亚欧会议与亚欧间其他合作机制的关系

本文着重研究亚欧会议多边进程与中欧双边机制、日欧双边机制和东盟-欧盟双边机制的关系。与上述三个双边机制相比,亚欧会议进程具有广泛性、多边性、开放性、松散性等特征。亚欧会议与三者之间的关系不是一种零和关系,而是一种既相互补充、相互促进,又相互牵扯、相互制约的关系,其中每一种合作机制都是不可替代的。要使它们充分发挥各自的作用,就要妥善协调它们之间的关系,促进它们之间的良性互动。     

试论全球治理、亚欧会议及中欧合作间的相互关系

本文在考察全球治理的理论与实践基础上,分析全球治理与跨区域性合作机制--亚欧会议之间的互动关系,并从理论和实证两个层面审视全球治理视阈中亚欧会议对中欧关系的影响.本文认为:全球治理的理论与实践是相辅相成的,两者都是试图在全球化不断深入发展的进程中,从无序的国际体系中寻求某种秩序,而亚欧会议则是全球治理发展过程中的一个环节.同时,亚欧会议在参与全球治理的过程中对中欧合作产生重要的影响,其中包括促使中欧合作更多地强调多边协调,扫除中欧合作的意识形态障碍,促进中欧合作超越以"多极"制约"单极"的权力政治观念,以及推进中欧在公民社会领域中的合作,而这一切又对全球治理具有很大的正面影响.     

对亚欧会议下一步发展的几点思考

亚欧会议(ASEM)10年来促进了亚欧各国的政治互信、经济合作和文化交流,也加速了亚欧各自地区特别是东亚区域的合作进程,展现了较强的生命力。但该多边机制至今仍存在着“虚多实少”以及“松散”等问题。亚欧会议符合亚欧各方利益,对中国更具有独特的重要意义。中国应与各成员一起,推动亚欧会议适应新形势、确立新重点、创建新机制,以持续加强亚欧合作,改善全球安全、稳定和发展的大环境。     

亚欧会议与中越合作

亚欧会议的诞生是当代国际关系和国际政治事务中的一件大事,第一届亚欧会议的召开,即已引起国际社会的普遍关注。在冷战结束后世界局势新旧格局转换、地缘政治环境发生巨大变化和国际社会为建立新的世界政治经济新秩序而不懈努力的宏观背景下,亚欧会议的进程和发展趋向更为世人所瞩目。这说明亚欧会议的诞生和发展,具有巨大的历史和现实意义,已经产生了较为广泛的影响。中国作为亚欧会议的成员国和亚洲方面的一个大国,以积极的态度参与亚欧会议及其各项后续行动,以实际行动促进亚欧之间的合作与对话,发挥了不可忽视的作用。越南也是亚欧会议…     

亚欧会议机制化问题浅析

非机制化运作方式对亚欧会议的整个进程的发展起了推动作用,但随着时间的推移和合作的深入也遇到了许多困难,因而出现了实现机制化的要求。然而,亚欧会议要实现机制化依然面临诸多困难和制约因素,机制化只能在一个循序渐进的进程中逐步实现。未来亚欧会议即使要实现机制化,也必须适应地区合作主体多样性的现实,寻求一种更为灵活的形式。从长远来看,机制化本身并非目的,将亚欧会议进程不断推向前进,使其永远充满活力才是实质性目标。     

亚欧会议与亚太地区组织的互动关系——兼论新地区主义的发展

亚欧会议与"10 3"和APEC都是在新地区主义浪潮推动下形成的区域合作进程和机制.由于它们均将东亚国家纳入了自身的合作框架,在覆盖的地域范围上相互交叉、在讨论的议题上有所重合、在运作机制上亦具有相似性,因而形成相互牵动、相互影响、相互补充、相互借鉴的复杂关系.如何协调亚欧会议与"10 3"和APEC之间的关系,推动它们之间实现良性互动,对于亚欧会议、"10 3"和APEC的进一步发展来说是一个需要解决的重要课题.作为三机制内具有影响力的成员,中国在推动亚欧会议与"10 3"和APEC的良性互动方面可以发挥重要的、建设性的作用.     

