Asia-Europe Inter-regionalism towards Trans-regionalism? Focused on the Russian accession to ASEM
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper aims to explore the ASEM’s enlargement policy centered on the implication of 2010 enlargement with the special emphasis on the Russian accession. The enlargement in 2010 to include not only Australia and New Zealand but also Russia brings us to reconsider the bi-regional approach which upholds ASEM’s working process. The enlargement to Russia and less so for Australia and New Zealand, is expected to bring challenges to the region-based coordination process of ASEM especially considering the fact that Russia has an indefinite identity between Asia and Europe. Then, would this enlargement affecting the region-to-region approach, the modus operandi of ASEM, shifts ASEM’s bi-regional inter-regionalist nature to a trans-regional inter-regionalist one? This paper argues that the 2010 enlargement was not aimed at changing ASEM’s working process nor its bi-regional inter-regionalist format. In other words, ASEM had no intention of fundamentally changing its working process to trans-regionalism, but was mindful of the benefits from accepting Russia's membership. ASEM’s seeming inclination to trans-regional inter-regionalist format can be interpreted as the means forced by circumstances to include Russia and further to include other countries in Eurasia to ASEM. The accession of Russia, the representative country of Eurasia, thus can be regarded most persuasively as the principal rationales of ASEM: to counterbalance the US' hegemonic stance, as one of the primary rationales of ASEM suggests, and also to counterweight against unrivaled China in ASEM which is becoming the potential threat to ASEM's existence. This paper also observes Korea's stance on the Russian accession to ASEM including the consecutive enlargement of ASEM from 2008. In particular, it analyzes the outcomes of Russia's accession such as stabilized energy supply by the Russia-North Korea-South Korea natural gas pipeline and the easing of tension on the Korean Peninsula together with the changing perspective of ASEM through its enlargements.
Abstract
This paper aims to explore the ASEM’s enlargement policy centered on the implication of 2010 enlargement with the special emphasis on the Russian accession. The enlargement in 2010 to include not only Australia and New Zealand but also Russia brings us to reconsider the bi-regional approach which upholds ASEM’s working process. The enlargement to Russia and less so for Australia and New Zealand, is expected to bring challenges to the region-based coordination process of ASEM especially considering the fact that Russia has an indefinite identity between Asia and Europe. Then, would this enlargement affecting the region-to-region approach, the modus operandi of ASEM, shifts ASEM’s bi-regional inter-regionalist nature to a trans-regional inter-regionalist one? This paper argues that the 2010 enlargement was not aimed at changing ASEM’s working process nor its bi-regional inter-regionalist format. In other words, ASEM had no intention of fundamentally changing its working process to trans-regionalism, but was mindful of the benefits from accepting Russia's membership. ASEM’s seeming inclination to trans-regional inter-regionalist format can be interpreted as the means forced by circumstances to include Russia and further to include other countries in Eurasia to ASEM. The accession of Russia, the representative country of Eurasia, thus can be regarded most persuasively as the principal rationales of ASEM: to counterbalance the US' hegemonic stance, as one of the primary rationales of ASEM suggests, and also to counterweight against unrivaled China in ASEM which is becoming the potential threat to ASEM's existence. This paper also observes Korea's stance on the Russian accession to ASEM including the consecutive enlargement of ASEM from 2008. In particular, it analyzes the outcomes of Russia's accession such as stabilized energy supply by the Russia-North Korea-South Korea natural gas pipeline and the easing of tension on the Korean Peninsula together with the changing perspective of ASEM through its enlargements.
참고문헌 (21)
- ASEM Foreign Ministers Meeting, "Chair's Statement", Tenth Foreign Minister's Meeting (2001)
- ASEM Foreign Ministers Meeting, "Recommendations for ASEM working methods Draft Proposals for Foreign Minister’s Meeting 6", Sixth Foreign Ministers Meeting (2004)
- Bobrow, D. B., "The US and ASEM: why the hegemon didn't bark?", The Pacific Review, 12(1), pp.103~128 (1999)
- Brzezinski, Zbigniew, "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives" (1997), Basic Books
- Camroux, David, "Asia and Europe very preliminary thoughts on an international sociology of regional interactions", ECPR-JPSA Conference (1997), University of Warwick
- Camroux, David, "Close encounter of a third kind? The Inaugural Asia Europe Meeting of March, 1996", The Pacific Review, 9(3), pp.442~453 (1996)
- Dent, Christopher M., "Asia and Europe: Meeting Future Energy Security Challenges, In The Asia-Europe Meeting: Contributing to a New global Governance Architecture: the eighth ASEM Summit in Brussels(2010)", pp.127~142 (2011), Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press
- Gilson, Julie, "New Interregionalism? the EU and East Asia", European Integration, 2(3), pp.307~326 (2005)
- The Development of Europe's linkages with East Asia: Hybrid Trans-Regionalism?, "Gilson, Julie", Institute of European Studies, University of California Berkeley, ~, pp.Working paper 2002-2003 (2002)
- Goh, Chok-Tong, "l’Asie et l’Europe: une nouvelle alliance pour le XXIe siècle", Politique étrangère, 1099~1106 (1995)
- Hänggi, Heiner, "Regionalism through interregionalism, In Regionalism in East Asia Paradigm shifting", pp.197~219 (2003), Routledge, Curzon
- Hänggi, Heiner, "Interregionalism: empirical and theoretical perspectives", Paper prepared for the workshop Dollars, Democracy and Trade External influence on Economic Integration in the Americas, The Pacific Council of International Policy (2000)
- Hettne, Björn, "Interregionalism and World Order", Paper presented to Section 33, States, regions and regional world orders, SGIR, Fifth Pan-European International Relations Conference (2004)
- Hettne, Björn, "The New Regionalism Revisited, In Theories of New Regionalism", pp.22~42 (2003), Palgrave, Macmillan
- Hettne, Björn, "The new regionalism approach", Politeia. Journal of the Departments of Political Sciences and Public Administration, 17(3), pp.5~21 (1999), University of South Africa
- To "Bi' or not to "Bi"? When bilateralism is the choice of actors in ASEM, "Lai, Suet-yi", Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, European Union Studies Association(EUSA), ~ (2010)
- Mackinder, H. J., "The Geographical Pivot of History", The Geographical Journal, 24(4) (1904)
- Maull, Hanns, "The Geopolitical Dimension, In The Rationale and Common Agenda for Asia-Europe cooperation" (1997), Council for Asia-Europe cooperation
- Rüland, Jürgen, "Interregionalism in International Relations", Conference Summary. Arnold-Bergstaesser-Institute (2002)
- Soeya, Yoshihide, "The political and economic security dimension" (1997), Council for Asia-Europe cooperation
- Yeo, Lay Hwee, "The Asia-Europe Meeting: Engagement", Enlargement and Expectations Konrad Adenauer Stiftung & EU Center in Singapore, ~ (2010)