结构性地区主义与开放性地区主义——西欧与东亚的比较

全球化浪潮下,地区主义伴随区域一体化得到迅速发展。在西欧一体化过程中,西欧国家通过重视合法协定、强调功能整合以及超国家机构的建设形成了结构性地区主义;而在东亚一体化发展中,东亚国家则强调不干涉原则,突出国家主权至上,抵制和质疑超国家机构,从而形成了弱机制化的开放性地区主义。两种性质的地区主义的成因主要在于:西欧和东亚的历史发展体系不同,导致其各自成员国之间的经济政治制度同质性程度不同,成员国之间的集体认同以及对民族国家主权的价值观存在差异。就发展趋向而言,自金融危机后,欧洲债务危机频现,暴露了规范严谨的结构性地区主义的僵化弊病,而东亚一体化过程中,东盟、10+1、10+3、东亚峰会等对话形式层出不穷,则表明了缺乏规范机制下的地区合作效率的不足。     

Regionalism and Colonialism in Contemporary Oceania

Abstract

Regionalism in Oceania emerged in a context shaped both by the decolonisation movement as well as the Cold War, the dynamics of which are still being played out today. This article considers two cases of particular interest in current regional politics which illustrate a number of important contradictions in conventional approaches to the analysis of colonialism. The first involves the two larger French territories in the region – New Caledonia and French Polynesia – which have recently been admitted to full membership of the Pacific Islands Forum despite falling short of the technical requirements for such membership, namely independent status. The second concerns Indonesia’s claim to sovereignty over West Papua. Although this claim has been recognised in international law since 1969, its basis is highly suspect and Indonesia’s record from the start is arguably tantamount to a repressive form of colonialism enabled by the United Nations itself. Placed in comparative perspective, these cases invite us to reconsider just what colonialism on the one hand and self-determination on the other really mean in the contemporary period.     

东盟与东亚新地区主义

东亚新地区主义近年来备受关注,参加东亚合作的各方在新地区主义的发展、内涵、特征等问题上形成了各自不尽相同的观点和看法,因而对东亚新地区主义的理解也不尽相同.东盟是东亚新地区主义的一支重要力量,在推动东亚新地区主义发展方面发挥着重要的作用.深入了解东盟对东亚新地区主义的理解,对于进一步推动中国与东盟的合作,有着重要的意义.     

东亚地区主义及其发展趋势--以"10+3"合作机制为视角

本文对东亚地区主义即"10 3"合作机制的发展历程、运行机制和特点进行了概括和分析,并在此基础上结合"10 3"合作机制的最新进展预测了东亚地区主义未来的发展趋势.     

Pacific Regionalism and the Polynesian Leaders Group

ABSTRACT

In November 2011, the Polynesian Leaders Group (PLG) was formed. The inclusion of Samoa, Tonga and French Polynesia gives it enough political muscle to have some influence on Pacific regionalism, but exactly what this will be is uncertain. Notably, it was formed during a tense period for regionalism; Australia’s and New Zealand’s disproportionate influence in the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) and Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat was increasingly being called into question, while Fiji was crowned the chair of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) even though it was then expelled from the PIF. To date, the PLG’s most notable work has been done in relation to climate change, while it also promises to address decolonisation, both of which are pressing issues on the regional agenda. These might be issue-areas where the PLG will make its mark. Another might be in counterbalancing the increasing regional influence of the MSG, which over the past 10 years has been willing to act independently of the PIF and its traditional benefactors: Australia and New Zealand. An examination of when and why the PLG was formed, how its membership is determined, and its position on key regional issues might provide answers about its regional implications.     

Russian Policy to Asian Regionalism

In the last fifteen years Russian government policy has seen dramatic changes from almost complete leaning towards the West to a more balanced approach taking into account Russia's interests in Asia. This reversal of attitude was dictated by internal and external factors which, if not addressed, could severely compromise Russian overall position in the world and internal development of its eastern parts. The Russian federal government and their local authorities' policies towards regional groupings in Asia reflect their desire to take part in integration processes. Despite certain achievements in this field, obstacles remain on the road to full-fledged Russian participation benefiting Russia as well as other states. The problems emanate both from internal and external reasons. There are numerous discussions in the expert community on bow to deal with issues hindering economic development of the Russian Far East but they all agree that it cannot be achieved without the active interaction with Asian neighbors.     

Emerging New East Asian Regionalism

East Asian regionalism is emerging starting with a process of “ASEAN plus three” cooperation and moving to a final East Asian Community. The foundation of East Asian regionalism lies in increasing regional common or shared interests. The significance of East Asian cooperation and integration is its developing process. “10?+?3” framework is not just an economic cooperation process but also has political significance. The process of East Asian cooperation plays a dual role in community building: reconciliation among the countries, and cultivation of each member itself. The major role of regional institutional building is peace making through cooperation under a regional framework. The cooperation between China and Japan is crucial for East Asian Community building.     

地区主义与中国-东盟关系的新发展

2002年以来中国与东盟签署了<中国与东盟全面经济合作框架协议>、<南海各方行为宣言>、<面向和平与繁荣的战略伙伴关系联合宣言>和加入<东南亚友好合作条约>,标志着中国与东盟的关系进入地区合作的新阶段.     

