Interregional relations and legitimacy in global governance: the EU in ASEM

Abstract

This article explores the ramifications of the European Union’s (EU) internal legitimacy debate for its external relations. It applies the Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM) as a case study to examine the EU’s attempts to promote legitimacy in global governance, more specifically in interregional institutions. The article’s theoretical framework draws from the EU’s legitimacy debate. It identifies three key sources of legitimacy, namely, (i) input legitimacy or democratic control and accountability, (ii) output legitimacy or performance and achievement of core purposes, and (iii) the degree of common identity as externalised through collective representation and the articulation of shared norms and values. The empirical analysis thereafter leads to three observations. First, the EU’s presence has contributed to an increased democratic involvement by ASEM’s different stakeholders including parliaments and civil society. Second, purely from an institutional legitimacy perspective ASEM achieves its purpose as a forum to ‘constructively engage’ with Asian countries and address issues relating to global governance. Third, ASEM reveals the EU’s dual identity as an intergovernmental grouping and an organisation with a gradually increasing capacity of collective representation. However, the advancement of the EU’s normative objectives through ASEM has been problematic, leading to a more interest-based and pragmatic policy path. The article concludes that the EU’s legitimacy debate has had a bearing on relations with Asia and, in particular, with ASEM. Importantly, and given the EU’s setbacks, some elements of the ‘EU’s way’ have proven successful in promoting democratic notions of legitimacy beyond the state.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Weiss makes this claim in the context of the UN system, but it can be expanded in a majority of the global governance institutions reflecting intergovernmental cooperation rather than supranational governance.

  2. 2.

    Although the concept of legitimacy has a universal character, the normative bases of legitimacy of a state’s political system are diverse (Beetham and Lord 1998, pp. 3–5). Accordingly, a state with an authoritarian regime can be viewed as a legitimate actor within the international organisation view. However, and in the EU context, a political system based on liberal democracy is one of the key requirements for membership. Hence, the EU’s rightful authority as an international organisation is closely connected to the liberal democratic notions of legitimacy.

  3. 3.

    Significantly, these essentially normative concerns are also reflected in the ‘analytical disputes between political scientists: about what kind of political phenomenon the EU is, or is on the way to becoming; about whether there is a ‘legitimacy deficit’, and, if so, wherein it lies and how far it matters’ (Beetham and Lord 1998, p. 2).

  4. 4.

    Ten new EU member states joined in 2004, while the Asian group enlarged to include Cambodia, Laos and Burma/Myanmar. India, Pakistan, Mongolia and the ASEAN Secretariat entered the partnership in 2006, after the EU had further come to include Romania and Bulgaria. The total reached 48 after Russia, Australia and New Zealand joined the gathering in 2010. Bangladesh applied for membership in October 2010, followed by applications by Switzerland and Norway in March 2011.

  5. 5.

    See Lambert (2011, p. 50) for an outline of the practical arrangements to enable the public–private dialogue during the recent summit in Brussels.

  6. 6.

    ASEP meetings have been held in Strasbourg (1996), Manila (2002), Hue (2004), Helsinki (2006), Beijing (2008) and Brussels (2010). The seventh gathering is scheduled to take place in Vientiane, Laos in October 2012, one month before the actual ASEM summit.

  7. 7.

    The EP organised the first ASEP gathering in Strasbourg in 1996. It thereafter promoted the idea of reviving the forum (see European Parliament 2000).

  8. 8.

    See, for example, Commissioner Patten’s remark in the EP (debate of 16 January 2001): ‘Another positive step forward is that our Asian partners seem more inclined to increase the involvement of civil society’.

  9. 9.

    See, for example, Pelkmans and Shinkai 1997; Stokhof and van der Velde 1999, 2001; Gilson 2002; Yeo 2003; Stokhof et al. 2004; Robles 2008; Rüland et al. 2008; Gaens 2008; Yeo and Hofmeister 2010; Yeo 2011; and Bersick and van der Velde 2011.

  10. 10.

    Most progress in this field has been made in the area of customs cooperation, through the work of the ASEM Working Group on Customs Matters (AWC; European Parliament 2010).

