Do Regional Organizations Travel? - European Integration, Diffusion and the Case of ASEAN

Why do regional organizations share a number of key institutions and policies? Why do regional organizations like the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) or the Carribean Community (CARICOM) look like the European Union? And why do we find the norms of the Helsinki Final Act in treaties of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)? The simple answer is that policy solutions developed in the context of regional integration diffuse. The paper contends that regional integration efforts in Europe have had a decisive but often unacknowledged influence on regional cooperation outside of Europe. The influence of European integration on regional organizations beyond Europe will be illustrated with a case that is unsuspicious of having emulated the European integration experience: The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Since 1957, Southeast Asian states have selectively taken over policies and institutions from the European context. The most recent adoption, it will be argued, is the ASEAN Charter, in effect since November 2008. In accounting for this adoption, the paper argues that ASEAN members’ decision is only partially driven by genuine regional or functional demands. Members borrowed from abroad expecting the Charter to provide a policy solution to the cooperation problems members faced. Thus, the paper makes an original general contribution to the existing literature on regional integration: It argues that a full account of regional integration processes needs to take diffusion processes into consideration.Europeanization; Europeanization

European integration, diffusion and the case of ASEAN

1\. Introduction 5 2\. The History of ASEAN: The Conventional View 6 3\. European and Southeast Asian Regional Integration: Tracing the Similarities 8 4\. What Explains Institutional Similiarities? - Mapping Theoretical Alternatives 11 5\. Interdependent-Horizontal: Diffusion 16 6\. The Charter of Europe and the ASEAN Charter 18 7\. Conclusion: Implications for the Study of Regionalism and Diffusion 21 Literature 23Why do regional organizations share a number of key institutions and policies? Why do regional organizations like the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) or the Carribean Community (CARICOM) look like the European Union? And why do we find the norms of the Helsinki Final Act in treaties of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)? The simple answer is that policy solutions developed in the context of regional integration diffuse. The paper contends that regional integration efforts in Europe have had a decisive but often unacknowledged influence on regional cooperation outside of Europe. The influence of European integration on regional organizations beyond Europe will be illustrated with a case that is unsuspicious of having emulated the European integration experience: The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Since 1957, Southeast Asian states have selectively taken over policies and institutions from the European context. The most recent adoption, it will be argued, is the ASEAN Charter, in effect since November 2008. In accounting for this adoption, the paper argues that ASEAN members’ decision is only partially driven by genuine regional or functional demands. Members borrowed from “abroad” expecting the Charter to provide a policy solution to the cooperation problems members faced. Thus, the paper makes an original general contribution to the existing literature on regional integration: It argues that a full account of regional integration processes needs to take diffusion processes into consideration

Explaining Variation and Persistence: Asia’s Cultural Approach to International Cooperation

Streaming video requires RealPlayer to view.The University Archives has determined that this item is of continuing value to OSU's history.Jetschke, an Assistant Professor of International Relations at the University of Freiberg, is working on her second book, Explaining Variation and Persistence: Asia’s Cultural Approach to International Cooperation. The project explores how and why cultural preferences among Asian states appear to consistently lead to a less institutionalized form of international collaboration. Jetschke argues that previous explanations of the Asian approach to international cooperation don’t take context into account, and she uses comparative case studies to explore the Asian approach in areas such as economics, security and human rights.Ohio State University. Mershon Center for International Security StudiesWeb page announcement; streaming video; event photo

Do regional organizations travel? European integration, diffusion and the case of ASEAN

Why do regional organizations share a number of key institutions and policies? Why do regional organizations like the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) or the Carribean Community (CARICOM) look like the European Union? And why do we find the norms of the Helsinki Final Act in treaties of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)? The simple answer is that policy solutions developed in the context of regional integration diffuse. The paper contends that regional integration efforts in Europe have had a decisive but often unacknowledged influence on regional cooperation outside of Europe. The influence of European integration on regional organizations beyond Europe will be illustrated with a case that is unsuspicious of having emulated the European integration experience: The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Since 1957, Southeast Asian states have selectively taken over policies and institutions from the European context. The most recent adoption, it will be argued, is the ASEAN Charter, in effect since November 2008. In accounting for this adoption, the paper argues that ASEAN members’ decision is only partially driven by genuine regional or functional demands. Members borrowed from “abroad” expecting the Charter to provide a policy solution to the cooperation problems members faced. Thus, the paper makes an original general contribution to the existing literature on regional integration: It argues that a full account of regional integration processes needs to take diffusion processes into consideration

China’s rise means the EU must look for new areas of cooperation with ASEAN.

