Across the EU studies-new regionalism frontier: invitation to a dialogue

This article notes a lack of communication between two broad schools of scholarship on regional integration: EU studies and analyses of the 'new regionalism'. It is argued that the existence of this divide, which is perpetrated by proponents of both schools, is an impediment to the elaboration of useful theory as well as being a missed opportunity. The benefits and problems of using the EU as a comparator in studies of regionalism are assessed. While the mistake of giving the EU analytical primacy as a benchmark or model is to be avoided, it is argued that careful treatment of accumulated insights from EU studies (including a proper re-inspection of classical integration theory) brings clear methodological and meta-theoretical benefits for the project of comparative regional integration scholarship

Reflections on European Integration: 50 Years of the Treaty of Rome

Exploring the development of the European Union, this book examines the ways in which it has been studied over fifty years from the vantage point of four disciplines, each side of the Atlantic, and both academic and practitioner perspectives. Drawing on contributions by some of the world's leading scholars in the field, it maps the past and present of both the EU and EU studies before setting out a provocative agenda for future work in the are

'Greatly Exaggerated': The Death of EU Studies-New Regionalism Dialogue? A Reply to Jørgensen and Valbjørn

Abstract In a recent piece in this journa

Awkward states and regional organisations: the UK and Australia compared

  Both the UK and Australia have experienced difficulties with engaging in regional integration. The UK has famously been labelled by Stephen George as an \u27awkward partner\u27 in the EU context, with other member states as well as the UK itself often questioning Britain\u27s economic, political and cultural closeness to the rest of the EU in the face of its transatlantic ties and allegedly \u27special relationship\u27 with Washington. Australian policy towards regional organisations in South East Asia and the Asia-Pacific has also been equivocal about regional integration, championing the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC) as a means of reorienting itself towards Asia but always with the danger of being considered a proxy for the US by other nations in the region. Yet more recently Australia has proposed a new regional architecture for Asia. This paper compares the UK and Australia as \u27awkward\u27 states in regional integration, tracing their respective positions on three key \u27material\u27 issues of regional integration - institutions, economic policy and security - as well as the more ideational issues of belongingness and identity. It debates which mix of material and ideational factors best accounts for this difference of the UK and Australia from the mainstream in their respective regions. These conclusions are then used to generate hypotheses for future comparative research