亚欧区域合作进程中的制度化问题:差异与前景

本文以“亚欧会议”为洲际区域合作研究对象 ,分析亚欧区域合作走向机制化进程中存在的阶段性差异和制度化建构方式差异 ,包括合作模式、美国因素、内聚力不足以及对域外依附要求等问题。从中国参与的政策和前景看 ,“亚欧会议”为标志的亚欧区域合作 ,构成了我国新型的外部环境 ,意义重大     

关于欧盟对亚洲政策的几点看法

冷战结束特别是20世纪90年代中期以来，欧盟国家对亚洲的重视程度显著提高。这与冷战时期欧洲对亚洲的“忽略”态度形成巨大反差。1994年欧盟委员会通过了《走向亚洲新战略》文件，标志着欧盟新亚洲政策的形成。1996年首次亚欧会议召开，确立了欧盟与亚洲对话和合作的固定机制。     

新世纪初亚欧关系的发展及影响

自15、16世纪西欧资本主义国家开始在亚洲开拓殖民地、半殖民地,以及争夺势力范围以来,欧亚关系长期处于殖民者与被殖民者、掠夺者与被掠夺者、发达者与欠发达者之间的不平等状态。1996年亚欧会议召开,标志着亚欧关系从此进入平等、对话、合作的新时期。新世纪开启,随着亚欧     

大事综览

2004年10月大事各方有如下评述: 一、第五届亚欧首脑会议在河内举行。7日晚,亚欧会议举行仪式,正式接纳13个新成员。它们是:老挝、柬埔寨、缅甸和今年5月加入欧盟的爱沙尼亚、拉脱维亚、立陶宛、波兰、捷克、斯洛伐克、匈牙利、斯洛文尼亚、马耳他、塞浦路斯。至此,东盟10国和欧盟25国均已加入亚欧会议,亚欧会议成员国已由26个扩大至39个。扩大后的亚欧会议成员国人口占世界人口的40％,国内生产总值超过全球的一半。     

Europe and Asian international cooperation

In 2006 Asian–European Meeting, ASEM, turned 10 years old. Reaching this milestone justifies critical reflections of the first decade of the dialogue forum, and debate on the directions for the second decade. When looking at the previous success of ASEM, and when planning for the new directions of European–Asian cooperation, one must keep in mind that this vast area covered by ASEM includes many drastically different value sets and definitions of what constitutes success and failure in Asian-European cooperation. From the European perspective, it is important to remember that many of the European approaches and institutions of international cooperation are not necessarily seen by Asians as being optimal for ASEM. In order to assess how Europe should view the approaches and institutionalisation of ASEM, it is important that we know how the expectations of Asians and Europeans differ, and how the different Asian and European approaches to international cooperation manage to bring results. These are the questions tackled here.     

ASEM and the future of Asia-Europe relations: Background,characteristics and challenges

The article mainly discusses the background and implications of Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM), from an Asian perspective. It will be clarified that the ASEM process was a by-product of increasing tensions between multilateralism and regionalism. As a comprehensive cooperation forum between the EU and 10 East Asian countries, comprising political, economic and cultural agenda, ASEMs approach so far was multi-purposed and multi-faceted. The Asian members of ASEM have shown different strategic behavior in approaching ASEM, which is the result of their diverse geopolitical positions. However, the Asians, especially since the financial crisis of 1997, are well aware of the utility and necessity of their own regionalism, and many initiatives have already been brought into effect, negotiated or even feasibility-studied. The ASEM process may, therefore, find itself in increasing tension with this increasing regionalist tendency in East Asia. It is an immediate task for both European and Asian members of ASEM to revitalize the dynamics of ASEM cooperation.     

