ASEAN and the European Union : a bumpy interregional relationship

Although diehard realists still view the nation state as the main actor in an anarchical international environment, its dominant role has come under siege. Analysts inspired by neoliberal and institutionalist thinking hold against realists that globalization has shaped an international system in which interdependence and cooperation have fostered the rise of new influential actors such as inter- and transnational organizations. It is thus no accident that there is a rapidly growing literature which treats international institutions both as a dependent as well as an independendent variable of state behavior. Regional organizations, proliferating in the past two decades, have been a particular focus of this research. While there exists now considerable knowledge on the genesis, evolution, efficiency and legitimacy of such regional organizations and, vice versa, their impact on the behavior of nation states, scholars have neglected the fact that regional organizations are developing their own external relations and becoming actors in their own right (Cremona 1998; Ginsberg 1999). While the European Union (EU) is spearheading these developments, other regional organizations such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Mercosur, the Andean Community, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), to name only a few, are busily developing their own interregional networks. Dating back to the early 1970s, ASEAN-EU relations have been spearheading this novel trend. As the perhaps most advanced interregional relationship, thirty years of ASEAN-EU cooperation provide a rich empirical base for evaluating the achievements of these ties. For this purpose an analytical framework highlighting five major functions of interregionalism will be developed in the next section. Viewed from different theoretical angles, it attaches to interregionalism balancing, institution-building, rationalizing, agenda-setting and identity-building functions. While the extent to which these functions can be identified in the ASEANEU relationship provides us with more systematic insights into the latter’s substance, our analytical framework transcends ASEAN-EU relations. It permits us to offer some still tentative answers to the theoretically more challenging issue in what way interregional fora contribute to an emergent structure of global governance. Are they forming nodal points of international relations, thereby facilitating a division of labor among international institutions? Or are they part of what Reinecke calls a „loose set of crossnational policy patchworks, conspicuous for their missing links and unnecessary overlaps“ (Reinecke 1998:10)? Although a case study like the one presented here is hardly able to provide exhaustive answers to such farreaching questions, they will nevertheless be reconsidered in the concluding section of this paper. The preceding two sections, discussing the empirical material, subdivide ASEAN-EU relations into two major periods: the first covering the period until the end of the Cold War (1972-1990), the second focussing on the postbipolar era (1990-2001). <br /

When English language matters: Internationalizing PhD research by Indonesian political scientists

The essay traces frequent language problems and un(der)developed academic writing skills of Indonesian PhD students in the field of political science and international relations. The author thereby draws on personal experiences as a thesis supervisor. Apart from problematic scope conditions in the Indonesian university system, he identifies a lack of training in academic writing at the undergraduate and graduate levels of education and a missing research and publication culture in social sciences. The remainder of the essay reflects about how the problem of deficient language and academic writing skills can be remedied. It argues that both Indonesian universities and also host universities abroad must develop measures to overcome the identified problems

«Regionalism through Interregionalism» Revisited: Did Europe’s Relations with Asia Strengthen Regional Identities?

