Abstract
Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) was founded in 1996 to be “a useful process for promoting further cooperation between Asia and Europe” in the fields of political dialogue, economic cooperation, and other areas such as cultural communication and social development.’ However, ASEM’s significance has never been limited to Asia and Europe. Actually, the founding fathers of ASEM had greater ambitions at the global level, arguing that “this partnership aims at strengthening links between Asia and Europe thereby contributing to peace, global stability and prosperity.“2 With the development of the ASEM process, more and more global issues appeared on the agendas of Asian and European political leaders and in various chairman’s statements and declarations, as well as follow-ups. However, it is still controversial whether and to what extent ASEM performed as an efficient and effective regime in that field.3 Researchers often focused on the forum itself, for example, the level of institutionalization, while seldom paid enough attention to its actors. Could we imagine that ASEM would maximize its multilateral utility for global governance without the common endeavor of those great powers from both Europe and Asia?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Bibliography
Alan, Hardacre. (2009). TheRiseandFallof Interregionalism in EU External Relations. Dordrecht: Republic of Letters.
Balme, Richard and Brian Bridges. (2008). Europe-Asia Relations: Building Multilateralisms. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bersick, Sebastian, Wim Stockhof, and Paul van der Velde. (2006). Multiregionalism and Multilateralism: Asian-European Relations in a Global Context. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 131–139.
Cammack, Paul and Gareth Api Richards. (1999). “ASEM and Interregionalism,” Journal of theAsia Pacific Economy, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 1–12.
Criese, Olaf. (2006). “EU-China Relations: An Assessment by the Communications of the European Union,” Asia Europe journal, Vol. 4, pp. 545–553.
de Prado Yepes, Cesar. (2005). “The Effect of ASEM on European Foreign Policies,” Asia Europe journal, Vol. 3, pp. 25–35.
Dent, Christopher M. (2003). “From Inter-Regionalism to Trans-Regionalism?: Future Challenges for ASEM,” Asia Europe journal, Vol. 1, pp. 223–235.
Dent, Christopher M. (2004). “The Aisa-Europe Meeting and Inter-Regionalism: Toward a Theory of Multilateral Utility,” Asian Survey, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 213–236.
Doidge, Mathew. (2007). “Joined at the Hip: Regionalism and Interregionalism,” Journal of European Integration, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 229–248.
Forster, Anthony. (2000). “Evaluating the EU-ASEM Relationship: A Negotiated Order Approach,” Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 7, No. 5, pp. 787–805.
Gilson, Julie. (2002). Asia Meets Europe: Interregionalism and the Asia-Europe Meeting. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Hanggi, Heiner. (2003). “Regionalism through Interregionalism: East Asia and ASEM,” in Regionalism in East-Asia: Paradigm Shifting? ed. Fu Kio and Phillippe Régnier (London: Routledge Curzon, 2003), 197–215.
Hänggi, Heiner, Ralf Roloff, and Jürgen Rüland. (2006). Interregionalism and International Relations. London and New York: Routledge.
Hettne, Björn. (2003). “Regionalism, Interregionalism, and World Order: The European Challenge to Pax Americana.” American University: Council on Comparative Studies, March 17, 2003.
Hwee, Yeo Lay. (2003). Asia and Europe: The Development and Different Dimensions of ASEM. New York: Routledge.
Katzenstein, Peter J. (2005). A World of Regions: Asia and Europe in the American Imperium. New York: Cornell University Press.
Loewen, Howard. (2007). “East Asia and Europe: Partners in Global Politics?” Asia Europe journal, 5: 23–31.
Magone, Jose Maria. (2006). The New World Architecture: The Role of the European Union in the Making of Global Governance. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Men, Jing. (2008). “EU-China Relations: Problems and Promises,” Jean Monnet/ Robert Schuman Paper Series, Vol. 8, No. 18, pp. 1–9.
Rüland, Jürgen. (2006). “Interregionalism and the Crisis of Mukilateralism: How to Keep the Asia-Europe Meeting Relevant,” European Foreign Affairs Review, 11: 45–62.
Ruland, Jurgen, Gunter Schubert, Guntre Schucher, and Cornelia Storz. (2009). Asian-European Relations: Building Blocks for Global Governance? Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Söderbaum, Fredrik and Luk Van Langenhove. (2006). The EU as a Global Player: The Politics of interregionalism. London and New York: Routledge.
Stokhof, Wim and Paul Van der Vel de. (2001). Asian-European Perspectives: Developing the ASEM Process. Surrey: Curzon Press.
Tiejun, Zhang. (2006), Zhang. (2006). “EU Global Role and Asia-Europe Cooperation,” Position Paper at the SIIS-Brookings Conference on Regionalism in Asia, Shanghai, December 11 and 12, 2006.
Van Langenhove, Luk and Ana-Cristina Costea. (2005). “Inter-Regionalism and the Future of Multilateralism.” UNU-CRIS Occasional Papers, No. 13.
Zaborowski, Marcin. (2006). “Facing China’s Rise: Guidelines for an EU Strategy,” Chaillot Paper, 94: 1–125.
Editor information
Copyright information
© 2016 Tianxiang Zhu
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zhu, T. (2016). Different Versions of Interregionalism and Asem’S Multilateral Utility for Global Governance. In: Wang, J., Song, W. (eds) China, the European Union, and the International Politics of Global Governance. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137514004_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137514004_9
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-55589-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-51400-4
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)