murray jei nov 2010

7/28/2019 Murray JEI Nov 2010

1/21

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Murray, Philomena]

On: 10 November 2010

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 929335343]

Publisher Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-

41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of European IntegrationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713393849

East Asian Regionalism and EU StudiesPhilomena Murrayaba School of Social and Politics Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia b UNU- CRIS; College of

Europe, Bruges; Institute for International Integration Studies, Trinity College Dublin,

Online publication date: 09 November 2010

To cite this Article Murray, Philomena(2010) 'East Asian Regionalism and EU Studies', Journal of European Integration, 32:6, 597 616

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2010.518718URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2010.518718

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713393849http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2010.518718http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2010.518718http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713393849


2/21

European IntegrationVol. 32, No. 6, 597616, November 2010

ISSN 07036337 Print/ISSN 14772280 Online/10/060597-20 2010 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2010.518718

ARTICLE

East Asian Regionalism and EUStudies

PHILOMENA MURRAY

School of Social and Politics Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia;, UNU- CRIS;College of Europe, Bruges; Institute for International Integration Studies, TrinityCollege Dublin

TaylorandFrancisGEUI_A_518718.sgm10.1080/07036337.2010.518718JournalofEuropeanIntegration0703-6337 (print)/1477-2280 (online)Original Article2010Taylor&Francis326000000December [email protected]

ABSTRACT This article examines the development of Asian regionalism and the schol-arship on regionalism in Asia in relation to EU studies. It provides a brief overview ofthe development and relative successes to date of East Asian regionalism. It then exam-ines scholarship on the East Asian region the principal approaches, concepts andmethods before moving on to ask what, if anything, scholars of EU studies can learnfrom scholarship on the East Asian region and what, if anything, scholars of the EastAsian 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 integrationand the East Asian experience of regionalism, aiming to contribute to comparativeregional integration analysis. It argues that the key characteristic of European integra-tion theory is an institutions plus embedded norms framework and that the distinguish-ing feature of East Asian regionalism is a framework of architecture based on openeconomic regionalism, normative priors and security imperatives.

KEY WORDS: Regionalism, economic integration, ASEAN, security, institutions

Introduction

The study of Asias regional architecture has become an increasingly impor-tant field of research in recent years. The security politics of the regionhave altered, with the rise of China, the USs re-engagement in the region(Feigenbaum and Manning 2009; Tow 2009; Wesley 2009), tensionsbetween the two Koreas and territorial disputes. Debates focus on transna-tional issues and on changing power dynamics in the region. Scholarly anal-ysis indicates concerns about power shifts between China and the US,

Correspondence Address: Philomena Murray, School of Social and Politics Sciences, The

University of Melbourne, Victoria 2010, Australia. Email: [email protected]


3/21

598 Philomena Murray

reflected in examinations of security issues rather than institutional design.Indeed, Vogel (2010) argues that the security balance in Asia is the singlebiggest issue confronting regionalism in the Asia-Pacific.

This article examines the development of Asian regionalism and the schol-arship on regionalism in Asia in relation to EU studies. The study of Asianregionalism has a distinctive history compared to European integration,differing in the perception of sovereignty, formal institutions and leadership differences evident in debates regarding security, economic regionalismand norms. Realist concerns with sovereignty and security are often at oddswith neo-functionalist notions of economic cooperation. Further, normativeunderpinnings also differ (Acharya 2009). Deliberations on regionalism inAsia encompass concerns about a strong overarching security architecture;economic integration and soft institutionalism.

The definitions of region, regionalism and architecture remain contested inAsia, with recent debates regarding proposals for formalised regional archi-

tecture. Dissatisfaction with current regionalism in Asia has opened up a newpolicy and discourse space in the debates on East Asian as well as in AsiaPacific regionalism.1

The article firstly provides a brief overview of the development and rela-tive successes to date of East Asian regionalism. Secondly, it examinesscholarship on the East Asian region the principal approaches, conceptsand methods. Thirdly, it asks what, if anything, scholars of EU studies canlearn from scholarship on the East Asian region and what, if anything,scholars of the East Asian region might learn from scholarship on the EU. Itseeks to establish some pathways to deeper dialogue between scholarly

understandings of the EU experience of integration and the East Asianexperience of regionalism, seeking to contribute to comparative regionalintegration analysis. It argues that the key characteristic of European inte-gration theory is an institutions plus embedded norms framework andthat the distinguishing feature of East Asian regionalism is a framework ofarchitecture based on open economic regionalism, normative priors andsecurity imperatives. That is, the EU is characterised by embedded institu-tionalism; supranational institutions alongside intergovernnmentalism anda Treaty basis, supported by an acquis communautaire or body of norms,decisions and practices developed over time. In contrast, due to very differ-

ent origins and normative settings, East Asian regionalism is characterisedby a concept of architecture that is not clearly defined within Asia (Aysonand Taylor 2009, 188; Tow and Tayler 2010) although the term is utilisedin Asia and more broadly in debates of scholars and epistemic communitiesregarding transnational cooperation.2 This architecture consists of openeconomic regionalism; normative priors, such as the Association ofSoutheast Asian Nations (ASEAN) way of consultation, consensus andadherence to state sovereignty; security imperatives and the relationshipwith the US. Normative priors are defined by Acharya (2009, 4) as existinglocal beliefs and practices that determine how external norms are incorpo-rated. He implies that they can also be rejected, of course. Normativechange and institution-building are best viewed, according to Acharya


4/21

East Asian Regionalism an EU Studies 599

(2009, 7), as evolutionary processes contingent upon prior regional normsand processes.

It is noteworthy that the term architecture can be confusing and haseven been rejected as inappropriate for scholars of Asian security: rather thanan institution that brings states together, the relationship among Asian statesis most important, and so the rules and patterns of behaviour among majoractors on a regular basis, as well as nations political will to work together,are crucial (Ayson and Taylor 2009, 1934). Asian policymakers and manyscholars tend not to examine formal institutions, while EU specialists regardthem as an essential and necessary foundation of the integration process.Rather, Asianists use the term architecture instead, due to the negative, oftenEU-focused, connotations that the term institution may carry.

The Experience of Regionalism in Asia

There is no single understanding of an Asian region or of Asian regionalism.Yet there are discernable features in ASEAN, for example, that are comparablewith the EU, as seen in Tables 13 regarding security, economic integrationand norms.

Regional integration in Southeast Asia has experienced significant progresssince ASEAN was founded in 1967 by Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore,Philippines and Thailand in response to perceived military threats, in a ColdWar context. The key objective was to create a region of peace and stability.Its objectives were to accelerate economic growth, social progress and culturaldevelopment. Its political imperative was and remains that of managing

intra-regional conflicts. ASEAN is characterised since its origins byrespect for sovereignty; its intergovernmental framework and processes; non-interference in other member states and a rejection of supranationalinstitutions. It has a firm commitment to multilateralism. Its members are inagreement in their desire to confront common challenges such as trade liber-alisation; development; terrorism; pandemics; response to natural disasters;poverty reduction and peace monitoring. ASEAN has brought about enduringpeace and stability in the region. It currently consists of Brunei Darussalam,Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos,Burma Myanmar and Cambodia with a population of 591.3 million.