  11. 11.

    In the form of a proposed technical support unit or ‘ASEM Chairman Support Group’ (ACSG). See ‘Non-paper on ASEM Working Methods’, Annex 2 of the Chairman’s Statement of the 10th ASEM Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, Gödöllö, Hungary, 6–7 June 2011.

  12. 12.

    The visa ban was lifted in January 2012 in recognition of Myanmar’s progress in political reform.

  13. 13.

    The seminars have so far taken place 11 times and have been jointly organised by ASEF, the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Raoul Wallenberg Institute (delegated by the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs) as the three main sponsors.

References

  1. AEPF (2010) Briefing paper for the ASEM (Asia Europe Meeting) Public conference on EU-Asia inter-regional relations. http://www.aepf.info/resources/other-issues/cat_view/37-other-issues.html. Accessed 25 February 2012

  2. ASEP (2010) ASEP6 Sixth Asia–Europe Parliamentary Partnership Meeting. Summary Report. Brussels, 26–27 September 2010. http://www.asep6.be/pdf/ASEP_Summary_Report.pdf. Accessed 21 February 2012

  3. Beetham D, Lord C (1998) Legitimacy and the EU. Longman, Harlow

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bersick S (2008) The democratisation of inter- and transregional dialogues. The role of civil society, NGOs and parliaments. In: Rüland J, Schubert G, Schucher G, Storz C (eds) Asian–Europe relations. Building blocks for global governance? Routledge, Abingdon, pp 244–269

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bersick S, van der Velde P (eds) (2011) The Asia–Europe Meeting: contributing to a new global governance architecture. The eighth ASEM summit in Brussels (2010). Amsterdam University Press

  6. Bretherton C, Vogler J (2006) The European Union as a global actor, 2nd edn. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  7. Burgess J (2002) What’s so European about the European Union? Legitimacy between institution and identity. Eur J Soc Theory 5(4):467–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Buchanan A, Keohane R (2006) The legitimacy of global governance institutions. Ethics Int Affairs 20(4):405–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Checkel J (2001) Social construction and European integration. In: Christiansen T, Jorgensen KE, Wiener A (eds) The social construction of Europe. Sage, London, pp 50–65

    Google Scholar 

  10. Council of the European Union (2011) HRVP Ashton chairs ASEM Foreign Ministers’ meeting. A220/11, 6 June

  11. de Crombrugghe B (2011) ASEM’s future enlargement: the way forward. In: Bersick S, van der Velde P (eds) The Asia–Europe meeting: contributing to a new global governance architecture. The eighth ASEM summit in Brussels (2010). Amsterdam University Press, pp 171–185

  12. Dent C (2006) The Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM) Process: beyond the triadic political economy? In: Hänggi H, Roloff R, Rüland J (eds) Interregionalism and international relations. Routledge, London, pp 113–127

    Google Scholar 

  13. European Commission (1994) Towards a new Asia strategy. COM(94) 314 final

  14. European Commission (1996) Regarding the Asia–Europe meeting (ASEM) to be held in Bangkok on 1–2 March 1996. COM(96) 4 final, 16 January

  15. European Commission (2010) Regional strategy for Asia 2007–2013 — Multi-annual programme for Asia (MIP) 2011–2013. Adopted by Commission Decision C(2010)7863, 17 November

  16. European Parliament (1998) Resolution on the ASEM process (Europe–Asia relations). Minutes of 12 March, final edition

  17. European Parliament (2000) Resolution on the third Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM 3) in Seoul, 20–21 October 2000. Minutes of 4 October, final edition

  18. European Parliament (2007) Resolution of 21 June 2007 on the draft Commission decision establishing a Regional Strategy Document 2007–2013 and a multiannual indicative programme for Asia. P6_TA(2007)0280, final edition

  19. European Parliament (2010) EU participation in ASEM. Answer given by HR/VP Ashton on behalf of the commission. Parliamentary questions E-6689/2010, 19 October

  20. Forsberg T (2011) Normative Power Europe, once again: A conceptual analysis of an ideal type. J Common Mkt Stud 49(6):1183–1204

