Beyond Actorness
Structure and Agency in EU–ASEAN Interregionalism
In: European Journal of East Asian StudiesSearch for other papers by Lukas Maximilian Müller in
Current site
Google Scholar
This paper is concerned with the determining factors of the interregional relationship between the European Union (EU) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), specifically its institutional proliferation on the three institutional levels of EU-to-ASEAN relations (bi-regionalism), relations inside ASEM (trans-regionalism) as well as relations between the EU and individual ASEAN member states (region-to-state). Commonly, interregional relations are seen as depending on the actorness of the regional organisations involved. This paper proposes an alternative approach, focusing on structural interdependence and agency on the part of both regional actors as the two main determinants of the institutional proliferation. The analysis suggests that levels of political and economic interdependence are low at the bi-regional level and higher at both the trans-regional and region-to-state level, leading to a proliferation of institutional structures at these levels. Additionally, the analysis reveals three unique strategies by ASEAN and the EU contributing to the design of their interregional relationship. For ASEAN, these strategies consist of (1) omni-enmeshment, (2) vertical and horizontal hedging, and (3) the rule of relative institutionalisation. For the EU, these strategies consist of (1) a pragmatic approach towards ASEAN, (2) a widening of interest towards East Asia, and (3) capacity-building bi-regionalism.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
6
Gunnar Sjöstedt, The External Role of the European Community (Farnborough, Hampshire: Saxon House, 1977).
-
16
Mathew Doidge, ‘Joined at the hip: regionalism and interregionalism’, Journal of European Integration, Vol. 29, No. 2 (2007), pp. 229–248.
-
18
Ralf Roloff, Europa, Amerika und Asien zwischen Globalisierung und Regionalisierung: Das interregionale Konzert und die ökonomische Dimension internationaler Politik (Europe, America, and Asia between Globalizaton and Regionalisation), (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2001); J. McCall Smith, ‘The politics of dispute settlement design: explainaing legalism in regional trade pacts’, International Organization, Vol. 54, No. 1 (2000), pp. 137–180.
-
28
R.O. Keohane and J.S. Nye, Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition (Boston: Little Brown, 1977).
-
32
Jürgen Rüland, ‘The rise of “diminished multilateralism”: East Asian and European forum shopping in global governance’, Asia Europe Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2 (2012), pp. 255–270.
-
34
Evelyn Goh, ‘Great powers and hierarchical order in Southeast Asia: analyzing regional security strategies’, International Security, Vol. 32, No. 3 (2008), pp. 113–157.
-
51
Goh, ‘Great powers and hierarchical order in Southeast Asia’, p. 131.
-
54
Mark Beeson and Diane Stone, ‘The European Union model’s influence in Asia after the global financial crisis’, European Journal of East Asian Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2 (2013), pp. 167–190.
-
62
Jörn Dosch, ‘Mahathirism and its legacy in Malaysia’s foreign policy’, European Journal of East Asian Studies, Vol. 13, No. 1 (2014), pp. 5–32.
-
63
Goh, ‘Great powers and hierarchical order in Southeast Asia’, p. 123.
-
67
L. Hsien Loong, ‘Speech to the Asia Security Conference’, Straits Times (3 June 2006).
-
98
Naila Maier-Knapp, ‘The European Union as a normative actor and its external relations with Southeast Asia’, Journal of Contemporary European Research, Vol. 10, No. 2 (2014).
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 550 | 140 | 12 |
| Full Text Views | 262 | 17 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 98 | 27 | 0 |
Beyond Actorness
Structure and Agency in EU–ASEAN Interregionalism
In: European Journal of East Asian StudiesSearch for other papers by Lukas Maximilian Müller in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
This paper is concerned with the determining factors of the interregional relationship between the European Union (EU) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), specifically its institutional proliferation on the three institutional levels of EU-to-ASEAN relations (bi-regionalism), relations inside ASEM (trans-regionalism) as well as relations between the EU and individual ASEAN member states (region-to-state). Commonly, interregional relations are seen as depending on the actorness of the regional organisations involved. This paper proposes an alternative approach, focusing on structural interdependence and agency on the part of both regional actors as the two main determinants of the institutional proliferation. The analysis suggests that levels of political and economic interdependence are low at the bi-regional level and higher at both the trans-regional and region-to-state level, leading to a proliferation of institutional structures at these levels. Additionally, the analysis reveals three unique strategies by ASEAN and the EU contributing to the design of their interregional relationship. For ASEAN, these strategies consist of (1) omni-enmeshment, (2) vertical and horizontal hedging, and (3) the rule of relative institutionalisation. For the EU, these strategies consist of (1) a pragmatic approach towards ASEAN, (2) a widening of interest towards East Asia, and (3) capacity-building bi-regionalism.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 550 | 140 | 12 |
| Full Text Views | 262 | 17 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 98 | 27 | 0 |