Regional Actorship: A Comparative Approach to Interregionalism

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

Abstract

This chapter raises the question of how regions become actors, and how regions interact to shape interregional structures. The concept of regional actorship, although derived from the European experience, serves as an analytical framework in studying the transformation of a region from object to subject, with a certain actor capacity in its external relations, permitting it to enter into organised, purposive relations with other regions. The chapter, firstly, develops a comparative framework built around the concept of regional actorship: the mutually supportive role of regionness, presence and actorness. In the subsequent two sections the framework is employed for a comparison between the historical emergence of the European region and current regionalism and interregionalism in East Asia and Latin America. The final section draws conclusions about the relationship between regionalism, interregionalism and world order.

Keywords

European Union World Order African Union Latin America International Political Economy 
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. Acharya, A. (2007). The emerging regional architecture of world politics. World Politics, 59, 629–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck, U. (2004). Der Kosmopolitische Blick, Oder: Krieg ist Freden. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
  3. Breslin, S., Hughes, C., Phillips, N., & Rosamond, B. (Eds.). (2002). New regionalisms in the global political economy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Bretherton, C., & Vogler, J. (2006). The European Union as a global actor. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Bull, H. (1977). The Anarchical Society. A study of order in world politics. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Buzan, B., & Wæver, O. (2003). Regions and powers: The structure of international security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dannreuther, R. (Ed.). (2004). European Union foreign and security policy. Towards a neighbourhood strategy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. De Lombaerde, P., Söderbaum, F., Van Langenhove, L., & Baert, F. (2010). The problem of comparison in comparative regionalism. Review of International Studies, 36(3), 731–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deutsch, K. W., Burrell, S., Kann, R., Lee, M., Lichtermann, M., Lingren, R., Loewenheim, F., & van Wanegen, R. W. (1957). Political community and the North Atlantic area: International organization in the light of historical experience. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Gilson, J. (2002). Asia meets Europe: Inter-regionalism and the Asia–Europe meeting. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  11. Gilson, J. (2005). New interregionalism? The EU and East Asia. Journal of European Integration, 27(3), 421–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hänggi, H., Roloff, R., & Rüland, J. (Eds.). (2005). Interregionalism and international relations: A stepping stone to global governance? London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Hatoyama, Y. (2009, August 26). A new path for Japan. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/opinion/27iht-edhatoyama.html?pagewanted=all. Accessed 5 July 2012.
  14. Hettne, B. (1993). Neo-mercantilism: The pursuit of regionness. Cooperation and Conflict, 28(3), 211–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hettne, B. (2001). Regionalism, security and development: A comparative perspective. In B. Hettne, A. Inotai, & O. Sunkel (Eds.), Comparing regionalisms. Implications for global development (pp. 1–53). London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  16. Hettne, B. (2003). The new regionalism revisited. In F. Söderbaum & T. M. Shaw (Eds.), Theories of new regionalisms: A Palgrave reader (pp. 22–42). Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  17. Hettne, B., & Söderbaum, F. (2000). Theorising the rise of regionness. New Political Economy, 5(3), 457–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hettne, B., & Söderbaum, F. (2005). Civilian power or soft imperialism?: The EU as a global actor and the role of interregionalism. European Foreign Affairs Review, 10(4), 535–552.Google Scholar
  19. Katzenstein, P. J. (2005). A world of regions: Asia and Europe in the American imperium. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kivimäki, T. (2001). The long peace of ASEAN. Journal of Peace Research, 44(1), 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nesadurai, H. E. S. (2008). The association of Southeast Asian nations. New Political Economy, 13(2), 225–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nicolaïdis, K., & Lacroix, J. (2003). Order and justice beyond the nation-state: Europe’s competing paradigms. In R. Foot, J. Gaddis, & A. Hurrell (Eds.), Order and justice in international relations (pp. 125–154). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Payne, A. (Ed.). (2004). The new regional politics of development. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  24. Phillips, N. (2004). The Americas. In A. Payne (Ed.), The new regional politics of development (pp. 29–58). Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  25. Sjöstedt, G. (1977). The external role of the European community. Farnborough: Gower.Google Scholar
  26. Smith, K. E. (2003). European Union foreign policy in a changing world. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  27. Söderbaum, F., & Stålgren, P. (Eds.). (2010). The European Union and the Global South. Boulder/London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Sunkel, O. (2008). The precarious sustainability of democracy in Latin America. In B. Hettne (Ed.), Sustainable development in a globalised world (pp. 43–69). London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  29. Telò, M. (2006). Europe: A civilian power? Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Global StudiesUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations