Interregionalism and International Relations

Jürgen Rüland, Heiner Hänggi, Ralf Roloff, Jürgen Rüland, Heiner Hänggi, Ralf Roloff

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2006
• ISBN:
  9781134236701
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politica e relazioni internazionali
• Subtopic: Politica

Interregionalism, the institutionalized relations between world regions, is a new phenomenon in international relations. It also a new layer of development in an increasingly differentiated global order.

This volume examines the structure of this phenomenon and the scholarly discourse it is generating. It takes stock of empirical facts and theoretical explanations, bringing together with clarity and concision the latest research on this key area. This essential new book:

* traces the emergence of interregionalism and reviews the latest literature

* provides a conceptual and theoretical framework for study

* includes case studies of inter-regional relations between: Asia and America; Asia and Europe; Europe and America; and Europe and Africa.

* delivers comparative analyses and special cases such as continental summits and interregional relationships beyond the Triad.

* summarizes and evaluates the findings of each chapter, providing a basis for further research.

This is a key reference book for students and researchers of regionalism, global governance and international relations.

Part I

Introduction

1 Interregionalism

A new phenomenon in international relations

Heiner Hänggi, Ralf Roloff and Jürgen Rüland

APEC, ASEM, FEALAC, EU–LAC, IOR–ARC, FTAA – all of these are more recent additions to the bewildering world of acronyms which has become a hallmark of international relations. Many of them are little known to the wider public and even the media tend to restrict their attention to the colorful photo sessions of the extensive summitry that go hand in hand with these new international forums. But what is somewhat obscured by unfamiliar acronyms – institutionalized relations between world regions, i.e. interregionalism – has become a new phenomenon in international relations and one that may even become a new layer in an increasingly differentiated global order. The fairly recent phenomenon of interregionalism has begun to arouse the interest of scholars and has given rise to a new field of studies in international relations. Given the novelty of the field, it does not come as a surprise that the views which have been offered so far on the nature of interregionalism run the gamut from “Much sound and fury about nothing” to “A building block in an emerging multilayered system of global governance.” Against this background, the volume at hand attempts to review and structure the scholarly discourse by taking stock of both empirical facts observed and theoretical explanations offered on the phenomenon of interregionalism. This introductory chapter traces the emergence of the phenomenon and discusses the state of research on interregionalism. It concludes with an overview describing how this volume is organized.

From regionalism to interregionalism

One of the major changes affecting international relations in the 1980s and 1990s was a resurgence of international regionalism. After the first wave of regional organizations in the 1950s and 1960s, the 1980s and 1990s saw a second wave of regional institution-building. Unlike in the first wave, when regional organizations primarily emerged in Europe and Latin America, in the second wave they proliferated all over the world, even in regions which hitherto were known as “regions without regionalism” such as the Asia-Pacific. The 1980s and 1990s were not only decades of newly emerging regional organizations such as the South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), or the Mercado Comun del Sur (MERCOSUR), but also saw a deepening and widening of older regional organizations such as the European Union (EU) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and a rejuvenation of moribund groupings such as the Andean Group. It was thus hardly an exaggeration when Walt W. Rostow spoke of the “Coming Age of Regionalism” (Rostow 1990). The “New Regionalism” (Palmer 1991; Hettne/Söderbaum 1999) of the late twentieth century was facilitated by a marked regionalization of international economic relations (Borrmann 1995): No less than fifty of the altogether 126 regional trade agreements registered by the World Trade Organization (WTO) were formed in the 1990s.

Regionalism and regionalization are now universal phenomena. Regionalization defines a trade-driven, bottom-up process (Gilson 2002a) of intensifying interactions and transactions of private economic and other non-state actors, especially business firms, which leads to increased interdependencies between geographically adjacent states, societies and economies. Externally, it is characterized by a relative decline of interdependencies (Roloff 1998: 72). Regionalization thus not only produces trade diverting and trade creating effects, as outlined in Viner’s classical economic integration theory (Viner 1950), but also creates or diverts interdependencies. Following the widely accepted definition of Keohane and Nye, we speak of interdependence when interactions cause mutual costs (Keohane/Nye 1977).

Regionalism, on the other hand, is a conscious policy of nation states for the management of regionalization and a broad array of security and economic challenges originating from outside of the region. Regionalism may thus adopt both proactive as well as defensive dimensions (Gilson 2002a: 6). The institutional form it takes ranges from informal inter-state cooperation to regime-building and the formation of intergovernmental and/or supranational institutions. As regionalism is usually imposed on societies and economies, it represents a much more top-down process than regionalization.

By “region” we mean a geographical area consisting of independent states which pursue shared economic, social and political values and objectives (Yalem 1965). We thus leave behind older definitions which perceived regions as natural entities, with geographical contiguity as the chief or even only criteria for “regionness” (Hettne/Söderbaum 1999). While we do not intend to dismiss geography as a factor in regionbuilding, we nevertheless argue that region-building is a more complex process. As pointed out by Daase, regions are not static, but rather the result of processes and hence dynamic entities (Daase 1993). Nation states respond to both domestic and external impulses which define and rede- fine their interests towards regional cooperation. Moreover, region- building also has a functional dimension, with regions differing according to the functions they are supposed to perform. In other words, regional organizations that are formed for security purposes may not be congruent in terms of membership, organizational structure and cooperation principles with those created for the purpose of economic cooperation. This means that international regions are constructed socially and politically (Katzenstein 1996), a fact that has major repercussions on their collective identity (Daase 1993; Higgott 1994; Hänggi 1997). However, the idea that the constructivist perspective entails a certain degree of contingency of what constitutes a region should not be overlooked. This problem is reflected in the literature, and also by some of the articles contained in this volume. Can Asia–Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), by applying a constructivist concept of regionness, be considered a region or is it a transregional forum? And what about the Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation (IOR–ARC) which seems to defy all existing definitions of interand transregionalism? But then, is it a region? Thinking it is, however, also does not constitute a persuasive proposition as from a certain size on, when a region covers a whole continent or an ocean rim, the concept becomes tenuous.

Initial disagreement among scholars as to what extent regionalization/ regionalism and/or globalization/globalism constitute building blocks of the emerging post-Cold War international order has now given way to the view that regionalization and globalization, regionalism and globalism are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary processes (Wyatt-Walter 1995; Schirm 1997c; Roloff 1998, 2001; Hettne/Söderbaum 1999). Regionalization has been interpreted as a preceding phase of global economic, political and social denationalization and transcending borders (Ohmae 1995), making it, in effect, a catalyst for globalization. Regionalism is also a response of nation states to the border crossing pathologies of globalization and the intensifying economic competition for markets, capital and technologies. Growing transactions and interdependencies create problems across the borders in areas such as transportation, custom procedures, tax administration, mobility of persons and environment, to name but a few. As these problems transcend the regulatory reach of nation states, thus eroding the former congruence between social action and political boundaries (Zürn 1998), nation states have an incentive to build mechanisms and institutions that allow them to manage regionalization in a coordinated and cooperative manner.

But states also form or strengthen regional organizations when they are exposed to external challenges related to economic and security governance. The European single market and progress towards monetary union, the formation of APEC, the creation of NAFTA and the looming collapse of the Uruguay Round of trade liberalization talks under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) had indeed set in motion or accelerated regional institution-building elsewhere in the world, such as the creation of an ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) or the formation of MERCOSUR. Moreover, through the pooling of resources and sovereignty, states (and especially the smaller ones) hope to contain the disruptive and disquieting forces of globalization, to increase their bargaining power in global multilateral forums such as the WTO, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or the numerous United Nations (UN) world conferences and to curtail the growing influence of transnational actors such as international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) and transnational corporations (TNCs).

With the proliferation of regional cooperative arrangements, regional organizations began to develop their own external relations, in other words gradually became actors in their own right in international relations. Although some regional organizations such as the EU and ASEAN developed regular group-to-group relations as early as the 1970s, the number and intensity of interregional dialogues increased markedly in the 1990s. In addition, with the so-called transregional forums new forms of interregional cooperation emerged which in the case of the APEC and the Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM) even developed (modest) actorness capacities of their own, i.e. the capacity to perform certain functions which are usually attributed to actors in international relations. Some authors, in analogy to the new regionalism, therefore also speak of a “new” interregionalism (see Hänggi, chapter 3).

These interand transregional forums may thus be considered a novelty in international relations. They seem to have contributed to a marked differentiation of international relations, constituting components of a fledgling multi-layered system of global governance. The most elaborate and intensive interand transregional dialogues linked the so-called Triad regions, the leading regions in the world economy, namely North America, Europe and East Asia (Northeast and Southeast Asia). In the meantime, more such forums have emerged, linking the Triad with non- Triadic regions and connecting regions at the periphery of the Triad with each other.

Interregionalism as an object of study

Research on interand transregionalism is still in its infancy. Comprehensive monographic studies are few, with most of the literature appearing in the form of short articles in journals and edited volumes. Until now, most studies have mainly concentrated on the interand transregional forums in the Triad, with the most attention being paid to ASEAN–EU dialogue relations (Dahm/Harbrecht 1988; Dreis-Lampen 1998; Dent 1999a), ASEM (Camroux/Lechervy 1996; Rüland 1996a; CAEC 1997; Hänggi 1999; Stokhof/Van der Velde 1999, 2001; Gilson 2002a, b; Yeo 2003; Pareira 2003; Bersick 1999a, 2004; Löwen 2004; Doidge 2004), APEC (Dieter 1994; Hellmann/Pyle 1997; Aggarwal/Morrison 1998; Ravenhill 2001; Rüland et al. 2002) and the Transatlantic cooperation (Kahler/Link 1995; Thiel 1997; Roloff 2001; Kupchan 2002a, b), though the latter two relationships were usually not explicitly discussed as interor transregional dialogues. Outside the Triad, EU–MERCOSUR relations have attracted most scholarly interest (Müller-Brandeck-Bocquet 2000; Diedrichs 2003; Faust 2003). Otherwise, little is known about interregionalism transcending the Triad. The pioneering volume edited by Geoffrey Edwards and Elfriede Regelsberger on the so-called group-to-group relations of the EU at least examines the links of a Triadic player with non-Triadic regional groupings (Edwards/Regelsberger 1990). Research on interregionalism thus reflects at an institutional level the frequently deplored fact that globalization is an uneven process, restricted to an increasing density and intensification of political, social and economic interactions within the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) world and a few newly industrializing countries, while marginalizing large parts of the global South (Hirst/Thompson 1996). Indeed, it has been noted that the phenomenon of “unevenness” applies to interregionalism itself (Hänggi 1999: 67–69).

Most existing studies have so far failed to contribute to a better understanding of this new layer of international relations. The majority of them are descriptive and policy-oriented in an often narrow and at times even anecdotal way. Theoretical explanations, albeit rare, have been primarily deductive, at times even speculative, and mostly lacking sufficient empirical evidence. Whilst running the risk of simplifying matters, we view existing research on interregionalism as covering five major issues, summarized below.

The form of interregional relationships

Scholars studying interregional relationships have been puzzled by the multiplicity of appearances of these phenomena, rendering their classifi- cation difficult. The least controversial relationships in this respect are the group-to-group dialogues established by the EU with at present more than a dozen partner organizations. Other regional organizations such as ASEAN, MERCOSUR, the Andean Group, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) or the Southern African Development Community (SADC) have also initiated such group-to-group relationships, but contacts in many cases have been ad hoc-ist, intermittent and noncommittal, giving rise to the question of in what way these contacts have achieved some regularity and, hence, at least a modicum of institutionalization. More difficult to classify are forums such as ASEM, APEC and the IOR–ARC which have developed some actor capacities of their own but whose members are, strictly speaking, not regional groups but individual nation states. In all cases, regional groups are not fully represented in them; yet regional groupings to varying degrees – formally or informally – coordinate their interests in these forums, which in some cases (APEC, IOR–ARC) have even developed their own organizational roof in the form of secretariats. Alternative concepts proposed for them include “mega-regionalism” (Yamamoto 1996), “transregionalism” (Aggarwal 1998; Rüland 1999a, 2001a, 2002a; Köllner 2000), “transcontinentalism” (Roloff 2001), “intercontinentalism” (Hilpold 1996) or “pan-regionalism” (Gilson 2002a: 97, 177). A third category is continental summits such as the Europe–Africa and the Europe–Latin America summits, while dialogues between regional groupings and large powers such as between the EU and the United States may constitute a further category of interregionalism (see chapter 3).

Institutionalization

Another concern of studies on interregional relationships has been the latter’s degree of institutionalization. As a novel phenomenon in international relations, they were interpreted by most authors as derivatives of the new regionalism which is distinguished by more recent research from the old regionalism of the 1950s and 1960s. While the old regionalism was seen as being characterized by “thick” or “deep” institutionalization, homogeneity of membership, a penchant for protectionist trade policies, “positive” integration (i.e. integration strengthening regulatory capacities of the state) and selective supranationalism, the new regionalism was categorized as an “open regionalism” (Garnaut 1996). Relatively open cooperation mechanisms were regarded as an adequate answer to the increasingly complex interdependencies of international relations and the world economy (Hettne/Söderbaum 1999: 7). Newly formed regional organizations were thus characterized by flexible and informal structures, shallow and lean institutionalization, intergovernmentalism and adherence to the principle of non-interference in the affairs of member states. They are more heterogeneous in membership, consisting of industrialized as well as developing countries and including multiple memberships of nation states in regional organizations (Bowles 1997). More than in the case of old regionalism, they are vehicles of promoting free trade and, hence, pursuing a strategy of “negative” integration, i.e. integration which aims at dismantling state intervention in the economy (Scharpf 1999).

The member states of newly formed regional organizations, the majority of which are developing countries, were particularly keen to transfer these institutional characteristics to their interregional relationships. They usually opted for a consultative forum, avoiding binding decisions and the high governance costs (Lake 1999) usually associated with an elaborate organizational set-up. The extent of the repercussions on the effectiveness and efficiency of interregional relationships is an open question which needs more systematic study.

Closely related to the issue of institutionalization is the question of the “actorness” capacities of the regional groupings involved in interregional relations. While research has been carried out on the actorness of the EU, highlighting a number of characteristics such as “presence,” “autonomy” and “coherence” (Sjöstedt 1977; Allen/Smith 1991, 1998; Hill 1993; Bretherton/Vogler 1999b; Doidge 2004), little of the same exists for other regional organizations. Yet, it is clear that newly formed regional organizations are much less cohesive than the EU. What such asymmetries mean for interregional cooperation also needs closer scrutiny (see Weiland, chapter 12).

While interregional relations have grown in the 1980s and 1990s, it would be wrong to assume that they reflect a linear trend of institutionalization in international relations. On the contrary, their evolution and institutionalization is prone to reversals, as illustrated by the Asian currency crisis of 1997/1998 which became the litmus test for regionalism in Southeast Asia and, as a corollary, for interregional relations in the Pacific Rim and between Asia and Europe. The Asian currency crisis – and to a lesser extent the Brazilian and Argentinian crises as well – have amply exemplified the limited crisis management capacities of the new regionalism (Chun 1998; Funston 1999; Wesley 1999; Acharya 1999), an assessment which – shared by most authors – has nevertheless led to contradictory conclusions in the literature (see Dieter and Higgott, chapter 15). Nevertheless, most observers agree that one of the outcomes of the Asian financial crisis was an institutional atrophy in two of the three interregional relationships within the Triad, i.e. ASEM and APEC (Rüland 2000, 2002a, b).

Cultures of cooperation and collective identity-building

While some of the literature on the new regionalism seemed to relate the institutional format of newly formed regional organizations and, by coincidence, interregional relationships, to functional prerogatives associated with globalization, there are studies which attribute the loose structure of these institutions to certain cultural properties of the member states. Although such an argumentation is always endangered by the pitfalls of cultural essentialism, studies have shown that regions may indeed develop a specific culture of cooperation which is derived from the imagined and widely shared cultural predispositions and behavioral norms in a given region (Rüland 1995, 1996b; Acharya 2001; Johnston 1998; Busse 1999; Gilson 2002a). Where they have b...