East Asian Regionalism and EU Studies

Abstract

This article examines the development of Asian regionalism and the scholarship on regionalism in Asia in relation to EU studies. It provides a brief overview of the development and relative successes to date of East Asian regionalism. It then examines scholarship on the East Asian region -the principal approaches, concepts and methods before moving on to ask what, if anything, scholars of EU studies can learn from scholarship on the East Asian region and what, if anything, scholars of the East Asian region might learn from scholarship on the EU. It seeks to establish some pathways to deeper dialogue between scholarly understandings of the EU experience of integration and the East Asian experience of regionalism, aiming to contribute to comparative regional integration analysis. It argues that the key characteristic of European integration theory is an 'institutions plus embedded norms' framework and that the distinguishing feature of East Asian regionalism is a framework of architecture based on open economic regionalism, normative priors and security imperatives.

Making sense of the legal and judicial architectures of regional trade agreements worldwide

“…More recently, scholars have turned to the design of RTAs. Scholars have examined, for instance, the basic structure of regional courts (Alter 2012), the supranational versus intergovernmental character of regional institutions (Murray 2010), the bureaucratic architecture of RTAs (Warleigh-Lack & Van Langenhove 2010;Lenz 2012), the regulatory reach in specific issue areas, such as environmental protection and energy (Pineau et al 2004;Dür et al 2014), and the inclusion of flexibility provisions (Kucik & Reinhardt 2008).…”

Adoption, accommodation or opposition? - regional powers respond to American-led Indo-Pacific strategy

“…According to Medcalf (2012, p. 4) 'an Indo-Pacific map of Asia is one in which Chinese influence is more diluted than in an exclusively East Asian setting.' This clearly demonstrates how the new 'mental map' is connected to national proclivities for wider and more 'open' interpretations of region/regionalism among the TSD powers, since this justifies their presence and role in a way that the more exclusive 'closed' conceptions (e.g., 'East Asia'), would not (Murray, 2010).…”

The EU an Actor Sui Generis? A Comparison of EU and ASEAN Actorness*

“…ASEAN was regarded by its member states as a necessity to cement their independence and to enhance the legitimacy of the ruling regimes, whose survival in the face of ethnic and communist unrest was far from assured 7 . In Koro Bessho's (1999, p. 41) words: ‘ASEAN's purpose is to strengthen state sovereignty.’ 8 ASEAN emphasizes sovereignty and intergovernmental co‐operation, and rejects supranationalism (Murray, 2010, p. 599). Thus, ASEAN was designed to facilitate Westphalia in the region in contrast to European integration, which aimed to overcome the Westphalian system or at least curb the worst excesses of nationalism 9…”