曲折的区域化进程——东盟成立的历史轨迹与缘起

关于东南亚国家联盟（简称“东盟”）成立的缘起,从历史的长镜头看,它是战后东南亚区域主义长期发展的结果,在经历了多次区域合作的失败后,东南亚终于出现了稳定而有生命力的区域合作组织。另一方面,从1960年代的局部发展来看,东盟的成立又是因成立马来西亚联邦造成的区域冲突的直接产物。     

The security policy of the greens in Italy

This article provides an overview of the current state of financial regionalism in East Asia and discusses why and how the East Asian countries should go forward in terms of financial and monetary regionalism. It highlights intra-regional exchange rate stability as an important regional public good and makes the case for greater exchange rate cooperation. To this end, East Asian countries should gradually reduce their exposure to the US dollar and move towards currency basket regimes which would sustain relative intra-regional exchange rate stability while allowing for sufficient flexibility to accommodate idiosyncratic shocks. Against the backdrop of the global and European financial crisis, the article also urges a reconsideration of the costs and benefits of international – and regional – financial integration and calls for a further strengthening of East Asia's regional financial architecture.     

东亚金融区域主义的兴起及其地缘安全影响

2008年全球金融危机以后,国际货币金融体系持续动荡,以地区金融安全合作为导向的金融区域主义逐步兴起,且成为一种显著的地缘政治经济现象。金融区域主义对地缘安全的影响主要有两个方面:一是地区金融安全,地区金融主义有助于构筑地区金融安全网络,推动地缘经济整合;二是地缘政治安全,地区金融主义会扩大地区大国的地缘政治影响力以及增加地区排斥外围国家干涉本地事务的能力。金融区域主义产生的这些地缘安全影响对不同的行为主体而言,具有不同的意义。首先,东盟作为地区性的经济共同体,会极力反对东亚大国利用金融区域主义将东盟纳入其势力范围之下,威胁东盟的地缘政治安全环境。其次,作为最大出资方,中日对地区货币金融领导权的争夺变得日趋激烈,且形成了持续的冲突性关系,从而削弱了东亚金融安全合作的政治前景。最后,东亚作为美元回流机制中的关键一环,如果将美国排斥在外,无疑会增加东亚地区与美国的地缘政治矛盾。因而,东亚金融区域主义在兴起的过程中,不仅要看到其稳定地区货币金融秩序的一面,同时也要看到其有可能制造地缘政治安全问题的一面。     

The New Economic Bilateralism in Southeast Asia: Region-Convergent or Region-Divergent?

A new pattern of bilateralism is evident in Southeast Asianeconomic diplomacy, and this may be broadly viewed from extra-regionaland intra-regional perspectives. Regarding the former, an increasingnumber of states from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN) group have engaged in the Asia-Pacific's new bilateralfree trade agreement project trend, and two ASEAN member states– Singapore and Thailand – have been at its forefront.Regarding the latter dimension, recent developments in intra-ASEANdiplomacy have revealed the emergence of a Singapore–Thailandbilateral axis or alliance on matters of Southeast Asian economicregionalism. These two dimensions of economic bilateralism arestudied in relation to their implications for Southeast Asianor ASEAN-led regionalism. In this context, region-convergentbilateralism can make positive contributions to the developmentof regionalism, whereas region-divergent bilateralism essentiallyundermines regional community-building endeavours. This formsthe conceptual framework for studying the impact of Singaporeand Thailand's active bilateral economic diplomacy upon ASEAN'sown regional economic projects, such as the ASEAN Free TradeArea (AFTA), and also on ASEAN as an organization for fosteringSoutheast Asian economic regionalism generally. It is contendedthat based on both the deeper strategic intentions behind Singapore'sand Thailand's foreign economic policies and wider internationalpolitical economy considerations the region-divergent outcomesare more likely to arise within Southeast Asia from the economicbilateralism they are currently championing.     