    Google Scholar 

  21. Forster A (2000) Evaluating the EU–ASEM relationship: a negotiated order approach. J Eur Public Policy 7(5):787–805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gaens B (ed) (2008) The Asia–Europe meeting: a decade of interregional dialogue. Ashgate, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gaens B (2009) The development of the EU’s Asia strategy with special reference to China and India: driving forces and new directions. In: Gaens B, Jokela J, Limnell E (eds) The role of the European Union in Asia: China and India as strategic partners. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 55–75

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gilson J (2002) Asia meets Europe. Inter-regionalism and the Asia–Europe meeting. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  25. Goodin R (1996) Institutions and their design. In: Goodin R (ed) The theory of institutional design. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hill C (1993) The capability-expectation gap, or conceptualizating Europe’s international role. J Common Mkt Stud 31(3):305–328

    Google Scholar 

  27. Jokela J (2009) The European Union as an international actor. Europeanization and institutional changes in the light of the EU’s Asia policies. In: Gaens B, Jokela J, Limnell E (eds) The role of the European Union in Asia: China and India as strategic partners. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 37–53

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kaczynski P (2011) Swimming in murky waters. Challenges in developing the EU’s external representation. FIIA Briefing Paper 88, September. The Finnish Institute of International Affairs, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  29. Keohane R (2006) The contingent legitimacy of multilateralism. GARNET Working Paper 09/06.

  30. Keva S, Gaens B (2008) ASEM’s institutional infrastructure. In: Gaens B (ed) Europe–Asia interregional relations — a decade of ASEM. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 115–134

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kissling C (2011) The legal and political status of international parliamentary institutions. Background paper 4. Committee for a democratic UN, Berlin

  32. Lambert (2011) ASEM8: the narrative. In: Bersick S, van der Velde P (eds) The Asia–Europe Meeting: contributing to a new global governance architecture. The eighth ASEM summit in Brussels (2010). Amsterdam University Press, pp 45–56

  33. Lim P (2001) The unfolding Asia–Europe meeting (ASEM) process. In: Preston P, Gilson J (eds) The European Union and East Asia. Interregional linkages in a changing global system, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 91–108

    Google Scholar 

  34. Longo M, Murray P (2011) No ode to joy? Reflections on the European Union’s legitimacy. Int Pol 48(6):667–690

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lord C (2005) Accountable and legimate? The EU’s international role. In: Hill C, Smith M (eds) International relations and the European Union. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 113–133

    Google Scholar 

  36. Lord C (2011) Legitimate and democratic? The EU’s international role. In: Hill C, Smith M (eds) International relations and the European Union, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 128–148

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lucarelli S (2006) Introduction: values, principles, identity and European Union foreign policy. In: Lucarelli S, Manners I (eds) Values and principles in European Union foreign policy. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 1–18

    Google Scholar 

  38. Lucarelli S, Manners I (2006) Conclusion: valuing principles in European Union foreign policy. In: Lucarelli S, Manners I (eds) Values and principles in European Union foreign policy. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 201–215

    Google Scholar 

  39. Manea MG (2008) Human rights and the interregional dialogue between Asia and Europe: ASEAN–EU relations and ASEM. Pac Rev 21(3):369–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Manners I (2002) Normative power Europe: a contradiction in terms. J Common Mkt Stud 40(2):235–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Maull H (1999) Governance in the age of globalization: An ASEM agenda. Caecgov.doc/8.6.99fn. http://213.207.94.236/files/maull_governance.pdf. Accessed 25 February 2012

  42. Mayer H, Vogt H (2006) A responsible Europe? Ethical foundations of EU external affairs, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

    Google Scholar 

  43. Nuttall S (1996) Rationale for Europe–Asia co–operation. In: Council for Asia–Europe Cooperation (CAEC) (ed) Europe–Asia: reinforcing the informal dialogue. Cahiers de l’Ifri, Paris, pp 76–84