ASIA-EUROPE MEETING (ASEM): fostering a multipolar world order through inter-regional cooperation

Since its inception in 1996 ASEM has provided an opportunity for focussing relations between the EU and East Asia as a forum for informal multilayered dialogue and building a framework for enhanced cooperation in the political, economic and social/cultural fields. Inter-regionalism, of which ASEM is the incarnation in the EU-Asia relationship, developed into an important policy tool of the EU in an effort to maintain a multipolar setting. Regional identities in Asia are at a different level when comparing South East Asia, North East Asia, East Asia and South and Central Asia. ASEM contributed to a certain extent to the region building in East Asia. Although the economic pillar of ASEM turned out to be the more important one when compared to the political and the people-to-people pillars, it will not become the basis for a (deep) inter-regional free trade agreement because of the diversity of the Asian members, reinforced by the last ASEM enlargement. However, turning weakness into strength, ASEM could become the EU’s vehicle for a more holistic approach to Asia thereby fostering a more economic and political multipolar world order. The financial melt down of the international financial order lead to the rediscovery of the need for international cooperation not only on the level of business but also among states. Making use of ASEM, developed over the last 12 years, could provide the much needed platform in the EU-Asia relationship. The author, Adjunct Professor for International Politics at the University of Innsbruck, formerly served as ASEM Counsellor of the European Commission as well as Minister and Deputy Head of the Delegation of the European Commission to Japan and is presently EC Ambassador to Switzerland. He contributes this paper solely in his academic capacity and the views expressed should not be attributed to the European Commission; the thoughtful comments by Brigid Gavin on the draft are appreciated and the research assistance of Tilo Wagner is recognised.

---

Asian perceptions about the EU in the Asia�CEurope Meeting (ASEM)

The inauguration of the Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM) in Bangkok in March 1996 has created enthusiasm and hopes for closer inter-regional relations between Asia and Europe. This article observes how behaviors of European countries representatives in the ASEM process have significantly shaped the perceptions of Asian officials and people about the EU and European intentions to develop mutually beneficial relations with Asia. It employs a constructivist framework in which the ASEM process is treated as a dynamic social setting for not only Asia–Europe inter-regional interactions but also intra-Asia socialization. Methodologically, it is a qualitative research with an inductive process and interpretive method. The research uses qualitative data, gathered from various sources and 82 in-depth interviews with diplomats, scholars, journalists, business peoples and civil society representatives in five Asian countries. This study finds that some behaviors of EU participants at ASEM or ASEF interregional forums are counterproductive for EU efforts to develop robust relations with Asian countries. The polarization between Asian and European groups in the ASEM or ASEF meetings, caused by political issues and colonial memory, contributed to the difficulties in trust-building between Asian and European participants. In addition, by their frequent absence from ASEM Summits, EU leaders squandered rare opportunities for a ‘meeting of minds and hearts’ with their Asian counterparts. This process seems to be a precondition for Asians to develop tangible cooperation.     

EU in ASEM: its role in framing inter-regional cooperation with East Asian countries

This study is an institutional analysis that aims at answering the questions: What are the underlying rules or principles of the existing structure within ASEM? What will be the results of functioning of this mechanism? What do these results imply on the future relations of the two regions? The institutional structure of ASEM is based on four main principles: promoting regional integration, enhancing multilateralism inside and outside ASEM, decentralizing transnational cooperation and promoting issue-specific dialogue, and basing all activities, dialogues and discussions on willingness of members. As a consequence, the functioning of this mechanism leads to consolidation of multilateral structure in East Asia as well as to a promotion of knowledge-based policy discussion. The ASEM process have not realized a partnership among equals; rather it put the European members in an advantageous position vis-à-vis the Asian partners because Europeans are well-coordinated, able to mobilize more resource and equipped with various expertise.     

East Asia and Europe—partners in global politics?

Practitioners and researchers have repeatedly portrayed the Asia–Europe Meeting as an institution that is not fully able to realize its agenda-setting potential in global negotiations or discourses. This paper argues that this assessment basically holds true even after 10 years of cooperation: Although ASEM tries to improve on this meagre balance by establishing a virtual secretariat and advancing common positions on trade, finance and environmental issues, cooperation between Asian and European states is frequently marred by the pitfalls of informality and the antagonisms of different cooperation cultures. Yet, successful moulding of common positions on climate change resulting in the adoption of a respective declaration may indicate an improved multilateral effectiveness of ASEM. Howard Loewen is senior research fellow at the Institute of Asian Studies (now part of GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies) in Hamburg.     