东南亚新地区主义及其制度转型的范式研究

东盟-体化进程的加快是东南亚新地区主义发展的一项重要成果,目前对东南亚新地区主义的研究主要是借鉴国际政治经济学的研究套路。东南亚新地区主义具有地区整合和地区离散的双重特征。东盟的扩大、经济一体化、冲突的管理和解决等,又使得新地区主义具有制度转型的特征。东盟期望通过加强内部的文化认同和调适,在未来的全球竞争中更具竞争力。在这种背景下,进行东南亚新地区主义及其制度转型的范式研究就显得十分必要。     

Whither East Asian economic integration? Korea��s regionalization cum globalization strategy

The recent regionalization in East Asia can be defined in terms of regionalization cum globalization. In the case of Europe, regionalization was originally intended to create a preferential and protected area. From its inception, however, regionalization in East Asia emphasized open membership and global liberalization. This so-called open regionalism was then adopted as a fundamental principle of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Given that APEC is an inter-regional institution, however, the concept of open regionalism is not applicable to characterize exclusively Asian integration process that gained momentum on the basis of the ASEAN + 3 framework. For many East Asian countries, a regionalization initiative, especially after the 1997 financial crisis, was a natural response to cope with globalization. Indeed, although East Asian economies are increasingly regionalized, the global market remains crucial and exclusively Asian arrangements are still rare. Globalization and regionalization processes are mutually reinforcing. Singapore is one example that developed into a regional economic hub through the regionalization cum globalization strategy. Given that Korea concluded recently two important free trade areas with the USA and the EU, Korea is also capable of building such a regional economic hub. The first step is to strengthen a cooperation network between the three Northeast Asian countries, China, Japan, and Korea. This network, together with ASEAN, is expected to catalyze the regional integration in East Asia and shape its future evolution.     

The challenge of institution-building in Asia and its implications for Asia-Europe relations

  East Asia, including Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia, has developed tightly-linked production/distribution networks through globalizing corporate activities. The vertical chain of production in East Asia has been even more sophisticated than economic integration in East Europe or Latin America. However, the political environment of East Asia for trade and investment has been far from borderless. The integration effort at the policy level has been very much limited so far, due to the historical background as well as geopolitics surrounding East Asia. The Asian currency/financial crisis provided these countries a historical turning point. After the burst of the crisis, East Asians realized that they have to take care of themselves in their difficulties, not depending on outside forces. A natural choice for them was to step into the realm of regionalism. In 1998, Japan and Korea officially announced that they would discard the long-lasting GATT/WTO-only approach and adapt the multi-layered approach, including both regionalism and multilateralism. The ultimate goal of regionalism would be a region-wide integration including ASEAN+3. As a steppingstone, Japan signed the Japan-Singapore Economic Partnership Agreement (JSEPA) in January 2002. In a parallel move, the ASEAN and China Leaders announced in November 2001 the establishment of an ASEAN-China Free Trade Area (ACFTA) within 10 years. This article will follow up the most recent advancement of regional institutional building in East Asia with the emphasis on peculiar characteristics of economic integration in the region and discuss its implications for Asia-Europe relations. This paper is heavily drawn from Kimura (2002, 2003).     

A case of failed interregionalism? Analyzing the EU-ASEAN free trade agreement negotiations

In 2007, the European Union (EU) and the Association of the Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) started interregional negotiations on a free trade agreement, which failed 2 years later. Relying on document analysis and elite interviews with officials from the EU and ASEAN’s members, this article addresses why and the extent to which the interregional negotiations failed. By rooting the theoretical model in a power-based approach, the analysis demonstrates that the EU has attempted to secure its economic and regulatory power in Southeast Asia. In striving for such power, interregionalism was initially the intuitive way because the EU perceived ASEAN as a cohesive bloc. However, the EU’s ambitious vision for comprehensive agreements clashed with the actual heterogeneity of ASEAN member states. The failure of the interregional approach is, thus, a result of the EU’s delicate balance between political and economic interests in Southeast Asia, which it pursues with trade-specific issues.     