It is in the area of norms that ASEAN is distinctive and where there arediscernible normative priors, defined by Acharya (2009, 446, 689) as thecombination of anti-colonialism, neutralism and nationalism. He presentsregionalism as a threat to national sovereignty and autonomy and argues thatnorms should constitute more than moral norms and include behaviouralnorms (Acharya 2009, 172). He argues that the existence of normative priorsconstitutes the reason why some ideas and norms find acceptance whileothers do not (Acharya 2009, 4). The ASEAN way, often referred to as theAsian Way (Acharya 2009), includes norms of behaviour and interaction; theprinciples of non-interference and respect for the core issue of sovereignty;peaceful resolution of conflicts; the practice of consensus and consultationand avoidance of confrontation. These remain core elements of Southeast


5/21


Asian regionalism, although they came under renewed scrutiny after theAsian Financial Crisis of 199798, when the ASEAN way did not lead to theresolution of that crisis, or the resolution of issues relating to human rights.Normative priors can explain a preference for a looser architecture, orumbrella structure of networks and webs of alliances, and the resistance tothe creation of a set of institutions with binding decision-making. Certainly,efforts have been made to bring the ASEAN states closer together, with theASEAN Charter, ratified in 2008.3

While some scholars and policy leaders regard ASEAN as the core body to

drive future Asian regionalism, ASEANs role in soft institutionalism and itsnon-interference principle are regarded as impeding its development into aharder and more formalised entity (Dent 2008, 91). Scholars and policymak-ers alike are divided in assessments of ASEANs role some see it as lessrelevant, inefficient, with light institutionalisation, and others as a symbol ofstability and peace in a fraught region (Morada 2008; Jetschke 2009, 409).

ASEAN Plus Three ASEAN plus China, Japan and South Korea became institutionalised in 1999, in order to provide some financial mecha-nism for support in the aftermath of the Asian Financial Crisis. The threeNortheast Asian states differ markedly from ASEAN, with little organisa-

tional coherence as a grouping. There remain bitter divisions between eachpair of Northeastern member states. To utilise Acharyas concept, normativepriors are distrust, enmity and rivalry. ASEAN Plus Three established theChiang Mai currency swap initiative after the Asian Financial Crisis as anetwork of bilateral agreements to swap and repurchase central bank reservesamong ASEAN Plus Three countries. Despite considerable scepticism amongmany analysts, Tay (2009) argues that these mechanisms are strengtheningand can foster greater coordination in currency and finance. Thus economiccooperation can proceed without the resolution of normative priors or ofsecurity concerns.

ASEANs security concerns are increasingly filtered through the ASEANRegional Forum (ARF). Scholars agree there has never been a single

Table 1. Selected comparison of normative context in ASEAN and the EU

Features ASEAN EU

Democracy, rule of law norms Since ASEAN Charter 2008 Yes

Capitalist member states Yes YesCommunist member states Yes No

Common religious traditions No Yes

Ideology Capitalist, communist Capitalist, liberal

Consensus Yes, informal Yes, formal

Sovereignty Intact Shared

Identity Limited Yes

Reconciliation Some achieved Yes

Supranational institutions No Yes

Intergovernmentalism Yes Yes, also supranationalism


6/21


regional security architecture in the Asia-Pacific only competing architec-tures, a set of tangled webs of interconnectivity (Tow 2008). The tangledcharacteristic renders the task of redesigning architectures a major chal-lenge. The ARF is the only regional security dialogue forum in Asia, seekingto attenuate territorial disputes between ASEAN states and China in theSouth China Sea and other territories and, further, to keep the US anchoredin the region as a security guarantor. Its objectives are to foster constructivedialogue and consultation on political and security issues of common inter-est and concern and to make significant contributions to efforts towardsconfidence-building and preventive diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific.4 Recentdebates have examined whether the ARFs role should be strengthened asthe major security body of the region, with the roles of the US and Chinaclarified. Table 2 illustrates some comparative features regarding security inEurope and East Asia.

With regard to economic regionalism, ASEAN has managed to create a

partially integrated market and production base, with increasingly free flowof goods, services, investment, business, professional people and skilledlabour, and the freer flow of capital (Koh 2008, 9). While these achieve-ments are significant, there is continuing deliberation about how best toadvance regional integration. Intra-regional trade in ASEAN stands at26.8% as a share of total trade (ASEAN, http://www.aseansec.org/18137.htm), a considerable improvement on earlier decades. There remainproblems in creating a single market and increasing intra-regional trade; thusthe score card for ASEAN remains mixed, as illustrated by Table 3.

In 2000, at the ASEAN Plus Three summit in Singapore, the idea of an East

Asia Summit (EAS) was first proposed, with Australia, New Zealand andIndia as members. This EAS first met in December 2005 and discussed thedevelopment of a free trade area or agreement (Dent 2008, 17071). TheEAS brings together leaders in a regional forum on strategic dialogue andaction relating to important challenges facing the East Asian region. It seeksto bring about closer regional cooperation. The criteria for EAS membershipare that the country must already be a dialogue partner of ASEAN; mustsubscribe to ASEANs Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC); and must

Table 2. Selected comparison of security architecture in East Asia and the EU

Features ASEAN EU

World War II Origins Partly Yes

Cold War origins Yes Yes

Security community Disputed Disputed/yes

International actor aims No Yes

Architecture ASEAN Regional Forum Common Foreign and Security andCommon Security and Defence Policy

Reconciliation Limited Yes

US involvement Security anchor, ARF NATO

Intergovernmentalism Yes Yes, also supranationalism


7/21


have substantive relations with the grouping (Tow 2008, 47). While security

is the key concern here, the EAS has also facilitated economic cooperation.

Comparing Regional Bodies

Two particular areas of concern in the study of Asian regionalism andscholarly focus are economic and security issues. They must however beplaced in context by the normative context of the practice of consensus,consultation and the desire for reconciliation. In some cases there may be anormative commitment to democracy. Integration analysts agree that theEUs achievement of peace and stability is a sine qua non of its success.

Some Asianist scholars argue that there cannot be any effective regionalentity if the need for reconciliation is not tackled, due to longstanding andbitter relationships between China and Japan, Japan and Korea and Koreaand China.

