The EU an actor sui generis? A Comparison of EU and ASEAN actorness

The core argument of this article is to advocate the recognition of regional organizations as international actors. Conceptions of the European Union (EU) as an international actor are not new. However, a great deal of the literature regards the EU as sui generis in nature and lacking in external capabilities when compared to nation-states. Other regional organizations, such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) fare even worse. This article notes that we need to move beyond a state-centric view of world politics to assess the actor capabilities, nascent or advanced, of other players in the global arena, particularly regional organizations.

Comparing regional organizations in global multilateral institutions:ASEAN, the EU and the UN

Structural change brought about by the end of the Cold War and accelerated globalisation have transformed the global environment. A global governance complex is emerging, characterised by an ever-greater functional and regulatory role for multilateral organisations such as the United Nations (UN) and its associated agencies. The evolving global governance framework has created opportunities for regional organisations to participate as actors within the UN (and other multilateral institutions). This article compares the European Union (EU) and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as actors within the UN network. It begins by extrapolating framework conditions for the emergence of EU and ASEAN actorness from the literature. The core argument of this article is that EU and ASEAN actorness is evolving in two succinct stages: Changes in the global environment create opportunities for the participation of regional organisations in global governance institutions, exposing representation and cohesion problems at the regional level. In response, ASEAN and the EU have initiated processes of institutional adaptation.

EU-ASEAN relations in the post-Cold War era:an analysis of the impact of normative factors on interregionalism

This thesis examines the relationship between the European Union (EU) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) with a focus on why their normative elements, e.g. values and norms, affect their ties in the post-Cold War era. Since the end of the Cold War, policy-makers and academics have become interested in region-to-region interaction, termed interregionalism. Though interregionalism is considered to have become an indelible feature of post-Cold War international politics, there are question marks over its importance. It is often argued that interregionalism reinforces the collective identity of the regional organisations involved. It is also maintained that its overall relevance to the international system depends on the level of actorness, which is primarily measured in institutional and material terms, of the participant regional organisations. This thesis contends that the normative components of the EU and ASEAN are also fundamental constituents of their actorness and, consequently, define significantly their interregionalism. This is based on a crucial observation that normative factors are of importance to the regional and international relations of the EU and ASEAN. Yet, while they strongly espouse norms and values to guide their internal and external activities, their normative premises radically differ from each other. Furthermore, these normative differences jeopardise their cooperation. Building on this observation the inquiry takes the normative components of the EU and ASEAN as the criterion as well as the focus for investigating their interregionalism. In doing so, it hypothesises that the EU and ASEAN are two different regional actors that adopt two dissimilar sets of norms to conduct their regional and international affairs and that such normative differences hinder their relations. Within this hypothesis, it seeks to address three central questions. First, what are the normative features that constitute the EU and ASEAN as actors in world politics and that make them different from each other? Second, what are the main sources of their normative differences? Finally, why do their normative differences become an obstructive factor in their relationship? To address these issues, the inquiry adopts a constructivist interpretation (of International Relations) and opts for a narrative and empirical inquiry, which is based on information and data acquired from official documents, scholarly works and interviews and questionnaires. In doing so, it finds that as they were born and evolved in two dissimilar temporal and spatial settings, the EU and ASEAN are two different norm entrepreneurs and normative powers. The former advocates a set of liberal cosmopolitan norms whereas the latter champions a set of traditional communitarian principles. Their normative differences become a major obstacle to their cooperation, especially when one regional organisation’s norms are refused or violated by the other. Thus, a key lesson drawn from these findings is that in order to explain more fully EU-ASEAN interregionalism, it is essential to consider their norms, the reasons behind their normative differences and the implication of those differences to their relations

Interregionalism

Interregionalism is deeply rooted in the foreign policies and external relations of the EU. Interregional cooperation today not only encompasses trade and aid but also political dialogue, cultural relations and even security cooperation. Although the EU’s official ambition has been to formalize and institutionalize its interregional relations with other regional bodies or organizations (so-called ‘pure interregionalism’), in practice there are a bewildering variety of interregional or group-to-group relations on display (Hänggi 2006; Baert et al. 2014). The EU is rapidly evolving as a global actor and while doing so it has been trying to export its own civilian and normative values. Interregionalism is an important tool in this process, contributing to the EU’s policy of fostering regionalism worldwide, not only in the triad (Europe, North America and East Asia) (De Lombaerde and Schulz 2009). Through interregionalism, the EU and its regional others enhance their presence, gain recognition, tighten institutional cohesion and define identities. Interregionalism, therefore, occupies a special position in the construction of regional actorness in global affairs (Wunderlich 2012). However, the link between interregionalism and regionalism is both complex and underexplored (Baert et al. 2014; Doidge 2007). Much depends on the type of interregional relations, and the balance of other forms of cooperation, which appears to play out differently in different regions. All this leads to a number of research questions that should be addressed by the academic literature, including is there a preference for interregional relations in EU’s foreign policy? If so, for what reason(s)? What are the consequences of such a preference? What is the role of interregionalism in the broader context of EU’s external policies? How are expressions of regionalism related to expressions of interregionalism? Does the sui generis character of the EU lead to a sui generis character of EU interregionalism? This chapter provides a general overview of the evolution of the field, the key conceptual and analytical debates, as well as the main research questions that drive the research agenda. Emphasis is also placed on identifying the main gaps in the field and suggesting directions.