The EU has long supported greater regional integration in Southeast Asia, but its influence is now in decline due to China’s growing economic importance. Anja Jetschke and Clara Portela argue that in order to continue in its promotion of regional integration, the EU now needs to do more to engage the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in the fields of human rights and non-traditional security

ASEAN–EU Relations: From Regional Integration Assistance to Security Significance?

The Foreign Ministers of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) held their annual summit from 17 to 18 November 2012 in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. European Union (EU) decision-makers have paid relatively little attention to the ASEAN region despite entering into a series of important agreements with ASEAN as a whole and with individual ASEAN member states: In July 2012 the EU entered into the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC), an important regulatory framework for the region. In October 2012, it finished negotiating a partnership and cooperation agreement (PCA) with Vietnam, and in December of the same year, it signed a free trade agreement (FTA) with Singapore. But despite these milestones, the EU generally has played a minor role in the region. To participate in Southeast Asia’s economic dynamism, the EU must make clear its importance to the region – above and beyond trade. The ASEAN Charter of 2007 brought ASEAN’s institutional structures more in line with the EU. One important reform included making human rights protection one of ASEAN’s goals. Myanmar’s political opening also provides the EU with new room to promote farreaching regional initiatives that could beef up ASEAN–EU relations. The EU’s role as a security actor in Southeast Asia remains marginal, as shown by ASEAN’s rejection of its bid to join the East Asia Summit (EAS). Whether the EU’s accession efforts will one day succeed depends on how regional actors rate its contribution to major security issues

ASEAN-EU-Beziehungen: von regionaler Integrationsförderung zur Sicherheitsrelevanz?

Vom 17. bis 18. November 2012 trafen sich die Außenminister der ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations) in Phnom Penh, Kambodscha, zu ihrem jährlichen Gipfel. Die EU-Entscheidungsträger haben der ASEAN-Region bislang relativ wenig Aufmerksamkeit gewidmet, auch wenn 2012 eine Reihe wichtiger Abkommen mit der ASEAN oder einzelnen ASEAN-Staaten abgeschlossen wurde. So ist die EU im Juli 2012 dem Vertrag über Freundschaft und Zusammenarbeit (TAC) beigetreten – einem wichtigen Vertragswerk in der Region. Mit Vietnam wurden die Verhandlungen über ein Partnerschafts- und Kooperationsabkommen abgeschlossen. Trotz dieser Wegmarken bleibt die Rolle der EU für das Geschehen in der Region bisher marginal. Die EU sollte bestrebt sein, gegenüber Südostasien über ihre Bedeutung im Bereich des Handels hinaus ihre eigene wichtige Rolle zu erklären, um selbst vom dynamischen Aufschwung in Asien zu profitieren. Die ASEAN-Charta von 2007 näherte die institutionellen Strukturen der ASEAN in einem ungekannten Ausmaß an die der EU an. Als wichtige Neuerung hat ASEAN den Schutz der Menschenrechte als eines ihrer Ziele aufgenommen. Auch durch die politische Öffnung Myanmars ergeben sich für die EU neue Handlungsspielräume für weiterreichende regionale Initiativen, um die ASEAN-EU-Beziehungen zu vertiefen. Die Rolle der EU als Sicherheitsakteur in der Region bleibt weiterhin marginal. Sinnbildlich hierfür ist, dass ASEAN die Ambitionen der EU ablehnt, dem Ostasien Gipfel (EAS) beizutreten. Ob die Beitrittsbemühungen der EU von Erfolg gekrönt sein werden, hängt letzten Endes davon ab, wie die regionalen Akteure ihren Beitrag zu wichtigen Sicherheitsfragen bewerten

International norms, transnational human rights networks and domestic political change in Indonesia and the Philippines

Defence date: 19 January 2001Examining board: Prof. Thomas Risse (Supervisor, European University Institute) ; Prof. Philippe C. Schmitter (European University Institute) ; Prof. Martha Finnemore (George Washington University, Washington) ; Prof. Jürgen Rüland (Albert-Ludwigs Universität Freiburg i. Breisgau)PDF of thesis uploaded from the Library digitised archive of EUI PhD theses completed between 2013 and 201