Analyzing the ASEM process

  As a leading civil servant behind the ASEM process, one would expect that Dr. Reiterer would reveal more of what was and is actually happening in the ASEM process among participants and hence in the position of making insightful analysis. He is making an analysis from close quarters which is different from that of Ms. Yeo who is analyzing ASEM as an outsider. It is however also evident that Ms. Yeo had much access to the actors of ASEM and its documents and to a certain extent is close to the ASEM process. An insider's position and that of an outsider can result in different assessments but this is not the case with these two volumes. Rather both books complement each other well. Associate Professor at the School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, and Senior Research Associate of the European Institute for Asian Studies (EIASOA) in Brussels. He is also Overseas Research Fellow of Sungkonghoe University in Seoul.     

Interregional relations and legitimacy in global governance: the EU in ASEM

This article explores the ramifications of the European Union’s (EU) internal legitimacy debate for its external relations. It applies the Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM) as a case study to examine the EU’s attempts to promote legitimacy in global governance, more specifically in interregional institutions. The article’s theoretical framework draws from the EU’s legitimacy debate. It identifies three key sources of legitimacy, namely, (i) input legitimacy or democratic control and accountability, (ii) output legitimacy or performance and achievement of core purposes, and (iii) the degree of common identity as externalised through collective representation and the articulation of shared norms and values. The empirical analysis thereafter leads to three observations. First, the EU’s presence has contributed to an increased democratic involvement by ASEM’s different stakeholders including parliaments and civil society. Second, purely from an institutional legitimacy perspective ASEM achieves its purpose as a forum to ‘constructively engage’ with Asian countries and address issues relating to global governance. Third, ASEM reveals the EU’s dual identity as an intergovernmental grouping and an organisation with a gradually increasing capacity of collective representation. However, the advancement of the EU’s normative objectives through ASEM has been problematic, leading to a more interest-based and pragmatic policy path. The article concludes that the EU’s legitimacy debate has had a bearing on relations with Asia and, in particular, with ASEM. Importantly, and given the EU’s setbacks, some elements of the ‘EU’s way’ have proven successful in promoting democratic notions of legitimacy beyond the state.     

ASEM’s role for co-operation on security in Asia and Europe

This article argues that the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) process of multidimensional dialogue plays a prominent role in addressing issues of transnational security in both regions mainly in the field of soft and non-traditional security affairs. Furthermore, this significance and effectiveness of ASEM as a tool for mutually enhancing security could be further enhanced through such measures as greater co-operation between the UN and regional organizations, greater complementary efforts from Civil Society, pro-active engagement of ASEM in a changing security environment, greater convergence with other regional security groupings, opening of avenues for track 2 contributions, and heightened consistency in the commitment of the European Union to the process. Despite questions and challenges that ASEM may face, ASEM is now a clear reference in Europe and in Asia – and in Southeast Asia in particular-for security issues.This text reflects the personal views of the author.     

Clutching at the apron strings? New Zealand’s relationship with the EU and the possible consequences for ASEM

The Asia–Europe Meeting forum (ASEM) was established as a mechanism to facilitate meaningful connections and dialogue between Asia and Europe. In 2010, a new chapter in European–Asian relations is being embarked upon. Standing on the brink of Asia, New Zealand and Australia (alongside Russia) are set to join ASEM. Of the three countries set to join ASEM, New Zealand presents a particular case. Traditionally, New Zealand has been seen as the most British of its former colonies, but it is increasingly both viewed and identifies itself as Asian. Using public opinion surveys and media content analysis conducted in 2009, this article demonstrates that New Zealanders continue to feel a strong connection with Britain which in turn influences its perceptions of the EU. Furthermore, New Zealand’s increasing Asian links, coupled with its Commonwealth connections and British heritage, has the potential to positively influence events at ASEM.