Skip to main content
Log in

A case of failed interregionalism? Analyzing the EU-ASEAN free trade agreement negotiations

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Asia Europe Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In 2007, the European Union (EU) and the Association of the Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) started interregional negotiations on a free trade agreement, which failed 2 years later. Relying on document analysis and elite interviews with officials from the EU and ASEAN’s members, this article addresses why and the extent to which the interregional negotiations failed. By rooting the theoretical model in a power-based approach, the analysis demonstrates that the EU has attempted to secure its economic and regulatory power in Southeast Asia. In striving for such power, interregionalism was initially the intuitive way because the EU perceived ASEAN as a cohesive bloc. However, the EU’s ambitious vision for comprehensive agreements clashed with the actual heterogeneity of ASEAN member states. The failure of the interregional approach is, thus, a result of the EU’s delicate balance between political and economic interests in Southeast Asia, which it pursues with trade-specific issues.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The interviewer assured the interviewees complete anonymity so that the paper refers to the semistructured interviews by indicating the institutional affiliation, place, and date of talk.

  2. The paper assumes that the EU is a state-like actor in foreign trade. The EU actor-ness, which empirical studies have supported (Elgström and Larsén 2010; Meunier 2007), rests on the highly supranationalized trade policy (Drezner 2007).

  3. An alternative explanation for the EU’s use of interregionalism is the Commission’s limited resources. Assuming limited capacities, it is less costly for the Commission to negotiate one interregional agreement instead of ten bilateral agreements. This is plausible but cannot explain why the EU shifted to bilateralism after it invested 2 years into preparatory talks for an interregional FTA.

  4. Scholars have assessed the extent to which the EU-Korea FTA could have served as a benchmark for the EU-ASEAN FTA (e.g., Pollet-Fort 2011). Whether the EU has used this FTA as a benchmark is largely an empirical question. None of the interviewees reported such an impact. Rather, interviewees hoped that the EU-Singapore FTA would set a benchmark for further bilateral FTAs after 2009 (Interview #9 2014).

References

  • Aggarwal V, Fogarty E (2004) Explaining trends in EU interregionalism. In: Aggarwal V, Fogarty E (eds) European Union trade strategies: between globalism and regionalism. Palgrave Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Aggarwal V, Govella K (2013) The trade-security nexus in the Asia-Pacific. In: Aggarwal V, Govella K (eds) Linking trade and security: evolving institutions and strategies in Asia, Europe, and the United States. Springer, New York, pp 1–23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Andreosso-O’Callaghan B et al (2006) A qualitative analysis of a potential free trade agreement between the European Union and ASEAN: a report prepared for the European Commission and EU-ASEAN Vision Group. Brussels

  • Astuto M (2010) EU-ASEAN free trade agreement-negotiations. ISPI Working Paper No 26, Milano

  • Ba AD (2003) China and ASEAN: renavigating relations for a 21st-century Asia. Asian Surv 43(4):622–647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blockmans S (2013) EU trade policy: more bilateralism, less WTO?. In: Council on Foreign Relations (ed.) Conference Papers: Asia at the crossroads: regional priorities for the twenty-first century. New York: Council on Foreign Relations

  • Bradford A (2012) The Brussels effect. Northwest Univ Law Rev 107(1):1–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Camroux D (2006) The rise and decline of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) assymetric [sic!] bilateralism and the limitations of interregionalism. Les Cahiers européens de Sciences Po no. 04/2006

  • Camroux D (2010) Interregionalism or merely a fourth-level game? An examination of the EU-ASEAN relationship. East Asia 27:57–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CARIS (2011) Economic integration in South East Asia and the impact on the EU. Final report. Centre for the Analysis of Regional Integration at Sussex, Sussex

    Google Scholar 

  • China FTA Network (2014) China-ASEAN FTA. Chinese Government. http://fta.mofcom.gov.cn/topic/chinaasean.shtml. Accessed 24 Sept 2014

  • Civil Society Dialogue (2008) DG trade civil society dialogue: bilateral Asian free trade agreements: state of play. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Civil Society Dialogue (2009) Bilateral free trade agreements: state of play: ASEAN, India, Korea, Ukraine, Central American States, Andean countries. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission (2007) European Commission welcomes adoption of negotiation mandates for new free trade agreements with India, South Korea, ASEAN. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission (2013a) Bandar Seri Begawan plan of action to strengthen the ASEAN-EU enhanced partnership (2013–2017). European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission (2013b) EU investment negotiations with China and ASEAN. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuyvers L (2007) An EU-ASEAN free trade agreement: reflection on issues, priorities, strategies. Centre for ASEAN Studies Discussion Paper No 53, Antwerp

  • Da Conceição-Heldt E, Meunier S (2014) Speaking with a single voice: internal cohesiveness and external effectiveness of the EU in global governance. J Eur Public Policy 21(7):961–979

  • Damro C (2012) Market power Europe. J Eur Public Policy 19(5):682–699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeRosa DA (2004) US free trade agreements with ASEAN. In: Schott JJ (ed) Free trade agreements, US strategies and priorities. Peterson Institute Press, Washington, pp 117–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Drezner DW (2007) All politics is global: explaining international regulatory regimes. Cambridge University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • ECORYS (2009) Public meeting TSIA EU-ASEAN draft final report. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Elgström O, Larsén M (2010) Free to trade? Commission autonomy in the Economic Partnership Agreement negotiations. J Eur Public Policy 17(2):205–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsig M (2007) The EU’s choice of regulatory venues for trade negotiations: a tale of agency power? J Common Mark Stud 45(4):927–948