新地区主义视角下的中国东亚区域合作外交

在全球化时代的世界政治中,东亚新地区主义的发展为20世纪90年代以来的中国外交提供了广阔的舞台。当前,东亚区域合作外交正在成为中国外交中一个日益凸显的亮点。在新地区主义理论的视野中,中国提出新安全观,塑造负责任的大国形象;提出并倡导“开放的地区主义”思想,为新地区主义在亚太地区的发展开辟了道路;积极推进“10+3”合作,着力发展“10+1”;积极参与东亚区域合作的制度化建设,支持东盟为推进东亚区域一体化所作的努力;以“10+3”机制为契机,深化中、日、韩三国合作。在未来的东亚区域合作中,中国应在加快自身经济发展的同时,让东盟国家从中切实受益;继续坚定不移地树立负责任的大国形象,发挥大国作用;切实按照《南海各方行为宣言》所规定的各项原则处理同有关国家的海上领土争端和历史遗留问题;大力发展中、日、韩三国经贸合作,切实推进三国次区域自由贸易区建设;以建设性的合作精神发展中美关系。     

东南亚新地区主义的范式研究及其制度转型

当前,新地区主义的研究有了新的进展,该研究范式逐渐摒弃旧地区主义研究中的某些理论缺陷,不再过分强调"一体化(integration)"概念,而是借助国际关系理论中的一个新概念,即"国际规制(inter-national regimes)"(又译"国际体制"、"国际机制"、"国际制度"等)来描述当今地区化潮流的性质、程度和意义.     

东亚地区主义:源起、动因及未来走向

真正意义上的东亚地区主义萌芽可以追溯到20世纪90年代,东亚国家间不断增长的经济上的相互依赖,来自地区外的多重压力、地区内认同力量不断增强以及东亚各国对权力平衡的追逐等共同推动了东亚地区主义的发展。但由于东亚地区的现实环境与客观条件,东亚地区主义只能选择通过采取务实合作,实现和维护地区的和平与发展。     

2010年东南亚政治经济发展概述

2010年东南亚地区政治经济形势的发展特点可以概括为“政治上喜忧参半,经济上整体上扬,区域合作缓慢推进”。总体上讲,除泰国外,东南亚地区各国基本上都保持了政治社会的稳定;尽管挑战明显增加,但东盟共同体建设以及由东盟主导的东亚合作仍然缓慢推进;东盟国家整体实现恢复性增长,东南亚成为最具经济活力的地区之一。     

美国重返亚洲对中国东亚地区FTA战略的影响——基于TPP合作视角的分析

美国通过加入TPP从实质上确立了"重返亚洲"的全球战略调整,在更大程度上加快了对亚太地区经济一体化进程的干涉。美国主导下的TPP对东亚区域经济合作机制的发展产生了重要影响,也给中国的整体和局部FTA战略带来了诸多的不确定性和挑战。中国必须正确认识美国在东亚地区的经济战略转变以及TPP扩张带来的潜在影响,在此基础上对FTA战略做出合理的调整。中国的FTA战略重心仍应保留在东亚地区,提高国内企业对FTA的利用率,同时跟踪研究TPP的最新进展,为以后加入TPP谈判做好相应的准备工作。     

东亚峰会吸收美俄参加及其影响

东盟外长会议决定邀请美国和俄罗斯加入东亚峰会,这是东亚区域合作的重要变化,也使美国加快实现其“重返东南亚”的战略。近年来美国遏制中国的倾向比较突出,斯坦伯格的“战略再保证”与当年杜勒斯的“岛链战略”一脉相承;美国务卿希拉里在东盟地区论坛会议上大谈南海问题,表明美国高调介入南海主权争端,这将使南海问题更加复杂化。当前中国的周边环境较为严峻,须冷静观察,沉着应对。     

A new model of Asian regionalism: does the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation have more potential than ASEAN?

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is an established player in Southeast Asia, while the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) is an emergent force in Central Asia. This article comparatively assesses ASEAN and SCO to investigate the nature of each organization's model of cooperation and their utility in the contemporary political landscape in Asia. It argues that SCO differs from ASEAN on a few significant points: its composition and level of institutionalization. At the same time, both organizations have similar agendas and models of cooperation, emphasizing a common spirit, flexibility and a focus on regime security. The paper concludes that ASEAN's model of cooperation continues to be relevant to the contemporary Asian landscape, and its brand of loosely codified, informal and norm driven multilateralism continues to be durable and robust.     

竞争性地区主义与亚洲合作的现状及未来

2008年世界金融危机之后,竞争性地区主义的兴起成为亚洲合作中的一个非常值得注意的现象。不过,竞争性地区主义对于亚洲来说并非一个新事物,而是长期孕育在本地区合作的历史进程中。伴随着特朗普的上台和中美竞争的加剧,亚洲竞争性地区主义出现了新的变化趋向:以经济为出发点的合作导向逐渐让位于安全,国际制度日益成为大国权力博弈的工具,制度竞争的内容也从表面的规范之争迈向背后的理念价值之争。这种变化对中美关系发展、地区中小国家的战略选择、东盟在地区合作中的主导地位以及亚洲合作的前景都造成了不小的冲击。为了防止亚洲竞争性地区主义的发展滑向恶性竞争,包括中美在内的泛亚各国,应努力促使"印太战略"和"一带一路"倡议两大机制之间形成某种程度的兼容共存,避免两者成为完全对抗的国际机制,并在部分特定领域共同为亚洲各国提供必要的公共产品。     

Introduction: the EU,East Asian conflicts,and the norm of integration

The promotion of regional integration is a core objective of the European Union’s (EU) foreign policy and has been seen as part of its attempt to transform international society and to make the world a more peaceful place to live. However, the success of this regionalization strategy has been limited and East Asia has been a particularly problematic case. This introduction raises some fundamental questions by first presenting some basic concepts so that the overall studies of the special issue can be systematically undertaken. The underlying questions are the following: How bleak is the picture with regard to regionalism in East Asia and the roles of the EU? Has the EU had no effect on the development of East Asian regionalism? And what potential does regional integration have in helping the transformation of conflicts in East Asia? In addition to these questions, it also discusses and conceptualizes underlying discourses on regional integration, conflict transformation, and regionalism in East Asia. By doing so, it aims to point out that the East Asia region is changing, the EU does play a role in this, and regionalization cannot be ignored as an institutional context that has the potential to assist conflict transformation, especially if windows of opportunity for such engagement arise in the future.     

2003年的东盟与中国-东盟自由贸易区

在东南亚经济复苏、东亚经济增长、世界形势多变的情况下 ,东盟在2003年比较活跃 ,成为亚洲舞台上的一个热点 ,不仅促进了东盟内部在政治、经济、地区安全、社会的一体化进程 ,而且还进一步扩大了与中国、日本、韩国、印度等亚太国家的合作 ,加强了与美国、欧盟在非传统安全领域的对话与合作。中国—东盟自由贸易区进展顺利 ,它的启动积极地推动了东盟与中国经贸关系的发展。一、东盟 :扩大合作 ,促进一体化2003年的世界并不宁静 ,美英联军发动对伊拉克战争 ,“SARS”上半年肆虐东北亚和东南亚 ,在这种多变的形势下 ,东盟在各方面加强了内…     

东南亚国家应对气候变化合作现状

气候变化作为一个全球性问题，不仅需要单个国家和地区采取行动，更需要国际社会的共同努力来缓解和适应气候变化给人类社会带来影响。本文则着重探讨东南亚地区为应对全球气候变化问题采取的行动，以及加强区域气候合作为达成更广泛的国际合作协议做出自身的努力，指出东南亚气候合作中存在的问题及前景。     

U.S. Policy Towards Southeast Asia

Greater East Asia is expected to be the next theatre for world politics. 1 East Asian cooperation is rapidly developing through the channels of ASEAN Plus Three （APT） and East Asia Summit （EAS）, both driven by ASEAN. Southeast Asia is a region of diverse states and cultures that brings together all the major powers of the Asian-Pacific in a myriad of strategic interests. It is thus an open arena with the potential for a variety of strategic game-playing, options, and uncertain outcomes.2 In recent years, China＇s developing relationship with Southeast Asia has undergone a significant shift as the U.S.＇ distraction elsewhere and neglect of the region have created opportunities for an increased Chinese diplomatic and economic role in Southeast Asia.3 U.S. analysts are concerned about what may lie behind this shift in China-ASEAN relations, how it may affect American interests in the region and how best to react to the changes. Some have expressed concerns that to avoid becoming distanced from the region the U.S. should pay more attention to Southeast Asia, rather than just watching from a distance. This paper attempts to analyze the possible changes of U.S. policy towards Southeast Asia in the current context of East Asian Cooperation and its implications for China.