The normative commitment to democracy as a binding principle is not anaccepted normative prior in all of East Asia unlike the EU. It is not at thebasis of any regional body in Asia, although there are elements of it inthe ASEAN Charter (2008). This leads to the question of what norms andvalues are evident and important in the region and whether democracy is akey value for regional partners (Levine 2007; Acharya 2009). Baogong He

(2008, 2009) argues in favour of what he calls normative regionalism playinga key role in guiding, providing vision for, and setting up the principles oforganising and creating a regional community (He 2009, 10). He points tothe diversity of political systems; the fact that the most powerful state thathas shaped Asian regionalism is China, whose political system is still author-itarian, and that Singapore, Malaysia and Cambodia only have an electoralform of democracy. This uneven political development, he argues, has ruledout a democracy requirement for East Asian regionalism. If democracy wasimposed as a necessary condition, such a normative requirement wouldinhibit the development of East Asian regionalism (He 2009, 10). Like manyAsianist scholars, he argues in favour of the participation of civil society andNGOs in Asian regionalism

Table 3. Selected comparison of economic integration in ASEAN and the EU

Features ASEAN EU

Single market No Yes

Free Trade Area AFTA EUEconomic community 2015 1993

Development levels Huge disparities Few disparities

Economic and social development levels Low to mid Mid to high

Deregulation Limited Yes

Regulation Limited Yes

Functional cooperation Yes Yes

Neofunctional cooperation Limited Yes


8/21


There is a burgeoning discussion across the Asia Pacific regarding the EUsintegration experience, particularly in the wake of the 2008 Australianproposal for an Asia Pacific community and the 2009 Japanese proposal foran Asian Community (Rudd 2008; White 2008; Hatoyama 2009; Soesastro2009; Tay 2009). Questions are being raised as to whether non-Asian actors,such as the EU and Australia, have a role to play in facilitating Asian regionalintegration, and also as to whether ASEAN is the cradle of intensified region-alism. Although Japan put forward a proposal for East Asian regionalism in2009 (Hatoyama 2009), there is debate as to whether a dominant Asian hege-mon is crucial to or undermining of the development of serious regionalintegration. Considerable attention is devoted to the role of the external hege-mon the US and how it might support or undermine attempts at moreformalised regionalism (Vogel 2010). The recent Australian proposal (Rudd2008) for an overarching architecture is examined as a means of reconcep-tualising regionalism. There is a need to further explore whether there are

distinctively non-European, Asian concepts of regionalism and, if so, whetherthese are best encapsulated in the term regional architecture. It has beennoted by Acharya (2009) and Mahbubani (2008) that the Western approachto the literature on regional integration can appear hegemonic. Finally, Asian-ists are examining how an Asian qua Asian theory or set of theories of region-alism could develop and how this might interact with EU studies.

Scholarship on Asian Regionalism

In scholarship on the Asian region, concerns about and some disappoint-

ment with the current state of regionalism in Asia has opened up a newpolicy and discourse space in contemporary debates. Approaches havetended to focus on design, state, security and economy, in broad terms. Thedesign approach examines institutional architecture with regard to ASEAN,ASEAN Plus Three (China, Japan and South Korea), and, to a lesser extent,APEC, and tends to focus on the endogenous factors of East Asian, andparticularly Southeast Asian, regional bodies. Design choices have beenframed as the choice between institutionalisation and flexibility or betweenclosed and open regionalism. The state-focused approach relates to the roleof the state, with two tendencies particularly pertinent. The first tendency

regards the states vulnerability as a justification and context for regionalismto become a viable approach to cooperative decision-making. The secondtendency examines the central role of state sovereignty, a focus of much ofthe literature on ASEAN. The third scholarly approach examines increasinginterdependence and the need to tackle globalisation, especially in trade as an impetus for the creation of regional bodies or the intensification ofregional linkages and transnational cooperation. Tackling transnationaltraditional and non-traditional security challenges in regional bodies such asASEAN and the ASEAN Regional Forum, feature (Caballaro-Antony 2008),along with the pivotal role of the US as a security guarantor (Tow 2009).

The Asian Financial Crisis in 199798 illustrated the vulnerability ofEast Asian financial markets and the limitations of economic and financial


9/21


interconnections, prompting analysis of intensifying regional cooperation(Kawai 2007). While increased intra-regional trade is a sound basis forfurther regional integration, some analysts point to significant problemsundermining deeper economic and financial cooperation in Southeast Asia,such as the fact that businesses in ASEAN do not regard regional market inte-gration as being in their interest and thus do not apply pressure on theirgovernments to take the necessary measures (Severino 2008, 73).

Recent analysis points to the Global Financial Crisis leading to individualnational responses rather than a coordinated regional response (Rillo 2009).East Asian nations have not been fully successful in managing economicaffairs on a regional level (Soesastro and Drysdale 2009). ASEAN has hadlimited success in encouraging regionalism beyond support in principle(Morada 2008), a result of protectiveness and narrow economic national-ism (Wah 2007, 203) and the ASEAN tendency to pursue economic inte-gration and political cohesion discretely and independently of each other

(Severino 2007, 422).A further challenge is the lack of agreement on which grouping would be

best to move integration forward in Asia (Kawai 2007). In this regard, threecleavages appear. Firstly, there is a distinction between those who regardASEAN as the core regional body in Asia and the Asia Pacific and those whoargue that a broader Asia Pacific regional body is most appropriate. Secondly,there is division among those who regard the current bodies as satisfactorybasis of regionalism and those who seek new bodies. A third cleavage isamong those who seek formal bodies and those who regard informal normsand practices as the most appropriate organising principles for the region.

The commitment to common norms has not been easy, with ASEANsregional integration slow though progressing (Tay 2009). Severino (2007,41516) regards ASEANs economic integration as ineffectual, with ageneral lack of commitment to the region arising from a failure to recognisethe nexus between the regions economic integration, its common prosperityand the political stability that it brings on the one hand, and the welfare ofthe individual member states and their regimes on the other.

Current debates among scholars of East Asian regionalism focus onconcerns as to whether a new regional body or architecture is necessary inEast Asia (Tow 2009; Vogel 2010) or whether bodies should be strength-

ened. They examine how the region is dealing with the rise of China and thechanging role of the US in the region. They debate about whether Asia needsto move beyond soft regionalism (Vogel 2010) and the key issue of whoshould lead in Asian regionalism (White 2009). China is not a driver ofregionalism although it has signed a key free trade agreement with ASEANrecently and is increasingly embedded in East Asian intra-regional trade.

For the first time there is serious consideration of options that move beyondopen and closed regionalism (Ravenhill 2007) and beyond the two traditionalconcerns of Asian regionalism scholars economic cooperation and secu-rity. These are increasingly discussed as part of a larger problem theshadow cast by Chinas economic weight and its free trade agreement withASEAN as well as security concerns. The shadow of the past is evident in rela-


10/21


tions of Southeast Asian states with the US and the EU. The traditional roleof the US as soft and hard power appears to be partially counterbal-anced by other soft powers in the region China and to a lesser extent theEU. The issue of hard power is being examined in the context of the US, butalso of China. Some, such as Wesley (2009), analyse the region with a concertof power approach that involves only major players in the Asia Pacific. Otherssee a core role for ASEAN and the ARF in seeking to maintain stability(Morada N 2009). The challenges to regional entities are regarded as press-ing, based on the perception of China as unpredictable and a potential threat.

Architectural design is a concern of some Asianist scholars, in part occa-sioned by the Australian and Japanese proposals. Japan seeks a more activerole in the region based on a desire to mend relations with its neighbours andto build a regional body that excludes the US. The Australian proposal isbased on a desire for increased activism as a middle power in the Asia Pacificregion, a commitment to the US remaining in the region and an objective

to bring together security, political and economic regional bodies into anoverarching architecture. This is significant as it differs from existing bodiesand perceived choices, in policy and conceptual terms. Past examinations ofAsian regionalism have tended to focus on economic concerns relating to thechoices between open or closed regionalism (Ravenhill 2007); types of FTAs;and intra-regional trade. Other scholars have focused on security concerns the role of the ARF, the US, China and global terrorism and people move-ment issues. A further set of scholars examine interdependence in terms ofcommon problems at both regional and global levels, such as haze pollutionand counterterrorism. Both the Rudd and Hatoyama proposals sought to

embrace, in different ways, these often overlapping challenges, and to beregarded as new drivers of Asian regionalism.Differences are evident in comparative examinations. There is scholarly

agreement that the processes of regionalism in Europe and Asia haveoccurred for different reasons, in different ways and historical contexts andwith different outcomes (Murray 2010). First, regional cooperation inEurope has been driven by policy (Capannelli 2009; Okagaki 2009) as aresult of its specific history and geography (Nair 2008). In contrast, Asianregional cooperation has been driven by markets (Hidetaka 2007; Capannelli2009; Okagaki 2009) and Hidetaka (2007: 243) argues that European expe-

riences indicate that the existence of business associations with the ability toset up a far-reaching agenda, and to exert pressure on the national govern-ments for its realisation, is one of the key factors to successful integration,unlike Asia at present. Second, European integration is seen as internallyoriented while Asian integration is focused towards the external sphere andthe need to remain open to global markets (Capannelli 2009) regarded asthe difference between closed and open regionalism. There are greatereconomic, social and political disparities in Asia than in Europe as well asdifferences of religion, development levels and democratic structures andnorms. In this regard, Katzenstein (2007, 396) suggests that Asia and Europehave regionally specific, systematically different patterns of politics and poli-cies. Moreover, Acharya (2007, 373) argues that while the EUs regionalism


11/21


came about from a failure of nationalism, the two processes, regionalism andnationalism, have long enjoyed a symbiotic relationship in Asia. The role ofthe nation state differs considerably from Europe, as is evident in the focuson sovereignty, epitomised by the principle of non-interference in ASEANstates, and the practice of consensus as a fundamental norm in ASEAN andASEAN Plus Three.

Some themes emerge in considering further developing regional integra-tion. Morada (2008) reflects policy elites discussions regarding a need for anASEAN Community incorporating security, economic and socio-culturalforums. On the security front, there are recent calls for increased coopera-tion, to promote regional peace, stability and security (Rolfe 2008, 109) andthe Rudd proposal identifies the need for a more structured regional securityarchitecture. Desker (2008, 70) regards ASEAN as the means to shape theemerging regional security architecture, while Yeo (2006, 269) seesASEANs role as that of creating opportunities for enhanced cooperation

between Japan and China and to serve as the binding force for institution-building. B. He (2009, 7) regards the Rudd proposal as inclusive, with meritin terms of representation, legitimacy and authority. He argues that

Regionalisation involves substantial changes in normative thinking andbehaviour, in particular, in adjusting national norms and establishingregional identities and values. In the process of regionalism the sharednorms and values of normative regionalism provide conflict resolutionmechanisms. Agreed norms are indispensable for the success ofregionalism and shared values essential for its solidity.

Scholars concur that territorial disputes remain a key problem, with propos-als that low intensity internal conflict could be dealt with through regionalsupport for mediation and conflict resolution (Vatikiotis 2009, 34). Fewpolicy proposals have emerged, however.

Transnational cooperation in order to deal with global threats andregional disasters remains a key challenge for policymakers. Caballero-Anthony (2008) sees it as incumbent on ASEAN and its partners to deal withthreats, both those posed by instability and those arising from environmentaland health crises. Severino (2007, 414) sees a need for a shared regional

approaches to political and economic issues, and for an acceptance of thealignment of regional interests and national interests, emphasising the needfor common outlooks and positions and in the exercise of collective leader-ship built on economic cooperation. Rillo (2009, 26), arguing that ASEANshould take advantage of the increasing momentum on regional economicintegration, recommends stimulating demand within the region for regionalproducts, the coordination of monetary and fiscal policies and the establish-ment of regional financial architecture. Nair (2008, 136) proposes a focus onmultilateral cooperation and specific functional projects as end goals inthemselves, while providing greater support for non-elite grassroots region-alisation to prevent regional projects from suffering a loss of credibility dueto a growing deficit between expectations and results.


12/21


European Integration and Asian Regionalism Towards aFruitful Dialogue

Engagement between scholars of the EU and of East Asia is growing. Pastengagement had been limited for a number of reasons. Firstly, scholars in the

fields of European integration, of comparative regional integration, and ofAsian regionalism often belonged to different disciplines. Secondly, scholarsof Asia did not observe in the EU useful comparative potential, with the EUregarded as either intrusive and so the antithesis of the Asian Way or assimply so advanced as to have little comparative value. Thirdly, it is difficultto be a specialist on both European and Asian regionalism when eachremains within their area of specialisation (Murray 2005). Fourthly, it haslong been the case that EU studies have not engaged adequately with globaland transnational trends, whether within their disciplines or sub-disciplinesor across them. Indeed, for many years, the analysis of the EU remained

firmly EU-centric (Murray 2009b), not acknowledging the multi-dimension-ality of globalisation and its uneven or contradictory impact on the EU(Rumford and Murray 2003).

The domestic impact of the EU and Europeanisation and, subsequently, itsimpact on its neighbourhood, remained a focus of EU studies and a substan-tial body of work has developed on this (Borzel and Risse 2009) and theEuropeanisation beyond Europe literature focuses on how the EU seeks todirectly induce non-member actors to adopt and follow its rules and itsindirect modes of EU external governance (Schimmelfennig 2009). The inter-national impact of the EU was often examined in the context of bilateralrelations or development aid, and within a development (donorrecipient)paradigm in Asia, although some scholars developed research agendas on theinternational impact of the EU and new regionalism (van Langehhove andMarchesi 2008). Comparative examinations tended to be EU-focused.Further, globalisation was regarded as a challenge for the EU, as it sought tomanage or to domesticate globalisation trends and impacts (EuropeanCouncil 2001; Rumford and Murray 2003).

Can we create a coherent body of comparative regional integration analy-sis across the EU and ASEAN and ASEAN Plus Three? What are the prob-lems in comparing European and Asian regionalism? A challenge identifiedby Huber (2003, 13) is relevant here analysing several cases in two or

more regions demands significantly increased investment in knowledge ofcases. Yet she points out the benefits immediately: refinement of conceptsand theories, and cross-regional comparison deserves a central place amongour research designs. She suggests that cross-regional comparisons can do atleast three things, which she explains as follows:

(1) They can increase confidence in the usefulness of our concepts andtheories, if we find similar processes in widely different contexts.

(2) They can force us to modify concepts and better specify theories withregard to contextual variables.

(3) They can highlight the existence of different paths to the same outcomeand thus the need to develop new theories.


13/21


It is important to ensure that the study of Asian regionalism does not privi-lege the European experience over others. Katzenstein (2007, 399)proposes that theoretical models of integration, if used with some flexibil-ity, should be able to illuminate and explain aspects of social and politicallife irrespective of where we apply them. Our analysis must be compara-tive in context, modest in scope and clear as to what is and is not shared. Itshould comprehend pathways of elites and civil society and businesses toregional integration. Drawing on Huber, our comparative regional integra-tion study could usefully increase scholarly confidence in the usefulness ofthe concepts and theories, if we find similar processes in Europe and Asia.It can lead scholars to modify concepts and better specify theories withregard to contextual variables in Asia and Europe. Finally, it is importantto undertake a comparative examination of different paths to a regionalarchitecture so that students of regions see the need to develop new theoriesover time.

Comparisons can be problematic when we recall that not only are regionalstructures different; the regions themselves often contrast starkly with eachother. Europe could be regarded (especially from a distance) as homoge-neous, in terms of religion, race and historical experiences. The EU is distin-guished by democratic systems and the rule of law; relatively high levels ofeconomic and social development and a common economic ideology. This isin considerable contrast with East Asia, which is heterogeneous in terms ofrace, ethnicity, religion and the different historical experiences, includingcolonisation. Democracy co-exists with authoritarianism and communism,and there is no common economic ideology. Levels of development and

living standards vary considerably. The core principle of sovereignty iscentral in East Asia.We have seen that the study of East Asia has been primarily in the fields of

security, norms and economic integration. In these three areas, there isconsiderable room for comparative analysis. In terms of security, seriouscomparative examination is warranted regarding the role of the USs hub-and-spokes approach in the Asia-Pacific and the distinctive position itadopted regarding the construction of a European Community. Great powercompetition could necessitate regional strategies to deal with the changingUS role in Asia (e.g. Wesley 2009). It is also useful to compare the US

approach to bilateral agreements in the Asian region with the EU, also char-acterised by a hub-and-spokes approach of, for example, individual tradeand development aid agreements and by a inter-regionalism, for example,with ASEAN on trade and functionalist issues. The EU utilises bilateralismwhen it suits its own interests, as well as multilateralism and regionalism, inwhat I call opportunistic regionalism.

A further field for fruitful comparison of the EU and Asia is that the US, asecurity guarantor traditionally in both Asia and Europe, is the only effectivehard power in Asia. Although the EU advances an image of itself as a soft ornormative power in the Asian region, the US is a more important soft powerthere. Where the EU differs normatively from the US is in its attempt toexport and promote regional integration as a distinctive EU norm.


14/21


In terms of architecture, although the ASEAN Charter provides scope forcomparative analysis, similar nomenclature does not imply similar functions.The roles of the Committee of Permanent Representatives in the EU and inASEAN differ considerably. Caution is required in seeking to identify thosefeatures that are not comparable and those that might be conflated. Simi-larly-named structures in different regional settings rarely produce similarresults and consequences. The role of the state, as we have seen, sees realismand neo-realism as scholarly prisms through which to examine Asian region-alism, being state-centric and focused on the importance of state sovereigntyand non-interference in East Asian intergovernmental structures.

A further challenge is that the EU has been a benchmark in scholarlyanalysis as much as it has been in policymakers discourse (Murray 2010).This has meant that the EU was regarded as so advanced in integration thatit was not comparable to other regional bodies with more open regionalism.This resulted in two developments. The first is a dichotomy of what can

be referred to as open and closed regionalism scholars. The second is thecentrality of the EU in comparative regional integration analysis as bench-mark, yardstick or even as model. Thus, comparative analysis sometimes hasnotexamined the EU, and was in its own silo with little serous analysis of thedifferences and comparators of the EU and Asia.

However, EU specialists and Asianists have engaged fruitfully over the lastdecade or so, bringing together EUAsia relations specialists in conferences,seeking to examine EUAsia relations and whether EU theory might haveany applicability to, or relevance for, Asia and vice versa; and whether theEU experience might seriously be considered as a field of comparative anal-

ysis for Asian regionalism. This engagement has been valuable, strengtheningnetworks of transnational scholarship. However, relatively little work hasbeen carried out into how the EU might learn from Asian regionalism.

Can Asia Draw on Europes Experience?

Although there is general agreement that there are considerable differencesbetween European and Asian regionalism, the European experience isincreasingly debated in the literature on Asian regionalism. Capanelli (2009)is not alone in suggesting that Asia needs to find its own path to increased

cooperation and integration. Some scholars have contended that Asia candraw on the European experience, suggesting that Asian policy elitesconsider governance principles such as EU-style consensus and subsidiarity(Capannelli 2009); efforts to deal with trans-border issues and institutions toenhance compliance (Higgott 2007); measures to effectively use regionalinstitutions to deal with security issues (Giessmann 2007); means to engagecivil society in consultation about regional integration (Giessmann 2007;Morada 2008); and how to develop regional integration in the backyard ofmajor regional powers (Aggarwal and Koo 2007; Higgott 2007; Ravenhill2007; White 2009). Park and Wyplosz (2008, 134) argue, however, thatEuropes way is not directly transferable to East Asia. A Japanese scholarrecently suggested that:


15/21


Regional cooperation in Europe is extensive in scope and intensive informal institutions and legal norms. Formal treaties or negotiationsprecede increased interaction in Europe making regionalism in Europepolitics-led or policy-induced. Asian regionalism, in contrast, has beendriven by informal interaction and the growth of economic transactions(through the operation of multinational corporations and Chinesenetworks) without policy coordination or state-based negotiation.(Okagaki, 2009)

The recent Australian initiative for an Asia Pacific community recognisesEU ideas and vision, prosperity and a security community rather than aneconomic context only. Kevin Rudd (2008) made the case that most peoplewould now agree that the goal of the visionaries to build prosperity and acommon sense of a security community has been achieved and, he contin-ued, it is that spirit we need to capture in our hemisphere, while recognising

that the EU does not represent an identikit model.Capellini and Filippini (2009) suggest that the EU provides a useful exam-

ple of the importance of creating a backbone of economic laws and goodmarket governance, to clearly define powers both among regional institu-tions and between regional and national institutions, and to introducespecific rules for proportional contributions to the budget all useful forthe Asian context, they suggest. The role of reconciliation and choosing areconciliation moment may be of use for Asian scholars to reflect on.