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ojanen H (2002) Theories at a loss? EU–NATO fusion and the ‘low-politicisation’ of security and defence in the European integration. FIIA working papers 35. The Finnish Institute of International Affairs, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  45. Pelkmans J, Shinkai H (1997) ASEM: how promising a partnership? EIAS, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  46. Peters B (1996) Political Institutions: old and new. In: Goodin R, Klingemann HD (eds) A new handbook of political science. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  47. Reiterer M (2004) ASEM: value-added to international relations and to the Asia–Europe relationship. In: Stokhof W, van der Velde P, Yeo LH (eds) The Eurasian space. Far more than two continents, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, pp 9–22

    Google Scholar 

  48. Reiterer M (2005) Asia Europe: do they meet? — revisited. In: Mantaha Z, Tanaka T (eds) Enlarging European Union and Asia. Asia–Europe Foundation, Singapore, pp 249–287

    Google Scholar 

  49. Robles A (2008) The Asia–Europe Meeting. The theory and practice of interregionalism, Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  50. Rüland J (2001) ASEAN and the EU: A bumpy interregional relationship. ZEI Discussion Paper C95. Center for European Integration Studies, Rheinische Friedrich Wilhelms-Universität Bonn

  51. Rüland J (2010) Balancers, multilateral utilities or regional identity builders? International relations and the study of interregionalism. J Eur Public Policy 17(8):1271–1283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Rüland J (2012) The rise of ‘diminished multilateralism’: East Asian and European forum shopping in global governance. Asia Eur J, 9 February

  53. Rüland J, Schubert G, Schucher G, Storz C (eds) (2008) Asian–Europe relations. Building blocks for global governance? Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  54. Sjursen H (2011) Not so intergovernmental after all? On democracy and integration in European Foreign and Security Policy. J Eur Public Pol 18(8):1078–1095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Schmitter P (2004) Neo-Neofunctionalism. In: Wiener A, Diez T (eds) European Integration Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  56. Stokhof W, van der Velde P (eds) (1999) ASEM (The Asia–Europe meeting): a window of opportunity. Kegan Paul, London

    Google Scholar 

  57. Stokhof W, van der Velde P (eds) (2001) Asian–European perspectives: developing the ASEM process. Curzon, Richmond

    Google Scholar 

  58. Stokhof W, van der Velde P, Yeo LH (eds) (2004) The Eurasian space. Far more than two continents. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  59. Telò M (2007) Introduction: globalization, new regionalism and the role of the European Union. In: Telò M (ed) European Union and new regionalism. Regional actors and global governance in a post-hegemonic era, Ashgate, Farnham, pp 1–18

    Google Scholar 

  60. Tiilikainen T (2008) ASEM as part of the European Union’s external relations. In: Gaens B (ed) Europe–Asia interregional relations — A decade of ASEM. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 134–148

    Google Scholar 

  61. Tiilikainen T (2011) The empowered European Parliament. Accommodation to the new functions provided by the Lisbon Treaty. FIIA briefing paper 91, November. The Finnish Institute of International Affairs, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  62. Van Langenhove L (2010) The EU as a global actor in a multipolar world and multilateral 2.0 Environment. Egmont Paper 36, Egmont — The royal institute for international relations. Academia Press, Ghent

    Google Scholar 

  63. Wagner W (2007) The democratic deficit in the EU’s security and defence policy — Why bother? RECON online working paper, 2007/10. http://www.reconproject.eu/main.php/RECON_wp_0710.pdf?fileitem=4866332. Accessed 27 February 2012

  64. Wallace H (1993) Deepening and widening: problems of legitimacy for the EC. In: Garcia S (ed) European identity and the search for legitimacy. Pinter, London, pp 95–105

    Google Scholar 

  65. Yeo LH (2003) Asia and Europe. The development and different dimensions of ASEM. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  66. Yeo LH, Hofmeister W (eds) (2010) The Asia–Europe meeting. Engagement, enlargement and expectations. EU Centre and Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  67. Yeo LH (2011) Asia and Europe. Moving towards a common agenda. Panorama 01/2011

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Juha Jokela or Bart Gaens.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jokela, J., Gaens, B. Interregional relations and legitimacy in global governance: the EU in ASEM. Asia Eur J 10, 145–164 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-012-0325-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • European Union
  • Global Governance
  • European Parliament
  • Lisbon Treaty
  • Democratic Control