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsig M, Dupont C (2012) European Union meets South Korea: bureaucratic interests, exporter discrimination and the negotiations of free trade agreements. J Common Mark Stud 50(3):492–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández R (1997) Returns to regionalism: an evaluation of nontraditional gains from regional trade agreements. New York University, WP 1816

  • Gilson J (2005) New interregionalism? The EU and East Asia. Eur Integr 27(3):207–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupwell D, Gupta N (2009) EU FTA negotiations with India, ASEAN and Korea: the question of fair labour standards. Asia Europe Journal 7(1):79–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):575–594

    Google Scholar 

  • Interview #1 (2014) European Commission. Brussels, Belgium. 2014 Apr 08

  • Interview #10 (2014) European Commission. Brussels, Belgium. 2014 Mar 24

  • Interview #11 (2014) European Commission. Brussels, Belgium. 2014 Mar 28

  • Interview #2 (2014) European External Action Service. Brussels, Belgium. 2014 Mar 11

  • Interview #3 (2014) European Commission. Brussels, Belgium. 2014 Mar 21

  • Interview #4 (2014) European Commission. Brussels, Belgium. 2014 Apr 16

  • Interview #5 (2014) Embassy. Brussels, Belgium. 2014 Apr 18

  • Interview #6 (2014) Embassy. Brussels, Belgium. 2014 Apr 07

  • Interview #7 (2014) Embassy. Brussels, Belgium. 2014 Apr 09

  • Interview #8 (2014) European Commission. Brussels, Belgium. 2014 Mar 14

  • Interview #9 (2014) European Commission. Brussels, Belgium. 2014 Mar 19

  • Khandekar G (2014) Mapping EU-ASEAN relations. FRIDE, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Khorana S, García M (2013) European Union-India trade negotiations: one step forward, one back? J Common Mark Stud 51(4):684–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langhammer RJ, Hiemenz U (1990) Regional integration among developing countries. Institut für Weltwirtschaft Kiel, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Lijun S (2003) China-ASEAN free trade area: origins, developments and strategic motivations. ISEAS Working Paper International Politics & Security Issues Series No. 1

  • Lindberg L (2007) The national element in regional trade agreements: the role of Southeast Asian countries in ASEAN-EU trade. J Southeast Asian Econ 24(2):1–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg L, Alvstam CG (2007) The National Element in Regional Trade agreements: the role of Southeast Asian countries in ASEAN-EU trade. ASEAN Econ Bull 24(2):267–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg L, Alvstam CG (2008) EU-ASEAN trade facing free trade negotiations. Presented at the 10th Annual Conference on European Integration, 20–23 May, 2008. Sweden

  • Meunier S (2007) Managing globalization? The EU in international trade negotiations. J Common Mark Stud 45(4):905–926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ong KY (2008) One ASEAN: a partner for Europe. Asia Europe Journal 5:443–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orbie J, Khorana S (2015) Normative versus market power Europe? The EU-India trade agreement. Asia Europe Journal 13(3):253–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poletti A, de Bièvre D (2013) The political science of European trade policy: a literature review with a research outlook. Comp Eur Polit 12:101–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollet-Fort A (2011) The EU-Korea FTA and its implications for the future EU-Singapore FTA. EU Centre Background Brief no. 4/2011

  • Robles AC (2008) An EU-ASEAN FTA: the EU’s failures as an international actor. Eur Foreign Aff Rev 13:541–560

    Google Scholar 

  • Roloff R (2006) Interregionalism in theoretical perspective: state of the art. In: Hänggi H, Roloff R, Rüland J (eds) Interregionalism and international relations. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 17–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Rüland J (2000) ASEAN and the Asian crisis: theoretical implications and practical consequences for Southeast Asian regionalism. Pac Rev 13(3):421–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rüland J (2001) ASEAN and the European Union: a bumpy interregional relationship. Discussion Paper C 95, Bonn

  • Siles-Brügge G (2011) Resisting protectionism after the crisis: strategic economic discourse and the EU-Korea free trade agreement. New Polit Econ 16(5):627–653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith M (2004) Foreign economic policy. In: Carlsnaes W, Sjursen H, White B (eds) Contemporary European foreign policy. Sage, London, pp 75–91

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Söderbaum F (2016) Rethinking regionalism. Palgrave, London

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Comtrade (2012) United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database. http://comtrade.un.org/db/. Accessed 06 May 2012

  • Vision Group (2006) Report of the ASEAN-EU vision group: transregional partnership for shared and sustainable prosperity. Vision Group on ASEAN-EU Economic Partnership, Ha Noi

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong J, Chan S (2003) China-ASEAN free trade agreement: shaping future economic relations. Asian Surv 43(3):507–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeo HL (2007) Political cooperation between the EU and ASEAN: searching for a long-term agenda and joint projects. In: Welfens PJJ, Ryan C, Chirathivat S, Knipping F (eds) EU-ASEAN: facing economic globalisation. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 45–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Young A, Peterson J (2014) Parochial global Europe: 21st century trade politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann H (2007) Realist power Europe? The EU in the negotiations about China’s and Russia’s WTO accession. J Common Mark Stud 45(4):813–832

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am indebted to the Institute for European Studies for hosting me during my fieldwork in Brussels, Belgium, in March and April 2014, to Magnus Schoeller for his support, and to two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katharina Luise Meissner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Meissner, K.L. A case of failed interregionalism? Analyzing the EU-ASEAN free trade agreement negotiations. Asia Eur J 14, 319–336 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-016-0450-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-016-0450-5

Keywords

Navigation