“特朗普冲击”与亚太地区秩序调整

亚太地区秩序调整主要受到大国博弈、中小国家抱团和地区规范演变等因素的影响。美国的亚太战略对于亚太地区秩序调整具有重要影响。相比于奥巴马政府先后推出"重返亚洲"政策和"亚太再平衡战略",特朗普政府进行了大幅改弦更张,这也使得"特朗普冲击"在美国当前的亚太战略中体现得尤为明显,主要表现为战略目标由"地位优先"转为"实力优先";战略资源由"多方统筹"转为"依赖自我";战略手段由"多边主义"转为"双边主义"。"特朗普冲击"形成的主要原因在于其政策导向的调整,在"美国优先"的整体导向下,其亚太战略呈现出"国内优先""实力优先""经济优先""中国优先"四大特点。受"特朗普冲击"的影响,亚太地区秩序也在不断进行着调整。     

建构中国东亚秩序战略的框架

本文概述中国东亚战略的历史演变,指出中国东亚秩序战略的核心目标是,发展东亚利益共同体,创立责任共担、大国多担的责任共同体,大力促成东亚命运共同体,培育并巩固建立在共同利益基础之上的平等、合作、互利、互助的东亚秩序。中国东亚秩序战略应秉持的基本原则是奉行开放地区主义、坚持共同利益路径、积极承担大国责任、适时推进地区制度建设、坚持循序渐进的原则、保持战略耐心。本文强调,中国应深刻理解和顺应东亚一体化的基本路径选择,也要同时实现自身的观念创新、路径创新,从政治、经济、安全、人文等诸方面进行战略部署,推行基于开放地区主义思路下的新单边主义、新双边主义和新多边主义,成为东亚秩序的积极塑造者.     

东亚新地区主义——在政治现实主义的土壤中成长

当今世界有三个主要经济区域和力量中心:欧洲、北美和东亚.欧洲、北美经过多年的发展,一体化程度不断提高,政治上与战略上的协调能力不断增强,地区主义已基本发展成熟.东亚合作也出现了向地区主义发展的趋势,但东亚合作的远景和速度如何,仍然常常令人存疑.本文试图分析东亚新地区主义的发展情形及其特点,探讨这些现象的成因和东亚新地区主义进一步发展的条件.     

共同文化认知是东亚一体化的基础

长期以来东亚缺乏一个真正的、泛区域的经济合作组织。近年来,在以东盟为主导、 以为基础、以为主渠道、以东亚峰会为重要补充的区域合作机制大框架下,东亚学界 积极探索多种形式的多边主义合作模式,共同提倡构建东亚一体化多边组织。中日韩三国已经在 构建东亚一体化的长远目标方面达成一致。中国主张维护东亚区域政治文化的多元化形态, 提出 和谐、双赢、多赢的共同观念, 以文化认知解读现代国际关系。东亚国家共同培育和塑造新的区域 文化认知,是重新考虑地区秩序和地区价值, 培育东亚共同体的必经之路。     

认同秩序：东亚可能的发展前景

东亚的未来秩序可能有多种前景,如碎片化秩序、权威秩序、均势秩序、多边主义秩序以及认同秩序等。一方面,世界呈多极化趋势在东亚地区的表现更加明显,体现了国际事务的主导权正在由集中而分散,从核心区域不断向外围地区扩散。另一方面,东亚构筑基于该地区的集体认同秩序可能是     

近年中国学界关于东亚一体化的研究述评北大核心CSSCISSCI

东亚一体化进程于1997年亚洲金融危机后正式启动,而当前东亚地区的经济一体化被认为发展"迟滞"甚至陷入"停滞"。中国学界主要用"互信不足论"、"贸易结构差异论"、"经济发展水平差异论"、"三心二意论"、"美国阻挠论"、"主导缺位论"等对其进行解释。2008年全球金融危机后诞生的"跨太平洋伙伴关系协定"(TPP)和"区域全面经济伙伴关系"(RCEP)使东亚经济一体化呈现出多重框架并存的格局,其对东亚一体化的影响以及中国的政策应对是中国学者们关注的焦点,并折射出学者们对"开放的地区主义"理念的不同理解。与此同时,东亚地区的政治和安全合作同样步履蹒跚,在几种合作模式间争论与博弈,学者们为此提出了许多新的东亚安全架构和设想。在不断地翻译和推介西方一体化知识之后,中国学术界应该用自己的话语构建中国或亚洲知识,以"互联互通"构建中国特色的区域合作概念和理论或许是一种不错的尝试。     

东亚经济地区主义的初步形成及其溢出效应初探

经济地区主义的兴起与国际政治经济格局的演变息息相关 ,随着20世纪80年代两极格局的瓦解 ,东亚经济地区主义迅速发展 ,并在全球化背景下表现出引人注目的特点。本文对东亚经济地区主义的初步形成、特点及其良好的溢出效应作抛砖引玉的阐述。     

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。     

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。     

徐本钦教授纵论东亚新地区主义

近年来兴起的东亚新地区主义是学术界广为关注的一个问题,对于这个问题,中外的许多学者进行了不同程度的研究和探讨,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。了解外国学者、特别是来自东盟国家的一些学者对东亚新地区主义的观点和看法,对于我们更加深入地了解东亚新地区主义是十分重要的。2006年6月,新加坡国立大学东亚研究所教授徐本钦先生(Shee Poon Kim)应邀来到云南,在云南省社会科学院东南亚研究所作了题为“东亚的新地区主义:朝着经济一体化的目标迈进”的主题演讲,介绍了他对东亚新地区主义的一些…     

美国的不完全霸权与东亚地区秩序的转型

自冷战结束以来,东亚地区秩序一直处于转型之中。从域内大国权力分配格局、不同层次制度安排形式及地区认同意识等构成地区秩序的三个要素来考察,美国在东亚地区仍处于政治安全领域的主导地位,但在经济和地区认同方面正受到越来越多的挑战,美国在东亚地区的权力状况呈现出一种"不完全霸权"的态势。未来新型的东亚地区秩序将在美国的"不完全霸权"、中国的崛起及东亚地区主义的发展等因素相互博弈的进程中以和平方式确立起来。     

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。     

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.     

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。     

Japan, China and East Asian regionalism: implications for the European Union

East Asia is becoming an increasingly coherent regional entity in political economic terms, and remains a region of enormous geo-strategic significance for the European Union. Europe’s links with China and Japan are especially important, and moreover these two countries are looking in various ways to exercise various forms of regional leadership in East Asia. This has critical implications for the EU’s relations with the East Asia region generally, and also for the wider international system. Similar and related impacts maybe construed from deepening East Asian regionalism, involving processes where both Japan and China play vitally important roles. The analysis presented here examines the both micro and macro level developments in East Asian regionalism, and issues relating to Japan, China and regional leadership. It concludes by discusses the implications of these matters for the European Union, and recommends that the EU should pay particularly close attention to emergent exercises of regional leadership in East Asia, most likely to be performed by Japan and/or China.

---

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.     

Regionalism's multiple negotiations: ASEAN in East Asia

This article explains East Asian regionalism as the product of two sets of negotiations. The first negotiation is between East Asia on the one hand and global forces and structures on the other. The second negotiation is intra-regional and includes a critical negotiation between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)-Southeast Asia and East/Northeast Asia, which also provides the primary focus of this article. This article details ASEAN's extensions into East Asian regionalism as part of interdependent efforts to adapt transitioning global and regional systems. Conceiving these regional negotiations to be not just economic and utilitarian but first and foremost normative, this article details the opportunities and dilemmas represented by ‘East Asia’ for ASEAN, ASEAN-Southeast Asia and Southeast Asia as a meaningful organizing principle. Dilemmas associated with the ASEAN Plus Three process, an East Asia free-trade area and the ASEAN Charter provide illustrations of East Asia's understood challenges for Southeast Asia in addition to the ways that Southeast Asian agencies have been shaping the form and content of recent East Asian efforts and also how regional-global and intra-ASEAN negotiations continue to provide key constraints.     

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).