國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
intentional. This is often the case with the EU, which attempts to act as an ‘external federator’ so that it can negotiate with entire regions instead of individual states.43 Many also look toward ASEAN as an intentional way of building a collective identity because it requires member states to accept norms such as: “the principle of seeking agreement and harmony; the principle of sensitivity, politeness, and agreeability;
the principle of quiet, private, and elitist diplomacy versus public washing of dirty linen; and the principle of being non-‐legalistic.”44
Collective-‐identity building is considered unintentional if one side believes the relationship to be highly asymmetrical and that the other can use the uneven relationship to establish their superiority. Unintentional identity building can be observed with APEC and the US opposition to an Asian Monetary Fund. This disagreement caused the split between the Anglo-‐Pacific and Asian APEC countries to widen and strengthened the interaction between Southeast Asian and Northeast Asian nations.
2.2 Types of Interregionalism
Based on the consistently cited work of Hanggi, there is a growing consensus that there are three typologies of interregionalism: bilateral regionalism, transregional, and hybrid regionalism. Hanggi’s categorizations are based on the type of actors that are involved in interregional dialogues.
Bilateral Regionalism
Bilateral regionalism, or what many think of as pure regionalism, is a group-‐
to-‐group dialogue between two regions. These two regions are clearly definable and the relationship itself is built upon institutional frameworks. This form of interregionalism consists of “regular meetings at the ministerial and senior officials’
43 Rüland, “Interregionalism: an unfinished agenda,” 308.
44 Richard Hu, “Building Asia Pacific Regional Architecture: the challenges of hybrid regionalism,”
Brookings Institution, Working Papers by CEAP Visiting Fellows, July 14, 2009, 9.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
levels and the launching of joint projects and programs”.45 Cooperation can range from specific issue-‐areas in the economic sphere, such as trade and investment, to political matters. The EU’s dialogue with other regions is the prototypical example of bilateral regionalism. For example, the cooperation between the EC and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations is often cited as the model for group-‐to-‐
group interregionalism. Yet, with the emergence of ‘new regionalism’ came new regional players in Southeast Asia, Latin America, and Oceania looking to expand their own relations with one another. While it dominated during the times of ‘old regionalism,’ this pure form of interregionalism can no longer explain all of the contemporary variations of interregional relations that are popping up in this new globalized world.
Transregional arrangements
Transregionalism is used to help explain relations that are not necessarily formalized or between two clearly identifiable powers. This form most commonly
“refers to interregional relations where two or more regions are dispersed, have weak actorship, and where neither region negotiates as a regional organization”.46 This flexible form of interregional relations also emphasizes the creation of
‘common spaces’ between regions through which various state and non-‐state actors can cooperate with each other.47 These common spaces can include those that focus on economic, cultural/social, or political elements. In these spaces, a host of actors, including nongovernmental organizations, institutions, and movements converge to establish integrative, transnational links between two or more regions. Compared to the bilateral group-‐to-‐group interregional arrangements, transregional arrangements consist of heterogeneous membership and can include states from more than just two regions. Transregionalism really began to take hold under the
45 Heinner Hänggi, “Interregionalism: empirical and theoretical perspectives,” Paper prepared for the workshop, Dollars, Democracy and Trade: External Influence on Economic Integration in the Americas, May 18, 2000, 4.
46 Baert, Scaramagli, and Soderbaum, Intersecting Interregionalism: Regions Global Governance and the EU, 5.
47 Christopher Dent, “From inter-‐regionalism to trans-‐regionalism? Future challenges for ASEM,”
Asia Europe Journal 1, (2003): 224.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
emergence of the Triadic complex between North America, Western Europe, and East Asia. The most common examples of transregionalism are APEC, ASEM, and the African-‐Europe Cairo summit.
Hybrid Regionalism
Hybrid regionalism is used to categorize interregional forms that do not fit neatly into the first two categories. These forms are thought of as quasi-‐
interregionalism, and are often associated with dialogues between regional groups and single state actors from other regions. Usually, the single actor is the major dominant power in its own region.48 Relations between the EU and the US or the EU and China fall into this category. This ‘region-‐to-‐state’ relationship is sometimes not accepted by scholars as a category of interregionalism. However proponents of this form argue that quasi-‐interregionalism is a crucial aspect of interregional relations, especially when the state power is considered the leader of their particular region.
The 5 Types of Interregionalism
Table 2.2 Hanggi’s Typology of Interregionalism
Source: Heiner Hanggi,“Interregionalism as a Multifaceted Phenomenon: In Search of a Typology,”
Interregionalism and International Relations.
Over the years Hanggi has continued to enrich the categorization of interregionalism discussed above in order to develop a typology that is much more thorough and widespread.49 As you can see in Figure 2.2, Hanggi’s typological model
48 Hänggi, “Interregionalism: empirical and theoretical perspectives,” 8.
49 Hanggi,“Interregionalism as a Multifaceted Phenomenon: In Search of a Typology,” 31.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
separates interregional relations into wider and narrower classifications. In the narrower sense, Hanggi breaks down bilateral and transregionalism down into three groupings: cooperation between two regional organizations, the dialogues between ASEAN and MERCOSUR; cooperation between a regional organization and a regional group, the EU and a group of African nations participating in the Cairo Summit; and cooperation between two regional groups, groups of East Asian and Latin American states participating in FEALAC.50
In a wider sense of interregional relations, Hanggi includes quasi-‐ and megaregionalism into the fold. Quasi-‐interregionalism, or hybrid interregionalism is considered a relationship between a regional organization and a country from another region.51 An example of this type of interregional dialogue would simply be the cooperation between the EU and China. Megaregional relations sit on the opposite end of the spectrum and entail an interaction of a group states from three or more regions. Hanggi considers APEC as a paradigmatic case for megaregionalism under the wave of new regionalism and points out that like in the case of APEC, megaregionalism is usually dominated by a hegemonic power.52 Being that OBOR is made up of nations from multiple regions, it is also be categorized as a megaregional dialogue. Hanggi’s categorical framework of interregional relations is thus far the most thorough and nuanced method of interregional classification.
2.3 Methodology and Analytical Framework: Comparative