國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Page 26 of 334
ASEM in comparative perspective. The current state of inter-regionalism is summarized and categories in terms of the degree of institutionalization: hard and soft institutionalization, are distinguished. The mentioned literature provides a sound contribution in the theoretical categorization of functions that inter- and trans-regional forum exerts.
1.2.2. The Five Functions of inter-regionalism from the mainstream International Relations approaches
In the theoretical literature a number of scholars have listed five functions of inter-regionalism (Gilson 2002, Dent 2004, Roloff 2006, Ruland and Storz 2008).4 Robles offered the clearest classification. The five foci are as following:
(1) balancing (and bandwagoning) the political and economic disequilibria, (2) rationalizing,
(3) institution-building through formation of new coordination mechanisms, (4) agenda-setting for multilateral fora, and finally
(5) identity-building.
Institutional balancing is to address political and economic imbalances by readjusting institutional influence and formation coordination mechanisms. Institution-building, rationalizing and agenda-setting are function associate with liberal institutionalism. Institution-building refers to the claim that inter-regional forums contribute to an emerging multilayered system of global governance. Rationalizing and agenda-setting are regarded as requisites for the management of interdependence, a key function of global governance. Since they are mainly based on the consensus of preferences, making negotiation processes easier. Identity building in the context of inter-regionalism refers to a reflexive process of interaction, in which cognitive factors shape and sharpen regional identities, is a process of emerging the Self in the encounter with the Other.
4 Julie Gilson, "Defining Inter-Regionalism: The Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM)," SEAS Electronic Working Papers 1, no.
1 (2002); Christopher M. Dent, "The Asia-Europe Meeting and Inter-Regionalism: Toward a Theory of Multilateral Utility," Asian Survey 44, no. 2 (2004); Ralf Roloff, "Interregionalism in theoretical perspective: State of the Art," in Interregionalism and International Relations, ed. Ralf Roloff and Jurgen Ruland Heiner Hanggi (New York:
Routledge, 2006).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Page 27 of 334
Jürgen Rüland saw balancing as “soft balancing”. The function of balancing places greater emphasis on the global distribution of institutional power. “Soft balancing involves
interregional forums in short-term coalition-building, the fluid nature of which entails few incentives for states and regional organizations to invest in the governance costs associated with building enduring and ‘deep’ institutions”.
5Table1: Inter-regionalism: functions, theory and foci
Source: Quoted from Mathew Doidge “Joined at the Hip: Regionalism and
Inter-regionalism”
6From the mainstream of international relations, inter-regionalism has been studied by realists, liberal institutionalists and constructivists. The first group tends to see inter- and trans-regional fora in category of coalitions or alliances of trans-regional players to exercise power. Hence, they underline the balancing function of the region-to-region relations. For realists, ASEM is an inter-governmental forum in which cooperation takes place because there is coincidence in actors’
interests. Ruland (1996, 2000, 2002) 7 extensively argued that Asia and Europe were pushed
5 Jürgen Rüland, "Balancers, Multilateral utilities or global identity builders? International Relations and the study of Interregionalism " Journal of European Public Policy 17, no. 8 (2010). P. 1280
6 Mathew Doidge, "Joined at the Hip: Regionalism and Interregionalism," European Integration 29, no. 2 (2007). P.
232 7
Jürgen Rüland, The Asia-Europe meeting (ASEM) : towards a new Euro-Asian relationship? , Rostocker Informationen zu Politik und Verwaltung, (Rostock: Universität Rostock, Institut für Politik- und
Verwaltungswissenschaften, 1996).; Jürgen Rüland, Asia-Europe Coopeation - The ASEAM process: A European View, ed. Magnus Jerneck and Urlich Niemann, Asia and Europe: Regional Cooperation in a Globalizing World
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Page 28 of 334
towards cooperation because of the US dominance. Particularly Europe feared isolation as the East Asian economies grew in importance.
Preston and Gilson’s volume (Preston & Gilson 2001)8 is concerned with interchange between the internal dynamics and regional inter-linkages of the EU and East Asia. They saw the core dynamics behind the establishing the ASEM as: the extension of European power in Asia, European domination and the demand of empire, European eclipse and the US hegemony, and Asia’s recovery and rise after the financial crisis, and Europe-Asia relations in the contemporary global system.
Realism, by default not believing in cooperation, is not adequate for explaining the cooperation of regions encompassed of multiple states and some regional institutions (the EC and ASEAN Secretariat are the members as well). The balancing component of ASEM versus APEC did not work, hence reaslism theory is no longer discussed in this dissertation.
