Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Structuring accountability: non-governmental participation in the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM)

By Julie Gilson


This paper issues from a conference on ‘Civil Society and Accountable Global Governance’, organised by Jan Aart Scholte in May 2007. It examines the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) and the role of parallel summitry that has established itself on the margins of the official biennial gathering. Now comprising thirty five ‘cooperation partners’ from the regions of Europe and East Asia, ASEM summits, and the many other meetings in its name, focus on a host of issue areas for cooperation, from the further development of ICT to climate change and anti-terrorism. However, while business groups and trade unions are accommodated within the formal structures of ASEM, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are not. Nevertheless, the Asia-Europe People’s Forum (AEPF) has established itself alongside the summitry process, and the ways in which it has been able to influence government actions within ASEM to date have been contingent upon the particular structural conditions in which they have had to function. In demonstrating the tensions and opportunities inherent in the interregional space created by ASEM, this paper claims that accountability, itself a contested concept, is shaped by the structural frames of reference of agents, by their (power) relationships with one another and by both the internal and external mechanisms available to them to ensure accountability.\ud \ud As ASEM has yet to allow the formal inclusion of NGOs within its framework, claims and consultation to date have been conducted on the edges of the official track. In addition, the multitude of NGO types within the AEPF make it difficult to reach consensus and to organise difference. This difference also implicates and reinforces different levels of influence by NGO participants and highlights the fact that different NGOs may approach their remit quite differently. In addition, the ASEM process embeds an Asian versus European participation that is mirrored within AEPF, with the result that at times in the civil society realm, too, there is evidence to suggest that the structure can bring into conflict Asian versus European ways of doing business. Can accountability be ensured within structures whose modes may not be conducive to transparency and scrutiny? And what claims can the NGO community make for its own accountability? The conclusion examines whether the existing paradigm of civic engagement sets up an impossible hurdle for the establishment of open and accountable policy making behaviour within ASEM

Topics: JZ
Publisher: University of Warwick. Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation
Year: 2007
OAI identifier:

Suggested articles


  1. (1998). A Movement Society: Contentious Politics for a New Century’, doi
  2. Aart
  3. (2005). Accountability and Abuses of Power in World Politics’, doi
  4. Amitav (2003)‘Democratisation and the prospects for participatory regionalism in Southeast Asia’, doi
  5. (2004). and Non-Governmental Organizations: A Comparative Study of Twelve Asia-Pacific Nations’. The International Society for Third-Sector Research (ISTR) "Contesting Citizenship and Civil Society in a Divided World"
  6. (2003). Civil Society and Accountability’, doi
  7. (2000). Civil Society and Political Accountability: Propositions for Discussion’, paper presented at: “Institutions, Accountability and Democratic Governance in
  8. (2000). Civil society and regional security: tensions and potentials in post-crisis Southeast Asia, doi
  9. (2006). Civil society and SADC – Regional responses’, Paper delivered at the conference “Civil society and African regional integration: a Nordic research conference”, Centre for Comparative Integration Studies,
  10. (2004). Convergence in the Making: Transnational Civil Society and the Free Trade Area of the Americas” doi
  11. (2003). European Civil Society or Transnational Social Space?: Conceptions of Society in doi
  12. (2007). Forging Global Accountabilities: Participation, Pluralism and Public Ethics. Cambridge: doi
  13. (2000). From Seattle to Seoul: The Struggle for a Deglobalized World’,
  14. (2002). Global Governance and Democratic Accountability. Lecture, Miliband lecture, London School of Economics,
  15. (2001). Globalization's Democratic Deficit: How to Make International Institutions More Accountable", doi
  16. (1999). Horizontal Accountability in New Democracies’, in Schedler, A. et al, The Self-Restraining State: Power and Accountability in New Democracies, doi
  17. (2006). Regionalist Governance and Transnational Collective Action in Latin America’, doi
  18. (1993). Reluctant partners?: non-governmental organizations, the state and sustainable agricultural development London: doi
  19. (2002). Restructuring World Politics,
  20. (2002). Restructuring World Politics: Transnational Social Movements, Networks, and Norms.
  21. (2004). The European Union in an Age of Accountability’, doi
  22. (2000). The Globalisation Syndrome: Transformation and Resistance. doi
  23. (1996). Too Close for Comfort? The Impact of doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.