Regional actorness and interregional relations: ASEAN, the EU and Mercosur

Abstract

The European Union (EU) has a long tradition of interregional dialogue mechanisms with other regional organisations and is using these relations to project its own model of institutionalised actorness. This is partly motivated by the emerging actorness of the EU itself, which benefits from fostering capable regional counterparts in other parts of the world. This article advances the argument that actorness, which we conceptualise in terms of institutions, recognition and identity, is a relational concept, dependent on context and perception. Taking the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Common Market of the South (Mercosur) and their relations with the EU as case studies, this article demonstrates that the actorness capabilities of all three organisations have been enhanced as result of ASEAN-EU and Mercosur-EU relations. However, there are clear limits to the development of the three components of regional actorness and to the interregional relations themselves. These limits stem both from the type of interregionalism at play and from the different regional models the actors incorporate. While there is evidence of institutional enhancement in ASEAN and Mercosur, these formal changes have been grafted on top of firmly entrenched normative underpinnings. Within the regional organisations, interactions with the EU generate centrifugal forces concerning the model to pursue, thus limiting their institutional cohesion and capacity. In addition, group-to-2 group relations have reinforced ASEAN and Mercosur identities in contrast to the EU. The formation of such differences has narrowed the scope of EU interregionalism despite the initial success of improved regional actorness.

A contextualisation of EU–Africa relations: Trends and drivers from a reciprocal perspective

“…The concept of actorness serves as a useful lens to understand the institutionalisation, visibility and identity of regional organisations. 62 The influence of interregionalism on regional actorness is also evident in the way the AU and many RECs have treated the EU as a model. Daniel Bach outlined how African institutions established 'ambitious institutional blueprints, largely inspired by the EU's […] norm-driven approach to integration' and later measured their progress by using the EU as a benchmark.…”

How to wield regional power from afar: a conceptual discussion illustrated by the case of France in Central Africa

“…Most approaches study regional integration as a project led by internal actors (Laursen 2018;Mattli 1999). Research on interregionalism has dealt with how external actors, the EU in particular, have tried to shape and construct regions, but these actors have been considered as entirely separate outsiders (Söderbaum and Stålgren 2010;Baert et al 2014;Mattheis and Wunderlich, 2017). Although it is not formally listed as a member by CEMAC, France wields similar or even more influence in the organisation than the formal member states.…”

Assessing the Expectations and Limitations of ASEAN-EU Counter-Terrorism Cooperation

“…The substance of the joint declaration is further elaborated in the EU's ASEAN strategy paper which presented six priority strategies for EU's engagement with ASEAN, including support for stability and CT policies in Southeast Asia, poverty reduction, EU-ASEAN economic relations and respect for human rights, democracy and good governance, and mainstreaming the role of the EU's Justice and Home Affairs (Mattheis & Wunderlich, 2017). The way in which CT cooperation is accompanied by other aspects of human security and good governance affirms the principle of comprehensive security that both regions adhere to security should be approached from a pluralist point of view incorporating political, social, economic and human dimensions (Kim, 1999).…”