Institutionalists, on the other hand, regard cooperation as a key to mitigate the anarchical character of international relations, to minimize the incidence of conflict and to enhance the welfare of peoples. Moreover, cooperation intensifies the flow of information between actors, builds trust and enhances the predictability of state behaviour. By this token, inter- and trans-regional fora add another layer to the international system and thus enhance the institutional density. Such format creates an increasing demand for internal coordination as members or regional organizations are advices to invent common positions prior to summits and meetings.
Furthermore, great powers while involved in the process, they also socialize into cooperative multilateralism.9
Institution-building refers to a process of progressive institutionalization of international relations and institutional differentiation. Unlike realist theory that focuses on competition and conflict, institutionalist, or more precisely neo-institutionalist theory rather tries to explain the nature and existence of cooperation in international institutions. In this particular case, it asks
(Singapore: Asia Europe Foundation, 2000).; Jürgen Rüland, "Interregionalism in International Relations.
Conference Summary," in Seminar für Wissenschaftliche Politik (Freiburg2002).
8 Peter W. Preston and Julie Gilson, The European Union and East Asia: Interregional Linkages in a Changing Global System (Northampton Edward Elgar, 2001).
9 Jürgen Rüland, "ASEAN and the European Union: A Bumpy Inter-regional Relationship," Discussion Paper c95(2001).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Page 29 of 334
question whether ASEM has contributed to evolution of norms and regimes in governing the cooperation between Asia and Europe.
However, interregional fora face certain obstacles constraining institutional-building functions. So called “shallow institutionalization” (informality, non-legally binding decisions), create little or no enforcing compliance mechanisms. The pillared structure is criticized to cause dual problem of reducing efficiency and signifying democracy deficit. Interregional dialogues
“suffer from the twin-deficit of ‘input’ and ‘output’ legitimacy”.10
Interregional dialogue fora can be considered as novel layers of governance which can be traced back in their origins to the early 1970s with the EU and ASEAN building up hub-and-spoke systems of bilateral and consecutively also multilateral forms of interregionalism.11
Functions of interregionalism focus on the collective action, which relate to system of global governance. “However, a closer look at these functions reveals that they are more
theoretically deduced than empirically real”
12. Ruland pointed out that, although there is a lack of systematic empirical research testing the underlying assumptions, it seems that except for the balancing and bandwagoning functions, all other functions attached to ASEM are only weakly developed. Balancing and bandwagoning relate to the power dimension of international relations, hence interregional fora such as ASEM play a role of an arena in triadic power contest (Hanggi 1999).13 ASEM in this perspective reflects a European strategy of bandwagoning in the face of Asia’s unprecedented economic growth, and American’s dominance expressed in forming the APEC.14Five functions of inter-regionalism reflect the recognition that international relations are characterized by a complex mix of policies and processes informed by an array of theoretical
10 Rüland, "Balancers, Multilateral utilities or global identity builders? International Relations and the study of Interregionalism ". P. 1276
11 Geoffey Edwards and Elfriede Regelsberger (eds), Europe's Global Links (Pinter Publishers, London, 1990); Christopher Piening, Global Europe: The European Union in World Affairs (Lynne Rienner, Boulder, 1997
12 Jürgen Rüland, "ASEM and the Emerging System of Global Governance," in Annual Meeting of the Association for Asian Studies (Washington2002).
13 Heiner Hanggi, "ASEM and the Construction of the New Triad," Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy 4, no. 1 (1999).
14 Rüland, "ASEM and the Emerging System of Global Governance."
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Page 30 of 334
approaches, rather than by a single theoretical construct. Those functions see inter-regionalism as functioning in two directions:
a. upward to the global multilateral level (external focus) and b. downward to regional level (internal focus)15
Graph 1: Directions of inter-regionalism
Source: Author’s compilation based on theory proposed by Mathew Doidge’s “Joined at
the Hip: Regionalism and Interregionalism”
Alfredo Robles disagreed on the functional perspective of interregionalism in the form of five above mentioned functions. His criticism came from a stand, in which he believed that interregional relations form a post-colonial dependencia perspective with the political economy of Asia-Europe relations at the centre. He saw EU’s interaction with Asia as far from ideal situation, and EU as a hardly qualified normative power, but rather an actor pursuing self-centred economic objectives at the expense of Asia’s developing countries.16
15 Doidge, "Joined at the Hip: Regionalism and Interregionalism." P. 232-233
16 Alfredo C. Robles, The Asia-Europe meeting : the theory and practice of interregionalism, Routledge contemporary Asia series (London ; New York: Routledge, 2008).