Interregionalism and the European Union: Conceptualising Group-to-Group Relations

Chapter
Part of the United Nations University Series on Regionalism book series (UNSR, volume 7)

Abstract

This chapter addresses the conceptualisation of interregionalism within studies of the European Union. It explores the actor-centric and incidental focus of the period of ‘old interregionalism’, and the transformation in the nature of theorising that accompanied the transition to the ‘new interregionalism’ of the post-bipolar period, an approach rooted more broadly in international relations theory. It moves on to consider the emergent actorness-interregionalism framework and the patterns of engagement apparent in Triadic Europe–Asia relations, before questioning whether this model can be applied beyond the Triadic architecture. In so doing, it addresses the need for a comparative approach in studies of interregionalism.

Keywords

European Union Global Governance Regional Identity External Relation Gulf Cooperation Council 
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.

References

  1. Aggarwal, V. K., & Fogerty, E. A. (2004). Between regionalism and globalism: European Union interregional trade strategies. In V. K. Aggarwal & E. A. Fogerty (Eds.), EU trade strategies: Between regionalism and globalism (pp. 1–40). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, D., & Smith, M. (1990). Western Europe’s presence in the contemporary international arena. Review of International Studies, 16(1), 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bretherton, C., & Vogler, J. (2006). The European Union as a global actor. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Bulmer Thomas, V. (2000). The European Union and Mercosur: Prospects for a free trade agreement. Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs, 42(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell, D. (1999). Writing security: United States foreign policy and the politics of identity. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dent, C. M. (1997–1998). The ASEM: Managing the new framework of the EU’s economic relations with East Asia. Pacific Affairs, 70(4), 495–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Doidge, M. (2004a). ‘East is East…’: Inter- and transregionalism and the EU–ASEAN relationship. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch.Google Scholar
  8. Doidge, M. (2004b). Interregionalism and regional actors: The EU–ASEAN example. In W. Stokhof, P. van der Velde, & L. H. Yeo (Eds.), The Eurasian space: Far more than two continents (pp. 39–57). Leiden: International Institute for Asian Studies.Google Scholar
  9. Doidge, M. (2007). Joined at the hip: Regionalism and interregionalism. Journal of European Integration, 29(2), 229–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Doidge, M. (2008). Regional organisation 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. 32–54). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Doidge, M. (2011). The European Union and interregionalism: Patterns of engagement. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  12. Dosch, J. (2005). South East Asia and Latin America: A case of peripheral interregionalism. In J. Faust, M. Mols, & W. H. Kim (Eds.), Latin America and East Asia. Attempts at diversification (pp. 183–196). Seoul: Korea Institute for International Economic Policy.Google Scholar
  13. Edwards, G., & Regelsberger, E. (Eds.). (1990). Europe’s global links: The European community and interregional cooperation. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  14. Eliassen, K. A., & Børve Arnesen, C. (2007). Comparison of European and Southeast Asian integration. In M. Telò (Ed.), European Union and new regionalism: Regional actors and global governance in a post-hegemonic era (pp. 203–221). Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  15. European Commission. (1994a). The European Community and Mercosur: An enhanced policy (COM (1994) 428 final). Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  16. European Commission. (1994b). Towards a new Asia strategy (COM (1994) 314 final). Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  17. European Commission. (1996). Creating a new dynamic in EU–ASEAN relations (COM (1996) 314 final). Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  18. European Commission. (2001). Europe and Asia: A strategic framework for enhanced partnerships (COM (2001) 469 final). Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  19. European Commission. (2003). The European Union and the United Nations: The choice of multilateralism (COM (2003) 526 final). Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  20. European Council. (2003). A secure Europe in a better world. European Security Strategy. Brussels: European Council.Google Scholar
  21. Faust, J. (2004). Latin America, Chile and East Asia: Policy-networks and successful diversification. Journal of Latin American Studies, 36(4), 743–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. FEALAC. (2001). Framework for a forum for dialogue and cooperation between East Asia and Latin America. http://www.fealac.org/FEALAC/images/sub01/about_doc_01.pdf. Accessed 24 Aug 2011.
