50 years of the ‘twin engine’. Franco-German reconciliation, European integration and reflections for Asia. EU Centre Singapore Background Brief No. 8, March 2013

On 22 January 2013, French President François Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel gathered in Berlin to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Élysée Treaty, the document that ended centuries of rivalry and warfare between their two countries. It is all too easy to forget the importance of Franco-German reconciliation. The 1950 Schuman Declaration, which led to the creation of the European Union’s (EU) predecessor, the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), sought to render the prospect of war between France and Germany ‘not only unthinkable but materially impossible’. Over 60 years later, when the EU was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the Norwegian Nobel Committee noted that indeed, ‘war between Germany and France is unthinkable’. Halfway around the world in Asia, the other theatre of World War II, tensions between China and Japan have arisen, with Taiwan and South Korea also in the fray. Nationalist movements in these countries have grown. This background brief lays out the issues for a timely reappraisal of the applicability, or otherwise, of the European integration and reconciliation processes to East Asia. The brief seeks to outline the contours of the historic act of Franco-German reconciliation, and its consequences ever since. Starting from a brief look at the history of rivalry and war between the two countries, the brief examines the events leading to the signing of the Élysée Treaty in 1963, and the development of Franco-German exchanges that have cemented the relationship. Difficulties between the countries are also raised. A timescale analysis of the opinion of the two publics is considered, as a measure of the success of Franco-German reconciliation.

How should ASEAN engage the EU? – Reflections on ASEAN’s external relations. EU Centre Singapore Working Paper No. 13, April 2013

The Association of  Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), founded  in 1967, has from  its onset been an  outward oriented organisation. It has to be outward looking and followed events in the region and  world carefully because domestic dynamics and developments are sensitive to such externalities. The  member states of ASEAN are also firmly aware of the need to be embedded in the broader regional, if  not global context, particularly in the economic arena.   One channel that ASEAN used to achieve this  was through the dialogue partnerships that it established throughout the years with the major powers  and other key countries.      The  EU  is  one  of ASEAN’s  oldest  dialogue  partners.  Trade  and  investments ties  between the two  regions have grown tremendously.  The EU is now ASEAN’s second largest trading partner and biggest  source of FDI in ASEAN, and the partnership now extends also to a whole range of political and security  dialogue. Yet despite all these, ASEAN still perceived the partnership as below potential.  This paper  examines the current EU‐ASEAN relations and reflects on how ASEAN can step up its engagement with  the  EU  at  a time  when the  East  Asian region  has  become the  core region  of  global  politics  and  economics, and ASEAN has to become more united and  cohesive  if  it  is to manage the  increasing  tensions and rising rivalry amongst the big powers in the region, in particular between the US and  China.   

The EU and ASEAN – In Search of a New Regional Paradigm? EU Centre Singapore Working Paper No. 15, August 2013

The European Union (EU) has been hailed as the most successful model of regional integration thus far, while the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), despite its fair share of critics and doomsayers, has been seen as a relatively successful regional organisation in the developing world. However, both seemed to have arrived at a critical juncture in their respective regional projects. Challenged by recent events, internal and external, and faced with increasing uncertainties and complexities, the EU and ASEAN are forced to re-examine the journey they have taken so far and ponder the road ahead. This paper seeks first to provide an overview of the two parallel processes of regionalism in Europe and Southeast Asia by focusing on the developments of the EU and ASEAN, and dissecting both the external forces and internal dynamics that shape the respective regional processes. It then sketches out some of the global trends likely to impact regional developments in Europe and Asia, and questions if the EU and ASEAN would need a new regional approach or paradigm if they are to maintain their salience and relevance as regional actors.

Enhancing the Brazil-EU Strategic Partnership: From the Bilateral and Regional to the Global. CEPS Paperback. October 2013

This book examines the Brazil-EU Strategic Partnership and is the result of a project that ‘twinned’ five sets of eminent Brazilian and European scholars to investigate themes of undoubted strategic significance: macroeconomics, trade policy, climate change, foreign policy and continental regionalism. Results show that while the two parties cannot claim to determine global policies, they can develop a specialist niche in global affairs, working together in the avant-garde of those searching for workable global solutions, seeking to bridge the frequent wide differences between the West and the rest, or North and South, or old powers and new ones.

Rulemaking in Super-RTAs: Implications for China and India. Bruegel Working Paper 2014/03, March 2014

The faltering Doha round has led to a renewed focus on large regional trade agreements. There are two super-RTAs in the making in the Asia-Pacific and one in the Atlantic, all with rather ambitious negotiation targets, and presented as alternate means to reset global trade rules and take the multilateral trade liberalisation agenda forward. So what does this development mean for large emerging markets such as China and India that are on the fringes of these regional trade negotiations? Can these agreements become alternate means of pressuring these Asian economies to follow new trade rules set by industrialised countries, especially given the progressive erosion of the policy dominance of industrialised countries and the strong dissenting voice of developing countries in the Doha Round? This paper examines how super-RTAs may emerge as game changers in the multilateral trading system as promulgated by the WTO, and the implications for China and India. The paper analyses the new economic governance system that is likely to emerge given the renewed interest in regionalism, and argues that while the super-RTAs will not be entirely benign in their impact on China and India, rather than forcing these economies to accept the higher new regulatory standards enshrined in the super-RTAs, a distinct possibility in the medium-term is the emergence and entrenchment of a dual regulatory regime in these economies.

Transnational Globalization & Regional Governance. CES Germany & Europe Working Papers, No. 06.2, July 1996

Since the end of the 1980s, international relations has experienced a resurgence of regionalism in Europe (Single Market, Maastricht) and the Americas (NAFTA, MERCOSUR). Why did regional economic cooperation gain mo­ mentum? Theoretical approaches have proved the relevance of institutions, intergovernmental bargains, and na­ tional interest formation for the emergence of cooperation, but fall short in explaining why new cooperative moves happened in the late 1980s and early 1990s and not earlier. This paper argues that the simultaneous con­vergence of interests favoring regional organization of states was stimulated by transnational globalization. Since the early 1980s, states had to adapt to the pressures from transnational globalization, from actors and systems which are not shaped by national territories and interests, and which undermined traditional national economic policy and domestic coalitions. Under the new circumstances, joint regional governance on specific policy areas became an attractive option to respond to new constraints. With the conceptualization of transnational globalization as an explanatory factor for regional cooperation this paper does not dismiss other approaches, but rather attempts to complement the research agenda by shedding light on a crucial-but often neglected-aspect of international relations.

The Interregional Association Agreement between the European Union and Mercosur: Is the Timing Right? Bruges Political Research Papers 46/2015.

The European Union (EU) and Mercosur talks have been stalled since discussions were resumed in 2000. Recurring protectionist and institutional obstacles have slowed down negotiations. The financial crisis, however, has resulted in low domestic demand in the EU. This has made the interregional association agreement (IAA) with Mercosur more attractive. The loss of the Generalized Scheme of Preference (GSP) status and the lack of a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the EU have both disadvantaged Mercosur. A further window of opportunity is opening up in Mercosur. In Brazil, there have been cries for a change in government. In Argentina, presidential elections will take place in October 2015 and will assuredly bring an end to Kirchnerismo. A change in leadership in both countries is expected to make agreement more likely. Protectionist policies are not expected to remain as high if there is change in government. This will provide the EU with an opportunity to advance the negotiations and conclude the IAA.

Reflections on the Nature of Preferentialism in Services Trade

The Graduate Institute organized an academic workshop and roundtable on the occasion of EFTA's 50th Anniversary in Geneva under the chairmanship of H.E. Doris Leuthard, President of the Swiss Confederation. Pierre Sauve, Deputy Managing Director and Director of Studies, WTI and Co-leader, NCCR-Trade work programme on preferentialism and Anirudh Shingal, Senior Research Fellow, WTI and Co-leader, NCCR-Trade work programme on impact assessment of trade, co-authored a paper on the nature of preferentialism in services trade, which Anirudh presented at the workshop. The event was extremely well-attended by high profile dignitaries and academics including President Leuthard; Director General of the WTO, Pascal Lamy; trade ministers of Brazil and Finland; Jan Kubis, Executive Secretary of the UNECE and several current and former ambassadors. The academic workshop, moderated by Theresa Carpenter (Graduate Institute, Geneva), began in the morning with Prof. Victor Norman's (Norwegian School of Economics & Business Administration) presentation on the future of EFTA. Other presentations included those by Prof. Peter Egger (ETH Zurich) on the structural estimation of gravity models with market entry dynamics and by Prof. Richard Baldwin (Graduate Institute, Geneva) on 21st century regionalism. The high-profile Panel in the afternoon, moderated by Prof. Richard Baldwin, was led by President Leuthard who spoke on free trade agreements and the multilateral trading system in 2020. The keynote address at the Panel was delivered by Prof. Jagdish Bhagwati (Coulmbia University), who spoke on strengthening defences against protectionism and liberalizing trade.

Going Preferential in Services Trade: Lessons from Practice

Lecture given by Pierre Sauvé at Utrecht University School of Economics

Through the American landscape,

Map on lining-papers.

Report of the Joint Committee on Regional Government, submitted to the Illinois General Assembly and Governor James R. Thompson.

Cover title.

Transcript of public hearing [of the] Joint Committee on Regional Government, July 10, 1978, Chicago, Illinois.

"...this committee hearing ... is the second of three that will be held this year..."

Descentralización y regionalismo /

Mode of access: Internet.

US hegemony and Southeast Asia - The impact of, and limits to, US power and influence

The United States has exerted a major influence on Southeast Asia, especially since World War II. As both a promoter of neoliberal reform and as the key strategic actor in the wider East Asian region, the impact of U.S. power has been immense. But both the Asian economic crisis and its aftermath, and the more recent war on terror, have highlighted the contradictory impact of evolving U.S. foreign policy and intervention in the region. At both an elite and a mass level there is evidence of resentment about, and hostility toward, U.S. policy and its perceived negative effects. This article outlines how U.S. foreign policy has impacted the region in the economic, political, and security spheres, and argues that not only has it frequently not achieved its goals, but it may in fact be undermining both America's long-term hegemonic position in the region and any prospects for political liberalization.

Hegemony, Institutionalism and US Foreign Policy: theory and practice in comparative historical perspective

This paper explores the theoretical and policy implications of contemporary American hegemony. A key argument is that the development of US hegemony generally, and the distinctive turn in US foreign policy that has occurred in the wake of 11 September in particular, can best be understood by placing recent events in a comparative and historical framework. The immediate post-World War II order laid the foundations of a highly institutionalised multilateral system that provided key benefits for a number of countries while simultaneously constraining and enhancing US power. An historical reading of US hegemony suggests that its recent unilateralism is undermining the foundations of its power and influence.