Can Europe Draw on Asias Experience?

There is a small but growing body of literature on how Europe can learnfrom Asia. These range from industrial policy (Chang 2006) to open region-alism. Security is central to Asia. The EU is addressing changing securityconcerns both in Europe and beyond and it could draw on an understand-ing of the security web of alliances and bilateral arrangements in Asia inorder to develop foreign policy approaches in that region. It is instructivefor EU policymakers and scholars to examine varieties of regionalism,examining why open regionalism is seen as so important in Asia and where,post-Global Financial Crisis, there might be a role for open regionalism in

Europe.Europeans could dwell on the Asian approach of open regionalism, theextensive experience of negotiating FTAs, and the distinctive approach tomultilateralism and globalisation in a less formalised manner than thatadopted by the EU. The consensus style of decision-making can be studied asan alternative to the Monnet method.

There is scope to examine how and why norms are understood differentlyin Europe and Asia, comparing the debates on norms and behaviour anddeveloping conceptual understandings of patterns of normative behaviour incomparative perspective (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998). In this regard,scholars can carry out a comparative analysis of the ASEAN Way with theacquis communautaire as well as norms and the creation of identity (Acharya


16/21


2007) and the role of constructivist approaches in both regions (Acharya andStubbs 2006; Katsumata 2006).

Both ASEAN and the EU have been contributors to peace in their respec-tive regions ASEAN with Cambodia and the EU in civilian crisis manage-ment (Huxley 1996; Dosch and Mols 1998; Narine 2009). In addition, theyhave experience in inter-regional peace support in the Aceh MonitoringMission. In this regard there is scope for both comparative analysis andexamination of commonalities.

Conclusion: What is Common and Trans-regional? The Potential forResearch Agendas

There is a field of cases to be analysed across time, scope, reach and achieve-ment. Regions are characterised by some commonalities of objectives. Theyconstitute attempts within historical time-frames to move towards interstate

cooperation and even beyond national sovereignty. They have some commonfeatures such as incrementalist approaches to policymaking and thereare others that are unique and distinctive, as illustrated above.

Scholarly dialogue is increasing. A research programme could examinecommonalities of EU and ASEAN responses to similar, transnational chal-lenges. These include environmental protection (pollution, haze), AIDS,people movements; migration and terrorism. Issues relating to human rightsand to Burma Myanmar remain a focus for research. In terms of priorities,flexible engagement is one which Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippineswish to advance, while Singapore is an advocate of increased economic inte-

gration. There are tensions that have deepened over the last decade.Responses to the challenges of globalisation, such as trade issues, all cometogether to present a more complex and arguably more interesting researchprogramme for scholars.

It has recently been argued that [W]hat is missing is a vibrant, regular andfrank Asia-Europe dialogue which would allow both sides to forge acommon stance on key security threats (Islam 2010, 16). Collaborative tran-snational projects could examine the challenges of migration, refugees, softsecurity, hard security and the role of the US. They could explore the role ofindividual member states in leadership and, in the case of ASEAN, in

democracy promotion and in economic regionalism. Comparative responsesto the Global Financial Crisis require examination, along with lessons forboth regions from the Asian Financial Crisis.

The centrality of realism and security studies to the study of Asian region-alism is not to be ignored. Both EU and Asian studies can benefit from ananalysis of this literature on realism. Both can engage equally profitably onnormative actorness and normative regionalism and on soft and hard power;on the US as a regional hegemon, and on Chinas influence on regionalism.The nexus of state, region and globalisation require further analysis. Thiscould include EUAsia cooperation in multilateralism and the Asia EuropeMeeting. There is comparative scope for a research project on ethnic andterritorial disputes in each region. There is little comparative work to date on


17/21


the US as a regionalising agent in the EU and as a hub-and-spokes agent inAsia and regarding the differing roles of US national interest in the tworegions.

There are differences in normative underpinnings of these regions andproposals for closer cooperation. Recognition of these distinctive issues maywell counterbalance a current Western approach to regional integration asthe dominant research pathway. In a scholarly context, an Asian qua Asiantheory or set of concepts of regionalism is developing. Further, there is scopefor these to engage with other studies of regionalism more than in the past.Europe and Asia can learn from each other. Europeans might seriouslyconsider examining Asias open regionalism to minimise discriminationagainst non-members. Asia might consider the adoption of some of the EUsgovernance principles and possibly enhance Asias capabilities of economiccooperation (Capannelli 2009).

Yet there are different normative elements and tensions between European

and East Asian regionalism: the EUs normative foundation is democracy,human rights, individual liberty, the reduction of national sovereignty, andthe creation of regional organisations able to override national governments,while the normative foundation of Asian regionalism is nationalist doctrine,statist power and Asian culture or values (He 2004, 107). Nationalism isthe driving force behind East Asian regionalism, with respect for nationalsovereignty, yet states are challenged to be flexible enough to surrender somesovereignty to regional organisations in order to make them effective, whichrenders East Asian commitment to sovereignty an impediment to tacklingcommon intra-regional issues (He 2004, 122). These competing conceptions

of regional normative order create different expectations and visions of howthe East Asia regions should evolve, whether advocating open regionalism,the value of human rights, democracy, individualism and free trade or closedregionalism to Asian states (He 2004).

This article has sought to draw out the differences and commonalities inEast Asia and the EU. A robust research agenda is feasible. There is growingpotential for EU and Asian concepts of regionalism to enrich each other.Conceptual frameworks relating to norms are increasingly drawn on, in bothcontexts (e.g. Levine 2007; He 2008, 2009; Acharya 2009). The degree towhich security issues feature in the Asian debates have some resonance for

Europeans concern about the rise and potential threat of China, the exami-nation of the USChina relationship and the role of multilateral fora for secu-rity. Although norms matter in these dialogues, they tend in the Asian caseto relate to either community-building based on the Asian way or on securitynorms of balance of power (e.g. Tow 2009; Wesley 2009).

In both regions, a study of region-building in comparative terms willusefully focus on key issues. Firstly, the aims and gains have to be identifi-able. Secondly, the leaders need to be in concert and agreement. Thirdly, thenorms and interests need to be discernible and of benefit. The Asian region-alism literature may well continue to have as its focus the notion of architec-ture, while not necessarily adopting the institutional structures and extensivepractices and acquis of the European Union.


18/21


Finally, scholars of EU studies can learn from the policy of and scholarshipon the East Asian region and scholars of the Asian region can learn from thepolicy of and scholarship on the EU. The past lack of dialogue among schol-ars of Asian regionalism and European integration has now moved from siloexperiences, because transnational and trans-regional scholarly dialogue hasgrown. Scholars can learn from mutual sharing of conceptual and theoreticalunderstanding of regionalism in comparative perspective on security,markets, summit diplomacy, democracy and human rights and the role ofthe US.

Cook (2009, 1) recently suggested that referring to the EU experience isboth taboo and unavoidable at the same time in the increasingly esotericworld of Asian regionalism. It appears the time has come for the taboo to beplaced to one side and for existing fruitful dialogue to be increased.

Notes

1. This paper focuses on East Asia ASEAN Plus Three. The concept of an Asia Pacific community

remains contested as to whether it can be regarded as a region or simply refers to the Asia PacificEconomic Cooperation forum (APEC).

2. See, for example, the East Asia Forum (http://www.eastasiaforum.org/); the Singapore Institute forInternational Affairs (http://www.siiaonline.org/) and the ASEAN Institute of Strategic and Interna-

tional Studies (http://siiaonline.org/?q=node/3144).3. The Charter stipulates that there will be an ASEAN Summit twice yearly; that ASEAN Foreign

Ministers serve as the ASEAN Coordinating Council and that there is a single Chairmanship for keyhigh-level ASEAN bodies. In addition, there is a Committee of Member States Permanent Represen-

tatives to ASEAN, based in Jakarta (ASEAN 2008, Article 12). The emphasis on consultation andconsensus remains a key feature of the Charter, under Article 20, Chapter VII.

4. Its members are: Australia, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Canada, China, EuropeanUnion, India, Indonesia, Japan, Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, Republic of Korea, Laos,Malaysia, Myanmar, Mongolia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Russian

Federation, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Timor Leste, United States and Vietnam (see http://www.aseanregionalforum.org/AboutUs/tabid/57/Default.aspx).

References

Acharya A. 2007. Made in America? Agency and power in Asian regionalism, roundtable: Peter J.Katzensteins contributions to the study of East Asian regionalism, Journal of East Asian Studies, 3:

37078.Acharya, A. 2009. Whose ideas matter? Agency and power in Asian regionalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell

University Press.Acharya, A., and R. Stubbs. 2006. Theorizing Southeast Asian relations: an introduction. The Pacific

Review 19, no. 2: 12534.Aggarwal, V., and M. Koo. 2007. The evolution of regionalism in East Asia. Journal of East Asian

Studies 3: 36069.ASEAN. 2008. The ASEAN Charter. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat.

Ayson, R., and B. Taylor. 2009. Architectural alternatives or alternatives to architecture? In Rising

China: Power and Reassurance, ed. R. Huisken, 18599. Canberra: ANU E Press

Brzel, T. and Risse, T., 2009, The Transformative Power of Europe. The European Union and theDiffusion of Ideas, Kolleg-Forschergruppe The Transformative Power of Europe, Working Paper 1,

May.Brzel, T.A., and T. Risse. 2009. The transformative power of Europe. The European Union and the

diffusion of ideas. Kolleg-Forschergruppe The transformative power of Europe, Working Paper

no. 1.


19/21


Caballero-Anthony, M. 2008. The ASEAN charter: an opportunity missed or one that cannot be missed?Southeast Asian Affairs, 7185.

Capannelli, G. 2009. Asian regionalism: how does it compare to Europes? East Asian Forum, 21 April.Capellini, G. and Filippini, C., 2009, East Asian and European Economic Integration: A Comparative

Analysis, Asian Development Bank, Working Paper Series on Regional Economic Integration No.29, May. Page 21

Chang, H-J. 2006. Industrial policy in East Asia lessons for Europe. EIB Papers 11, no. 2: 10632.Cook, M. 2009. Japans regionalism choice. Paper presented to workshop on Asian regionalism, Deakin

University, Melbourne, 26 November.Dent, C.M. 2008. East Asian regionalism. London: Routledge.

Desker, B. 2008. New security dimensions in the Asia-Pacific. Asia-Pacific Review 15, no. 1: 5675.Dosch, J., and M. Mols. 1998. Thirty years of ASEAN: achievements and challenges. The Pacific Review

11, no. 2: 16782.European Council. 2001. Presidency conclusions. Laeken, 14 and 15 December.

Feigenbaum, E.A., and R.A. Manning. 2009. The United States in the New Asia, Council Special Reportno. 50, Council for Foreign Relations, New York, November.

Finnemore, M., and K. Sikkink. 1998. International norms and political change. In International

Organization (Autumn): 887917.

Giessmann, H. 2007. Regionalism and crisis prevention in (Western) Europe and (Eastern) Asia: asystematic comparison. Asia-Pacific Review 14, no. 2: 6281.

Hatoyama, Y. 2009. Address by H.E. Dr. Yukio Hatoyama, Prime Minister of Japan at the sixty-fourthsession of the General Assembly of the United Nations, 24 September.

He, B. 2008. Normative regionalism in East Asia. In Institutionalising Northeast Asia: Regional Steps

towards Global Governance, eds. M. Timmermann and J. Tsuchiyama, 638. Tokyo: United

Nations University Press.He, B. 2009. The cultural dimension of Rudds Asia Pacific community. Paper presented at workshop on

Asian regionalism, Deakin University, Melbourne, 26 November.He, Baogang 2004. East Asian ideas of regionalism: a normative critique, Australian Journal of Inter-

national Affairs, 58(1): 10525.

Hidetaka, Y. 2007. Regional integration and business interests: a comparative study of Europe and

Southeast Asia. European Journal of East Asian Studies 6, no. 2: 21743.Higgott, R. 2007. The theory and practice of regionalism in East Asia. Journal of East Asian Studies 3:37887.

Huber, E. 2003. Letter from the president. The role of cross-regional comparison. APSA CP. The Orga-nized Section in Comparative Politics of the American Political Science Association, 14, no. 2: 16.

Huxley, T. 1996. Southeast Asia in the study of international relations: the rise and decline of a region.The Pacific Review 9 , no. 2: 199288.

Islam, S. 2010. Europe and Asia as global security actors, Brussels, ASEM 8 visibility support in view ofthe ASEM 8 summit Brussels, July 2010, pp. 1518.

Jetschke, A. 2009. Institutionalizing ASEAN: celebrating Europe through network governance.Cambridge Review of International Affairs 22, no. 3: 40726.

Katsumata, H. 2006. Establishment of the ASEAN Regional Forum, constructing talking shop or anorm brewery. The Pacific Review 19, no. 2: 18198.

Katzenstein, P. 2007. Regionalism reconsidered.Journal of East Asian Studies 3: 395412.Kawai, M. 2007. Evolving regional financial architecture in East Asia. Regional Outlook Southeast Asia

20072008, 7783. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.Koh, T. 2008. ASEAN at forty: perception and reality. In Regional outlook Southeast Asia 20082009,

eds. D. Nair and P.O. Lee, 811. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.Levine, S. 2007. Asian values and the Asia Pacific community: shared interests and common concerns.

Politics and Policy 35, no. 1, 10235.Mahbubani, K. 2008. The new Asian hemisphere. The irresistible shift of global power to the East.

New York: Public Affairs.Morada, N. 2008. ASEAN at 40: prospects for community building in Southeast Asia. Asia-Pacific

Review 15, no. 1: 3655.

Morada N. 2008. ASEAN at 40: prospects for community building in Southeast Asia, Ong KY 2007.

ASEAN community building: challenges and prospects, speech by Ong Keng Yong, Secretary-


20/21


General of ASEAN, at the SingaporeanGerman Chamber of Industry and Commerce monthly

luncheon, Singapore, 27 November, available from http://www.aseansec.org/21158.htm [accessed22 May 2010]. AsiaPacific Review, 15(1): 3655.

Murray, P. 2005. Should Asia emulate Europe? In Regional integration Europe and Asia compared,

eds. W. Moon, and B. Andreosso-OCallaghan, 197215. Ashgate: Aldershot, 2005.Murray, P. 2008. Regional power Europe? The place of the EU in comparative regional integration

analysis. In Elements of Regional Integration: A Multidimensional Approach, eds. A. Ksler and M.Zimmek, 5771. Baden-Baden, NOMOS.

Murray P. 2009a. Uses and abuses of the concept of integration. In Sage Handbook of EuropeanStudies, ed. C. Rumford, 22744. London: Sage.

Murray, P. 2009b. The EUs norm diffusion in the promotion of regional integration in East Asia.Paper presented at the International Conference on the Transformative Power of Europe, Otto-

Suhr-Institute for Political Science, Freie Universitt Berlin, 1011 December.Murray, P. 2010. Comparative regional integration in the EU and East Asia: moving beyond integration

snobbery. International Politics 47, no. 34, MayJuly, 30829.Nair, D. 2008. Regionalism in the Asia Pacific/East Asia: a frustrated regionalism? Contemporary

Southeast Asia 31, no. 1: 11042.Narine, S. 2009. ASEAN and regional governance after the Cold War: from regional order to regional

community? The Pacific Review 22, no. 1: 91118.Okagaki, T. 2009. Europe as a model of regionalism in the Asia-Pacific. East Asian Forum, 6 May,

http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/05/06/relativising-europe-as-a-model-of-regionalism-for-the-asia-pacific (accessed 20 September 2009).

Park, Y.C., and C. Wyplosz. 2008. Monetary and financial integration in East Asia: the relevanceof European experience, European Commission. European Economy, Economic Papers 329,

September, http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications (accessed 8 November 2009)Ravenhill, J. 2007. In search of an East Asian region: beyond network power, roundtable: Peter J.

Katzensteins contributions to the study of East Asian regionalism.Journal of East Asian Studies 3:38794.

Rolfe, J. 2008. Regional security for the Asia-Pacific: ends and means. Contemporary Southeast Asia 30,no. 1: 99117.

Rillo, A. 2009. ASEAN economies: challenges and responses amid the crisis. Southeast Asian Affairs:1727.Rudd, K., 2008, Its time to build an Asia Pacific community. Asia Society Austral Asia Centre, Sydney,

4 June, http://www.asiasociety.org.au/speeches/speeches_current/s55_PM_Rudd_AD2008.html(accessed 17 November 2009).

Rumford, C., and P. Murray. 2003. Globalization and the limitations of European integration studies:interdisciplinary considerations.Journal of Contemporary European Studies 11, no. 1: 8593.

Schimmelfennig, F. 2009. Europeanization beyond Europe. Living Reviews in European Governance 4,no. 3, http://www.livingreviews.org/lreg-2009-3

Severino, R. 2007. ASEAN beyond forty: towards political and economic integration. ContemporarySoutheast Asia 29, no. 3: 40623.

Severino, R. 2008. Regional economic integration and the ASEAN charter. In Regional outlook Southeast

Asia 20082009, eds. D. Nair and L.P. Lee, 723. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Soesastro, H. 2009. Architectural momentum in Asia and the Pacific. East Asian Forum, 14 June.Soesastro, H., and P. Drysdale. 2009. Thinking about the Asia Pacific Community. East Asian Forum, 6

December.Tay, S. 2009. ASEAN remains important, Global Citizens, http://globalcitizens.siiaonline.org/?q=blog/

asean-a-re-think-needed (accessed 3 November 2009).Tow, W. 2008. Tangled webs. Security architectures in Asia, Strategy Paper, Australian Strategic Policy

Institute, Canberra, July.Tow, W., ed. 2009. Security politics in the Asia Pacific. A regionalglobal nexus? Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.Tow, W., and B. Taylor. 2010. What is Asian security architecture? Review of International Studies 36:

95116.Van Langenhove, L., and D. Marchesi. 2008. The Lisbon Treaty and the emergence of third generation

regional integration. European Journal of Law Reform 4: 595614.


21/21


Vatikiotis, M. 2009. Managing armed conflict in Southeast Asia: the role of mediation. Southeast AsianAffairs: 2835.

Vogel, E. 2010. Regionalism in Asia: why we should stick with existing structures, East Asia Forum, 30March, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/03/30/regionalism-in-asia-why-we-should-stick-with-

existing-structures/ (accessed 5 April 2010).Wah, C. 2007. ASEAN facing the fifth decade. Contemporary Southeast Asia 29, no. 3: 395405.

Wesley, M. 2009. Asia Pacific institutions. In Security Politics in the Asia Pacific. A Regional-GlobalNexus?, ed., W. Tow. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 4966.

White, H. 2008. Institutions and power. The Interpreter. Sydney: Lowy Institute, http://www.lowyinter-preter.org/post/2008/06/17/Institutions-and-power.aspx (accessed 12 November 2009).

White, H. 2009. The Asia Pacific Community concept: right task, wrong tool? East Asian Forum, 26 April.Woolcott, R. 2009a. Towards an Asia Pacific community. The Asialink Essays. Asialink, The University

of Melbourne, 9, November.Woolcott, R. 2009b. An Asia Pacific community: an idea whose time is coming. East Asian Forum, 18

October.Yeo, L.H. 2006. Japan, ASEAN, and the construction of an East Asian community. Contemporary

Southeast Asia 28, no. 2: 25975.

murray jei nov 2010

Documents