论中国亚洲地区主义战略的构建及影响因素

中国的亚洲地区主义战略构建要着重注意三个方面:一是加强自己的亚洲认同,在国际事务中尽可能反映亚洲的利益.二是建设好三个支点,包括提升与东盟的关系,加强中国与东盟自由贸易区建设;重视中亚,使上海合作组织发挥更大的作用;积极主动地促成以中日韩为核心的东北亚地区合作.三是在亚洲地区合作中应积极参与和主导规则的制定和机制的构建,在亚洲自由贸易区建设中发挥一定的主导作用,发挥中国的政治大国优势,构筑亚洲地区主义发展的政治基础,在形成本地区多边安全机制中有所作为,逐步建立起涵盖各领域的互惠共赢和开放包容的地区合作网络.中国在构建亚洲地区主义战略过程中,既存在诸多有利条件,也有一些制约因素.     

Regionalism: A Singaporean Perspective

Multilateralism versus regionalism: the question is whether to adhere to the arrangements of an all encompassing international organization or to enter bilateral and regional agreements which could potentially upset the multilateral trade apple cart. The heated debate that rages over the merits of either system is dividing the various schools of thought on trade policy. Despite the WTO's increased importance and prominence in the last 50 years, the world has seen a great increase in regional trade agreements (RTAs) which seem to be contradictory to the spirit of trade liberalization. In this article, Lim Chin Beng, former ambassador to Japan and Singaporean chief negotiator for the Japan-Singapore Economic Partnership Agreement (JSEPA)currently under negotiation, discusses these issues and provides an account of Singapore's efforts to harness RTAs to further the multilateral trade agenda. He concludes that regionalism and multilateralism are not mutually exclusive.     

国际关系理论中的地区主义

地区主义有着世界经济和国际关系两种主要讨论方法.本文主要从国际关系理论的角度出发,首先对地区主义的基本概念进行阐释,然后对国际关系理论中涉及地区主义的有关学说和流派进行梳理,并特别对地缘经济学与地区主义的关系进行分析,在此基础上归纳了地区主义的基本逻辑.文章最后就地区主义研究的可能走向提出了自己的看法,并初步提出了"地区政治经济学"的概念.     

新东亚区域主义发展及其影响

东亚区域主义的发展经历了两个阶段.第一阶段是从20世纪60年代中期至90年代初,表现为东南亚次区域主义的发展.第二阶段是从90年代中期至今,其特点包括:区域主义由东南亚发展到整个东亚;经济合作与政治、安全合作同时发展;开放性与板块性并存;东盟发挥主导作用与中、日逐渐愿意承担更多义务同在;开始构建东亚认同的进程等.东亚区域主义发展将使中日两国可以更多地在区域合作框架内处理相互关系,以开放的区域主义处理与美国的关系,在东亚形成"反独促统"的区域框架.     

新地区主义的特点与成因

从 2 0世纪 80年代后期起 ,由于两极体系对峙的缓和 ,欧洲单一法案的出台与实行 ,乌拉圭回合谈判中欧洲以“以一个声音说话”导致的对欧洲“堡垒”的担心 ,以及美国的地区主义政策转向等因素 ,使 70年代以来一度停滞的地区主义 ,重新掀起了发展的新浪潮 ,人们惊呼“地区主义又回来了”。[1] 伴随着两极体系的结束与全球化时代的来临 ,90年代的地区主义更是向深层次、多维度发展。为了将 80年代以来发展的地区主义与以前的地区主义相区别 ,学术界将之冠称为“新地区主义(ｎｅｗｒｅｇｉｏｎａｌｉｓｍ)”。[2 ]新地区主义的特点2 0世纪 80年…     

东亚地区主义的进展与其问题--能否打破现实主义的思维牢笼

本文试图讨论东亚地区合作取得的进展与存在的问题,从而说明东亚地区主义的根本方向.     

《东亚区域主义:趋势与回应》一书即将出版

由中国社会科学院亚洲太平洋研究所张蕴岭研究员主编的《东亚区域主义:趋势与回应》(英文版)一书即将由世界知识出版社出版。该书是2001年启动的东亚合作研究项目的成果之一,也是此前出版的《东亚合作:进展与未来》、《东亚合作:寻求协调一致的方式》的姐妹篇。     

探求东亚的区域主义

近年来东亚合作发展迅速 ,但是作为东亚合作内在基础的东亚区域主义却受历史和现实因素的制约而仍处于形成阶段。本文就东亚区域主义的兴起、发展、特点、前景及对区域合作的影响进行了探讨和分析。     

The Shifting Tides of Pacific Regionalism

Abstract

The current state of Pacific regionalism is faced with a range of external and internal factors that are acting to reshape the region and which call for a rethinking of Pacific regionalism. Within this context a range of new and in some cases reinvigorated groupings of political actors have emerged, seeking to influence and shape the region. Interpretations of this plurality of political groupings differ, with some authors seeing it as a direct challenge to the previously existing regional order, while others argue it signals a return to a foundational Pacific voice in regional politics. This article suggests that the present plurality is more than resituating a ‘Pacific voice’ and is not necessarily a challenge to the existing order. Rather, the Pacific’s experience mirrors global trends in the evolution of regionalism as a practice, in which network diplomacy or coalition-building across the plethora of actors will become a predominant feature of new regionalism. Further, the authors argue that the Framework for Pacific Regionalism provides the platform for effectively navigating this new context through facilitating the politics of networks and coalitions to drive the shared interests of the region, and presents a shared platform to test paradigm-shifting ideas.