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。     

Inter-regionalism in international relations: Comparing APEC and ASEM

  Depending on one's theoretical perspective, inter-regionalism is assumed by IR scholars to have arisen in response to the need to check the exalted power of the United States (and, in the economic realm, also the European Union and East Asia) and/or the growing complexity of world politics (the rise of “interdependence” or “globalisation”). More recently, inter-regionalism has also been interpreted as a way to enhance regional collective identities. This paper looks at the evolution and recent performance of APEC and ASEM in the light of these theoretical assumptions about the origins and the functions of APEC and ASEM. Its principal findings are puzzling: while there are indications that APEC and ASEM were indeed meant by governments to fulfil some of the functions identified by those theoretical perspectives, the evidence that APEC or ASEM effectively served any of them is thin. Their actual functions and their durability against the background of a seemingly poor political track record therefore need to be rethought. RID="*" ID="*" A more extensive version of this paper will be published in: H?nggi H/Roloff R/Rüland J (eds), Interregionalism and International Politics: Stepping Stone to Global Governance? London & New York: Routledge (forthcoming).     

EU enlargement and the rise of Asian FTAs: Implications for Asia-Europe relations

  Over the past few years, there has been resurgence in regionalism and preferential trade across the global economic system. The European Union has taken steps at enlargement of their economic community to include countries in Central and Eastern Europe. Bilateral trade arrangements are proliferating in Asia involving the region's largest economies Japan and China. These arrangements mirror similar initiatives in the Americas. These developments have profound implications on the world trading system, in general, and to Asia-Europe relations in particular. The rise of preferentialism runs the risk of heightened discrimination, trade diversion and the fragmentation of the multilateral trade order. This prospect will have a direct impact on the future relations between Asia and Europe. Both Europe and Asia should remain outward oriented, open to reciprocal arrangements with non-member economies, and supportive of the multilateral trading system.     

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.     

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).     

Trilateral relations in a globalizing world. ASEM and the United States

Europe, the United States and East Asia are linked together through bilateral relations as well as a kind of trilateral relationship. There are three legs: Looking from a European perspective, the strongest relationship is the transatlantic relationship; secondly, there is a growing relationship between the United States and East Asia; and thirdly, the weakest link is the European-East Asian relationship.In this article I will focus, first, on this global triangle between East Asia, Europe and the United States. Secondly, I will discuss the question whether ASEM, APEC and ASEAN are competing or cooperating. Thirdly, I will analyze the question how the US looks at ASEM. Concluding I will argue that the US should take ASEM more seriously – not least because of US interests.This paper was written as part of a project on Backlash against Globalization that is supported by the Otto Wolff Foundation, Cologne, and The German Marshall Fund of the United States, Washington, DC.     

Teaching international relations in Vietnam: chances and challenges

This paper traces the evolution of the teaching of internationalrelations (IR) in Vietnam, from the establishment of the firstInstitute of International Relations in 1959 to the proliferationof departments of IR or international studies from the 1990s.It notes the limitations facing teachers of IR and efforts todevelop and standardize the curriculum in recent years. It alsoexamines the way national history is portrayed in the teachingof Vietnam's foreign policy and regional relations in SoutheastAsia, with increasing attention paid to the Association of SoutheastAsian Nations from the 1990s. Received for publication August 28, 2008. Accepted for publication October 2, 2008.     

The crisis of governance: Present and future challenges

One of the principal challenges facing individual states and the international community is the threat of ungovernability, of the declining ability of governments to govern. This comes in two forms, the rise of a range of internal economic, social, and political problems beyond the ability of governments to cope with; and actions of governments that increasingly alienate their citizens. Ethnic, religious, and political upheavals that leave millions dead or homeless and require increasing international intervention to deal with have become features of the international political landscape. Among the most serious challenges to the stability of governments and to the possibility of sustainable democratic institutions is the rise of various international criminal organizations able to defy local governments and to operate with great freedom across international community does not respond. There must be an effort to strengthen institutions and capabilities to deal with the growing problem of organized crime and ungovernability.     

NATO, APEC and ASEM: triadic interregionalism and global order

Among the three core regions in today's world, Europe, North America and East Asia, interregional arrangements have been developed in various forms. Transatlantic relations were institutionalized in the form of a security alliance (NATO), although not in the field of economic relations. The transpacific relations were institutionalized in the economic field with the creation of APEC in late 1980s. The Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM) emerged in 1996, with an aim to strengthen the ‘weak leg’ in the triadic interregional relationship. Although the three sets of triadic interregional arrangements display discernable differences, they tend to share some identical functions, such as balancing, governance and identity building. Interregionalism rests on and promotes multi-polarization, complementing the multilateral system, and could be seen as an indispensable element of the world order, which may be better characterized as a multi-level governance system.     

EU-China relations: balancing political challenges with economic opportunities

During 2005, the European Union and China marked 30 years of diplomatic relations with much fanfare. Celebrations surrounding the anniversary however belied the fact that throughout most of this period the European Union and China remained largely aloof from one another. The strengthening of EU foreign policy over time, as well as the economic reforms and new outward orientation exhibited by China have changed the dynamics of the relationship. Both sides are increasingly recognizing the potential mutual benefits that can be accrued from a closer relationship. This paper assesses EU-China relations from both economic and political perspectives. In terms of economics, it is clear that the EU must build stronger relations with China if it is to accrue the benefits of access to an expanding market with over one billion people. To do so successfully however, the EU will have to reconcile the economic and political components of its foreign policy. The EU continues to challenge the Chinese government to reform its practices on a number of issues including human rights, democratic reform, and Tibet, all of which remain bones of contention. How the EU achieves the balance between political constraints and economic opportunities is the primary focus of this paper.

---

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.     

Analysing changing gender relations: methodological challenges for gender planning

This paper is a starting point for a research project which will try to develop practical methods for analyzing changes in gender relations to inform policy research in improving the storage, processing, and marketing of crops in sub-Saharan Africa. While the research project will focus upon the crop post-harvest sector, many concerns raised in this study are relevant to a wide range of development interventions. This paper is based upon existing literature and offers no new empirical findings. Major conceptual advances in thinking about gender relations suggest the need to reassess conventional gender analyses in the context of development interventions. Evidence from development practice supports the argument that targeting can be undermined by processes of gendered bargaining around project interventions. Academic research points to key problems and potential methods for viewing changes in gender relations which may be adapted to project contexts. Existing gender planning frameworks focus upon shifts in gender relations, but also need to address the process by which gender relations are renegotiated if they are to inform better planning, monitoring, and evaluation.     

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。     

Win-win cooperation: when ASEM Meets the Belt and Road Initiative

<正>Introduction The Belt and Road Initiative is set to be a grand project to enhance connectivity between Asia and Europe.When the ideas of the Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st Century Maritime Silk     

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.     

从亚欧会议看区域合作与中欧关系

作为全球化浪潮与区域化进程合力之下产生的一项区域间合作机制,亚欧会议在推动亚欧国家间交流与合作方面具有重要价值。本文从国际制度的理论与实践出发,考察亚欧会议的制度化特征,并分析这些特征对于区域合作和中欧关系的意义。     

Okinawa: women, bases and US-Japan relations

The goal of this paper is to examine the process by which rapesand other acts of sexual violence lead to changes in internationalrelations. This paper focuses on the rape of an Okinawan schoolgirlin 1995 because it presents a mysterious puzzle: given the changinginternational structural and epistemic environment, why didthe US and Japanese governments fail to answer local calls formeasures to prevent future rapes and other crimes by soldiers,perhaps by reducing the size of US forces deployed in Okinawa?By looking into factors that affected the decision-making processwithin the US and Japanese governments, this paper tries toexplain why the issue of US bases in Okinawa evolved in theway it has since 1995.