  23. Ferguson, R. J. (1997). Shaping new relationships: Asia, Europe and the new trilateralism. International Politics, 34(4), 395–415.Google Scholar
  24. Gilson, J. (2002). Asia meets Europe: Interregional linkages in a changing global system. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  25. Goh, C. T. (1999, June 2). The Asian crisis: Lessons and responses. Speech at the Argentine Institute of International Relations (CARI), Buenos Aires. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Singapore. http://app.mfa.gov.sg/2006/lowRes/press/view_press.asp?post_id=210. Accessed 24 Aug 2011.
  26. Grieco, J. M. (1997). Systemic sources of variation in regional institutionalization in Western Europe, East Asia, and the Americas. In E. D. Mansfield & H. V. Milner (Eds.), The political economy of regionalism (pp. 164–187). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  27. 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: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Hänggi, H. (2006). Interregionalism as a multifaceted phenomenon: In search of a typology. In H. Hänggi, R. Roloff, & J. Rüland (Eds.), Interregionalism and international relations (pp. 31–62). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Hänggi, H., Roloff, R., & Rüland, J. (2006). Interregionalism: A new phenomenon in international relations. In H. Hänggi, R. Roloff, & J. Rüland (Eds.), Interregionalism and international relations (pp. 3–14). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Hill, C. (1993). The capability-expectations gap, or conceptualising Europe’s international role. Journal of Common Market Studies, 31(3), 305–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hill, C., & Smith, M. (2005). International relations and the European Union: Themes and issues. In C. Hill & M. Smith (Eds.), International relations and the European Union (pp. 3–17). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. 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. 85–93). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Maull, H. W. (1997). Regional security cooperation: A comparison of Europe and East Asia. Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft, 1, 49–63.Google Scholar
  34. Nuttall, S. (1990). The commission: Protagonists of interregional cooperation. In G. Edwards & E. Regelsberger (Eds.), Europe’s global links: The European community and interregional cooperation (pp. 143–159). London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  35. Prodi, R. (2000, 31 March). Europe and global governance. Speech to the Second COMECE Congress. Brussels. SPEECH/00/115.Google Scholar
  36. Regelsberger, E. (1989). The relations with ASEAN as a ‘model’ of a European Foreign Policy. In G. Schiavone (Ed.), Western Europe and Southeast Asia: Co-operation or competition? (pp. 75–93). Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  37. Regelsberger, E. (1990). The dialogue of the EC/Twelve with other regional groups: A new European identity in the international system? In G. Edwards & E. Regelsberger (Eds.), Europe’s global links: The European community and interregional cooperation (pp. 3–26). London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  38. Ruigrok, W., & van Tulder, R. (1995). The logic of international restructuring. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Rüland, J. (1996). The Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM): Towards a new Euro–Asian relationship? Rostock: Universität Rostock: Institut für Politik und Verwaltungswissenschaften.Google Scholar
  40. Rüland, J. (1999, August 19–20). Transregional relations: The Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM): A functional analysis. Paper presented to the international conference on Asia and Europe on the Eve of the 21st century. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University.Google Scholar
  41. Rüland, J. (2001). ASEAN and the European Union: A Bumpy interregional relationship. Bonn: Zentrum für Europäische Integrationsforschung, Rheinische Friedrich Wilhelms Universität.Google Scholar
  42. Santander, S. (2005). The European partnership with Mercosur: A relationship based on strategic and neo-liberal principles. Journal of European Integration, 27(3), 285–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Segal, G. (1997). Thinking strategically about ASEM: The subsidiarity question. The Pacific Review, 10(1), 124–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sjöstedt, G. (1977). The external role of the European community. Farnborough: Saxon House.Google Scholar
  45. Smith, H. (2002). European Union foreign policy: What it is and what is does. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  46. Söderbaum, F., Stålgren, P., & Van Langehove, L. (2005). The EU as a global actor and the dynamics of interregionalism: A comparative analysis. Journal of European Integration, 27(3), 365–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Centre for Research on EuropeUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations