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。     

东盟再认识

东盟是一个具有广泛影响的地区性国际组织,它团结区域内外国家,为维护地区秩序、和平与稳定发挥了重要的作用,为促进地区政治、经济、安全及社会合作做出了重大贡献;东盟为区域内外国家开展广泛的合作提供了一个重要的对话平台,促进区域内外国家减少误会和增进相互理解;东盟也是一种地区意识,它使一个政治、经济、文化、民族与宗教均相当多元化的地区出现了共同的思想,在这种思想的旗帜下,东盟各国求同存异,有力地促进了本区域人民相互了解,增进友谊;东盟是发展中国家团结的典范,它为广大发展中国家树立了一个榜样,它以其成功的实践告诉人们,在全球化的时代,小国和弱国也应该有所作为,其根本出路就是团结与合作.     

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。     

Leadership in ASEAN: The Role of Indonesia Reconsidered

This paper examines the complexity and multidimensional features of leadership and provides understanding of leadership in ASEAN integration. It highlights the significant roles of leadership in the integrating Southeast Asia and contradicts its common belief of invisible leadership. It highlights the role and the importance of Indonesia in the development of ASEAN as a main factor that can determine ASEAN's survival and success. Moreover, it insists that ASEAN is literally subject to structural powers, derived from material and resource capacity, in which leadership is highly attached to a leader's charisma. Finally, the paper proposes that the benevolent roles of Indonesia with strong emphasis on soft power are a key element of success.     

The PLA and regionalism in Hong Kong

This article examines the linkages between changes in international capital movements and currency values on the one hand and Asian regionalism on the other. It argues that economic ties within Asia in the late 1980s and early 1990s can be traced primarily to the increasing values of currencies in Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Hong Kong. Foreign-direct investments from companies in these countries increased throughout the Asian region. Intra-regional trade grew rapidly as well. Still, by the turn of the century, in contrast to regionalism in Europe, that in Asia remained deeply institutionalized and far less responsive to any central direction from potential leaders such as Japan.     

APEC adrift: implications for economic regionalism in Asia and the Pacific

APEC’s lack of success in securing tangible benefits in its first decade has particularly disappointed its ‘Western’ members. Its failures stem primarily from three weaknesses: a lack of consensus over its objectives and how these might best be realized; the absence of an institutionalized driving force for the grouping; and a failure to engage with civil society. APEC’s shortcomings have put at risk what is arguably its most significant achievement: the annual meetings that bring together leaders from around the Pacific Rim. Modest changes to organizational procedures might enhance APEC’s prospects – especially if its efforts are concentrated in trade facilitation and economic and technical cooperation rather than on trade liberalization. Such a change in direction would not only return APEC to its roots but also be in accord with the priorities of East Asian governments.     

开放的区域主义与区域经济一体化的制度创新

开放的区域主义是新区域主义理论框架中的一种新型的理论形态。开放的区域主义为区域经济一体化的组织创新提供了新的理论基础,并促进了区域经济一体化新浪潮的形成。中国——东盟自由贸易区正是在区域经济一体化的新浪潮中在开放的区域主义的影响下区域经济组织创新的产物。中国——东盟自由贸易区所显示出的全面性、开放性、平等性、整合性等特点充分说明了开放的区域主义的作用和影响。     

论GMS地区主义的发展与中国利益的实现

GMS地区虽然是一个历史文化多样、政治体制和经济发展水平差别很大的地区,但GMS地区主义的多样性在GMS迅速发展的进程中,为成员国共同创造了和平稳定的地区环境。GMS地区主义在其发展过程中遭遇了各种阻碍,中国要真正实现和平崛起,就需要克服GMS地区主义发展中的各种阻碍,抓住发展机遇,维护和实现其政治价值观念、国家安全利益及国际经济安全。     

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.     

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。