The 1990s have seen a tremendous upsurge of regionalism in all parts of the world. In the process, the unfolding institutional global governance architecture became increasingly vertically and horizontally differentiated. The new interregional fora, which proliferated in the 1990s as a new layer of global governance, attracted a lot of scholarly attention. Taking Asia-Europe relations as an example, scholars sought to make sense of interregionalism and attached to it functions of which they believed they would promote global governance. One of the functions attributed to interregionalism was regional identity building. The regular interaction of regional fora, scholars argued, would strengthen regional identity. “Regionalism through interregionalism” was Heiner Hänggi’s much quoted formula for this anticipated effect. Yet, viewed from hindsight, there are few indications that interregionalism has strengthened European and Asian regional identities. The greatest impact on regional identities emanated from the group-to-group ASEAN-EU dialogue relations, while the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) as a transregional forum has developed into a typical institution of what has been categorized as “diminished multilateralism.” Hybrid interregionalism, that is, region-to-group relations, have even less impacted regional identities. Only in the EU-China relationship, they ambiguously affected European regional identity.Gli anni Novanta hanno visto un notevole aumento del regionalismo in tutte le parti del mondo. In questo processo, l’architettura della governance globale istituzionale si è differenziata sempre più verticalmente e orizzontalmente. I nuovi forum interregionali, che si sono moltiplicati negli anni Novanta come un nuovo strato della governance globale, hanno attratto molta attenzione accademica. Prendendo come esempio le relazioni Asia-Europa, gli studiosi hanno cercato di comprendere l’interregionalismo e gli hanno attribuito funzioni che ritenevano promuovessero la governance globale. Una delle funzioni attribuite all’interregionalismo era la costruzione dell’identità regionale. L’interazione regolare dei forum regionali, sostenevano gli studiosi, avrebbe rafforzato l’identità regionale. “Regionalismo tramite interregionalismo” era la formula molto citata di Heiner Hänggi per questo effetto anticipato. Tuttavia, guardando retrospettivamente, ci sono poche indicazioni che l’interregionalismo abbia rafforzato le identità regionali europee e asiatiche. Il maggiore impatto sulle identità regionali è emerso dalle relazioni di dialogo di gruppo a gruppo ASEAN-UE, mentre il vertice Asia-Europa (ASEM) come forum transregionale si è sviluppato in una tipica istituzione di quello che è stato categorizzato come “multilateralismo ridotto.” L’interregionalismo ibrido, ovvero le relazioni regione-gruppo, ha avuto ancor meno impatto sulle identità regionali. Solo nella relazione UE-Cina, hanno influenzato in modo ambiguo l’identità regionale europea

ASEAN and the European Union: A Bumpy Interregional Relationship. ZEI Discussion Papers: 2001, C 95

[Introduction]. Although diehard realists still view the nation state as the main actor in an anarchical international environment, its dominant role has come under siege. Analysts inspired by neoliberal and institutionalist thinking hold against realists that globalization has shaped an international system in which interdependence and cooperation have fostered the rise of new influential actors such as inter- and transnational organizations. It is thus no accident that there is a rapidly growing literature which treats international institutions both as a dependent as well as an independendent variable of state behavior. Regional organizations, proliferating in the past two decades, have been a particular focus of this research. While there exists now considerable knowledge on the genesis, evolution, efficiency and legitimacy of such regional organizations and, vice versa, their impact on the behavior of nation states, scholars have neglected the fact that regional organizations are developing their own external relations and becoming actors in their own right (Cremona 1998; Ginsberg 1999). While the European Union (EU) is spearheading these developments, other regional organizations such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Mercosur, the Andean Community, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), to name only a few, are busily developing their own interregional networks. Dating back to the early 1970s, ASEAN-EU relations have been spearheading this novel trend. As the perhaps most advanced interregional relationship, thirty years of ASEAN-EU cooperation provide a rich empirical base for evaluating the achievements of these ties. For this purpose an analytical framework highlighting five major functions of interregionalism will be developed in the next section. Viewed from different theoretical angles, it attaches to interregionalism balancing, institution-building, rationalizing, agenda-setting and identity-building functions. While the extent to which these functions can be identified in the ASEAN-EU relationship provides us with more systematic insights into the latter’s substance, our analytical framework transcends ASEAN-EU relations. It permits us to offer some still tentative answers to the theoretically more challenging issue in what way interregional fora contribute to an emergent structure of global governance. Are they forming nodal points of international relations, thereby facilitating a division of labor among international institutions? Or are they part of what Reinecke calls a "loose set of crossnational policy patchworks, conspicuous for their missing links and unnecessary overlaps" (Reinecke 1998:10)? Although a case study like the one presented here is hardly able to provide exhaustive answers to such farreaching questions, they will nevertheless be reconsidered in the concluding section of this paper. The preceding two sections, discussing the empirical material, subdivide ASEAN-EU relations into two major periods: the first covering the period until the end of the Cold War (1972-1990), the second focussing on the postbipolar era (1990-2001)