int Aff 80(3):429–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Forster A (1999) The European union in South-East Asia: continuity and change in turbulent times. Int Aff 75(4):743–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Forster A (1994) Evaluating the EU–ASEM relationship: a negotiated order approach. J Eur Public Policy 7(5):787–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haas PM (1992) Epistemic communities and international policy co-ordination. Int Organ 46(1):187–224Google Scholar
  24. Hodson D, Maher I (2001) The open method as a new mode of governance: the case of soft economic policy co-ordination. J Common Mark Stud 30(4):719–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hooghe L, Marks G (2003) Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. Am Polit Sci Rev 97(2):233–243Google Scholar
  26. Jachtenfuchs M (1995) Theoretical perspective on European governance. MZES: AB III/Nr.7Google Scholar
  27. Katzenstein PJ (ed.) (1997) Tamed power: Germany in Europe. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  28. Kohler-Koch B, Eising R (ed.) (1999) The transformation of governance in the European Union. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Lawson S (ed.) (2003) Europe and the Asia-Pacific: culture, identity and representations of region. Routledge Curzon, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee C (ed.) (2000) Asia–Europe co-operation after the 1997–1998 Asian turbulence. Ashgate, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  31. March JG, Olsen JP (1998) The institutional dynamics of international political orders. Int Organ 52(4):479–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maull H, Segal G, Wanandi J (ed.) (1998) Europe and the Asia Pacific. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Murphy CN (2000) Global governance: poorly done and poorly understood. Int Aff 76(4):789–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Neyer J (2003) Discourse and order in the EU: a deliberative approach to multi-level governance. J Common Mark Stud 41(4):687–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Öjenda J (2004) Back to the future? Regionalism in South-East Asia under unilateral pressure. Int Aff 80(3):519–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Olsen JP (2000) Organising European institutions of governance: a prelude to an institutional account of political integration. ARENA Working Paper wp00/2Google Scholar
  37. Olsen JP (2001) The many faces of Europeanization. ARENA Working Paper wp01/2Google Scholar
  38. PAPE, Wolfgang (2001). Models of integration in Asia and Europe: generating public space for our common futures. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European CommunitiesGoogle Scholar
  39. Pareira A (2003) ASEM: Bestandsaufnahme, Moeglichkeiten und Grenzen einer interregionalen Kooperation. Peter Lang, FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  40. de la Porte C (2002) Is the open method of coordination appropriate for organising activities at European level in sensitive policy areas? Eur Law J 8(1):38–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. de la Porte P, Room G (2001) The instruments of ‘new governance’: benchmarking and the open method of coordination. J Eur Soc Policy 11(4):292–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Powell WW, DiMaggio PJ (1991) Introduction. In: Powell WW, DiMaggio PJ (eds) The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  43. Preston PW, Gloson J (ed.) (2001) The European Union and East Asia: interregional linkages in a changing global system. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  44. Regent S (2003) The open method of co-ordination: a new supranational form of governance? Eur Law J 9(2):190–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reich S (2000) The four faces of institutionalism: public policy and a pluralistic perspective. Governance 13(4):501–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Reiterer M (2002) Asia–Europe: do they meet? Singapore: Asia–Europe FoundationGoogle Scholar
  47. Richards GA, Kirkpatrick C (1999) Reorienting interregional co-operation in the global political economy: Europe’s East Asian policy. J Common Mark Stud 37(4):683–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rosamond B (2005) Conceptualizing the EU model of governance in world politics. Eur Foreign Aff Rev 10(4):463–478Google Scholar
  49. Rosenau JN, Czempiel E-O (ed.) (1998) Governance without government: order and change in world politics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  50. Ruggie JG (1998) Constructing the world polity. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  51. Sand I-J (1998) Understanding the new forms of governance: mutually interdependent, reflexive, destabilised and competing institutions. Eur Law J 4(3):271–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Scott C (2002) The governance of the European Union: the potential for multi-level control. Eur Law J 8(1):59–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Snyder F (1999) Governing economic globalisation: global legal pluralism and European law. Eur Law J 5(4):334–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Söderbaum F, Stålgren P, van Langenhove L (2005) The EU as a global actor and the dynamics of interregionalism: a comparative analysis. Eur Integr 27(3):365–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stokhof W, van der Velde P (ed.) (2001) Asian–European perspectives: developing the ASEM process. Curzon Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  56. Strange R, Slater J, Molteni C (ed.) (2000) The European Union and ASEAN. MacMillan Press, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  57. Wiessala G (2002) The European Union and Asian countries. Sheffield Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of European StudiesChinese Academy of Social SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations