Advertisement

NAFTA, the EU and Deficient Global Institutionality

Chapter

Abstract

The differences between NAFTA and the EU are clear, as stressed in some of the previous chapters of this book. Yet these differences should not obscure how much the two projects actually have in common. Fundamentally, they are both examples of regional market integration and political institutionalization. Although of very different vintage and shaped by different historical circumstances, there exists an historical link between the two, while their future trajectories are bound to be interconnected because both are building blocks in a wider process of international institutionalization.

Keywords

Foreign Policy World Trade Organization Free Trade Area Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Joint Declaration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Acharya, S. (1993) ‘A New Regional Order in South-East Asia: ASEAN in the Post-Cold War Era’ Adelphi Papers, No. 279 (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies).Google Scholar
  2. APEC Website, July 1997.Google Scholar
  3. Berger, S.R. (1997) Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, A Foreign Policy Agenda for the Second Term’, speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC, 27 March.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, S. (1996) International Relations in a Changing Global System. Toward a Theory of the World Polity, 2nd edn (Boulder: Westview Press).Google Scholar
  5. Cox, R.W (1994) ‘Global Restructuring: Making Sense of the Changing International Political Economy’ in Stubbs, R. and Underhill, G. (eds), Political Economy and the Changing Global Order (Basingstoke: Macmillan).Google Scholar
  6. Crone, D. (1993) ‘Does Hegemony Matter? The Reorganization of the Pacific Political Economy’, World Politics, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 501–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davidow, J. (1997) Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs, ‘Free Trade Area of the Americas’, testimony before the Trade Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee, 22 July.Google Scholar
  8. The Economist, 2 March 1996.Google Scholar
  9. European Commission (1996a) Bulletin of the European Union, no. 6.Google Scholar
  10. European Commission (1996b) Europe. Partner of Asia (Brussels: European Community Instruments for Economic Co-operation).Google Scholar
  11. European Commission (1997a) Bulletin of the European Union, no. 4.Google Scholar
  12. European Commission (1997b) Follow-up of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM), homepage July 1997.Google Scholar
  13. European Commission, DG1b (1995) The European Union and Latin America. The Present Situation and Prospects for Closer Partnership 1996–2000, Communication to the Council and the European Parliament.Google Scholar
  14. Foreign and Commonwealth Office (1996) Free Trade and Foreign Policy: A Global Vision (London: Department of Trade and Industry).Google Scholar
  15. Hasenclever, A., Mayer, P. and Rittberger, K. (1996) ‘Interests, Power, Knowledge: The Study of International Regimes’, Mershon International Studies Review, vol. 40(2), pp. 177–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Henderson, D. (1996) ‘The Role of the OECD in Liberalising International Trade and Capital Flows’, in The World Economy. Global Trade Policy 1996.Google Scholar
  17. Joint Declaration 1997. Joint Declaration of the 12th ASEAN-EU Ministerial Meeting in Singapore, obtained from EU DGI homepage.Google Scholar
  18. Joint EU—US Action Plan 1996.Google Scholar
  19. Kahler, M. (1995) International Institutions and the Political Economy of Integration (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution).Google Scholar
  20. Levy, M.A. Young, O.R. and Zürn, M. (1995) ‘The Study of International Regimes’, European Journal of International Relations, vol. 1(3), pp. 267–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Luard, E. (1990) The Globalization of Politics. The Changed Focus of Political Action in the Modern World (Basingstoke: Macmillan).Google Scholar
  22. McGrew, A.G. (1992) ‘Conceptualizing Global Politics’, in A. G. McGrew, and P. G. A. Lewis (eds), Global Politics: Globalization and the Nation State (Cambridge: Polity Press), pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
  23. New Transatlantic Agenda 1995. Adopted at the US—EU Summit in Madrid on 3 December 1995.Google Scholar
  24. New Transatlantic Agenda 1997. New Transatlantic Agenda Senior Level Group Report to the US—EU Summit, The Hague, 28 May.Google Scholar
  25. OECD websiteGoogle Scholar
  26. Oxley, A. (1996) ‘Achieving Effective Trade Liberalisation in APEC: The Limitations of “Open Regionalism”’, issues paper no. 6, Australian APEC Study Centre, November.Google Scholar
  27. Saxonhouse, G.R. (1993) ‘Trading Blocs and East Asia’ in J. De Melo and A. Panagariya (eds), New Dimensions in Regional Integration (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  28. Strange, R. (1996) ‘Conference Report: Asia Consensus or Pragmatic Realism: APEC at Osaka’, Asia Pacific Business Review, vol. 2(3), Spring, pp. 152–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Strange, S. (1996) The Retreat of the State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Strategy for a New Partnership 1996. Report of the Eminent Persons Group ASEAN—European Union, June.Google Scholar
  31. Summit of the Americas 1995. Trade Ministerial Final Joint Declaration, Denver, Colorado, 30 June.Google Scholar
  32. Summit of the Americas 1997. Third Ministerial Trade Meeting Joint Declaration, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil 16 May.Google Scholar
  33. US President (1997) A National Security Strategy for a New Century (Washington, DC: The White House), May.Google Scholar
  34. Vernon, R. (1996) ‘Passing Through Regionalism: The Transition to Global Markets’, The World Economy, vol. 19(2), pp. 621–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. WTO (1995) Regionalism and the World Trading System (Geneva: WTO).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 1999

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations