References

intertrends

Международные процессы

International Trends / Mezhdunarodnye protsessy

1728-27561811-2773

AEFIR

10.17994/IT.2017.15.3.50.2

intertrends-681

Research Article

РЕАЛЬНОСТЬ И ТЕОРИЯ

REALITY AND THEORY

Модель интеграции в Тихоокеанской Азии

Pathways of Integration in the Asia-Pacific

Тело

Марио

Teló

Mario

Тело Марио – профессор Университета ЛУИСС (Рим, Италия) им. Гвидо Карли и Свободного университета Брюсселя, член Королевской академии наук (Бельгия)

Рим, Брюссель

Prof. Dr Mario Teló – Professor of International Affairs, LUISS University (Rome, Italy), Free University of Brussels, Fellow, Royal Academy of Sciences (Belgium)

00198, Rome; 1050, Brussels

mtelo@ulb.ac.be

Международный свободный университет социальных наук (ЛУИСС) им. Гвидо Карли, Свободный университет БрюсселяИталияLibera Università Internazionale degli Studi Sociali (LUISS) Guido Carli, The Free University of BrusselsItaly

2017

08072025

153

12‑30

2025

Тело М.

Teló M.

Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://www.intertrends.ru/jour/article/view/681

На протяжении своей истории АСЕАН сталкивалась с множеством проблем, включая резкие изменения условий среды региональной безопасности, финансовый кризис конца 1990-х годов, противоречия между странами-участницами, а также последствия социально-политических трансформаций в соседних странах. Чтобы выжить, этому объединению, с одной стороны, пришлось проявлять изрядную выдержку при решении проблем внутренней неоднородности, территориальной целостности и неустойчивости политических режимов в государствах региона. С другой – АСЕАН необходимо было демонстрировать достаточный уровень новаторства, чтобы разрешать двусторонние территориальные споры и отвечать на масштабные вызовы в области региональной безопасности, располагая довольно ограниченной ресурсной базой. Успехи этой региональной группировки особенно отчетливы на фоне более чем скромных достижений Ассоциации регионального сотрудничества Южной Азии (СААРК). Автор полагает, что опыт АСЕАН может пригодиться в деятельности таких относительно успешных интеграционных блоков, как ЕС и ЕАЭС. «Путь АСЕАН» как метод организации регионального сотрудничества в ЮВА доказал свою эффективность. Его применение помогло избежать типичного для Европы конфликта между межправительственным и коммунитарным принципами, а также выявить значительный потенциал межправительственных сетей различных конфигураций в деле углубления и расширения регионального сотрудничества. Суть этого подхода заключается в «регулировании снизу», что исключает иерархическую модель принятия решений и ситуацию превосходства какой-либо одной державы. При выстраивании отношений с внешним миром АСЕАН позиционирует себя не столько в качестве наиболее важной региональной организации в Азии, сколько как реальный и действенный локомотив формирования регионального порядка, отвечающего потребностям стран Азиатско-Тихоокеанского макрорегиона в развитии торговли и экономики, обеспечении безопасности и оформлении надгосударственной идентичности. Практика выстраивания концентрических кругов из различных партнерств оказалась достаточно удачной, позволяя совмещать политическое лидерство твердого ядра (принцип «центральности» АСЕАН) с открытостью и включением на разных уровнях близких и отдалённых стран. В будущем ключевой вызов для АСЕАН будут представлять внутренняя фрагментация и, в особенности, риск раскола ввиду углубляющихся проблем безопасности в соседнем субрегионе Северо-Восточной Азии. Этот риск зачастую будет усиливаться в результате великодержавной политики таких глобальных игроков, как КНР и США.

ASEAN throughout its existence faced a number of challenges including dramatic changes in the security framework of a particularly turbulent region as well as the financial crisis of the late 1990s and the multiple controversies among its Member States and the influence of changing neighbouring powers. In order to survive it had, on the one hand, to be flexible enough to cope with the challenges of internal diversity, territorial integrity and the political fragility of regimes in South-East Asia. On the other hand, it had to be sufficiently innovative to be able to face bilateral territorial tensions and huge regional security challenges. The ASEAN success is especially evident given the poor record of other Asian regional organizations. The current article provides a striking comparison of its achievements with the lack of substantive results of SAARC grouping in South East Asia. It furthermore claims that lessons derived from the ASEAN practices could be relevant for relatively successful integration blocks, such as the European Union and Eurasian integration process. In its internal processes the ASEAN way proved to be an effective method for organizing regional cooperation. It avoided on the one hand the standing European conflict between intergovernmental and community methods and was able to show the huge potential of various intergovernmental networking in supporting further progresse in deepening and widening regional cooperation. On the other hand, the ASEAN way is a bottom-up method excluding hierarchical decision making and a single country supremacy. In terms of organizing relations with external partners the Association positioned itself as not only Asia’s most important regional organization, but also the driving agent for a regional order in trade, economic, security, and identity needs. The practice of concentric circles of partnerships proved flexible enough and able of combining political leadership of the hard core (ASEAN centrality) with openness and inclusiveness, at various degrees of near and far partners. The challenges ahead are internal fragmentation and, in particular, the potentially dividing pressure of security challenges in the neighbouring area, often deepened by power politics of great global actors like China and USA.

РегионализмАТРмеждународные институтырегиональный порядок«Путь АСЕАН»Сообщество АСЕАНдиалоговое партнерствоСААРК

RegionalismAsia Pacificinternational institutionsregional orderASEAN wayASEAN Communitydialogue partnershipsSAARC

References1

(2012). International Spectator. Special Issue: Regionalism in a Changing World. Perspectives from Africa, Asia, Europe and South America. Vol. 47. No. 1.

Acharya A. (2001). Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order. London: Routledge. 234 p.

Acharya A. (2009). Whose Ideas Matter? Agency and Power in Asian Regionalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 189 p.

Allison L. (2015). The EU, ASEAN and Interregionalism. New York: Palgrave. 248 p.

ASEAN (2008). The ASEAN Charter. Jakarta: ASEAN.

Bacon P., Mayer H. and Nakamura H. (eds) (2015). The European Union and Japan: A New Chapter in Civilian Power Cooperation? Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. 276 p.

Baert F., Scaramagli T., S derbaum F. (2013). Intersecting Interregionalism. The Hague: Springer. 196 p.

Baldwin R.E. (1997). The causes of regionalism. The World Economy. Vol. 20. No. 7. P. 865–888. DOI:

1111/1467‑9701.00107

Beeson M., Stubbs R. (2013). Routledge Handbook of Asian Regionalism. New York: Routledge. 488 p.

Bergsten C.F. (1994). APEC and the World Economy. In Garnaut R., Drysdale P. (eds) Asia Pacific Regionalism. NSW, Australia: HarperEducational, in association with the Australia‑Japan Research Centre, the Australian National University. P. 199‑224

Bergsten C.F. (1996). Globalizing Free Trade. Foreign Affairs. Vol. 71. No. 3. P. 105‑120.

Bhagwati J. (1991). The World Trading System at Risk. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Bøås M., Marchand M.H., Shaw T.M. (2005). The Political Economy of Regions and Regionalisms. Basingstoke: Palgrave. 196 p.

Breslin S., Higgott R. (2010). New Regionalism(s) in the Global Political Economy: Conceptual Understanding in Historical Context. In Breslin S., Higgott R. (eds) International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, Volume IV, Regions and Regionalism. London: Sage. P. 105‑123.

Breslin S., Croft S. (eds) (2012). Comparative Regional Security Governance. Abingdon: Ashgate. 215 p.

Brummer C. (2014). Minilateralism: How Trade Alliances, Soft Law and Financial Engineering are Redefining Economic Statecraft. Cambridge University Press. 219 p.

Buzan B., Waever O. (2003). Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge University Press.

Calder K., Ye M. (2010). The Making of Northeast Asia. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 340 p.

Chen Z. (2005). NATO, APEC and ASEM: Triadic interregionalism and global governance. Asia Europe Journal. Vol. 3. No. 3. P. 361–378.

Choi Y.J., Caporaso J.A. (2002). Comparative Regional Integration. In Carlsnaes W., and al. (eds). Handbook of International Relations. P. 480–499.

Ciorciari, J.D. (2011). Chiang Mai Initiative Multilateraliztion: International Politics and Institution‑Building in Asia. Asian Survey. Vol. 51. No. 5. P. 926–952.

Clark I. (2011). Hegemony in International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 277 p.

Council of the EU. (2012). Guidelines on the EU’s Foreign and Security Policy in East Asia (10313/12, 11492/12). Brussels

Dash K. (2008). Regionalism in South Asia. London: Routledge. 246 p.

De Lombaerde P., S derbaum F. (2014). Regionalism. 4 vols. London: SAGE.

Dent C. M. (2008). East Asian Regionalism. Abingdon: Routledge. 320 p.

Emmers R., Ravenhill J. (2011). The Asian and Global Financial Crises: Consequences for East Asian Regionalism. Contemporary Politics. Vol 17. No. 2. P. 133–149.

EU Institute for Security Studies. (2014). European Union Security and Defence, Paris: EUISS. EU. (1997). Regionalism and Development. Report, Brussels.

EU. (2003). A new partnership with South East Asia (COM 399/4), Brussels.

EU. (2006). Global Europe, Brussels.

EU (2015). The EU and ASEAN: a partnership with a strategic purpose, 18.5.2015, Brussels.

European Council. (2003). A Secure Europe in a Better World: European Security Strategy. Brussels European External Action Service. (2014). The European Union and the Association of South East Asian Nations: Towards an Ever Stronger Natural Partnership (140722/03). Brussels.

Eurostat. (2010). External and Intra-EU Trade: Statistical Yearbook 1958-2009, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the E.U.

Farrell M., Hettne B., Van Langenhove L. (eds) (2005). Global Politics of Regionalism. London: Pluto Press. 321 p.

Fawcett L., Hurrell A. (eds) (1995). Regionalism in World Politics: Regional Organization and International Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 342 p.

Finizio G., Vallinoto N., Levi L. (eds) (2014). The Democratization of International Institutions. Abingdon: Routledge. 506 p.

Fioramonti L. (2013). Regions and Crises: New Challenges for Contemporary Regionalisms. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 242 p.

Fitriani E. (2014). Southeast Asians and the Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM): State’s Interest and Institution’s Longevity. Singapore: ISEAS. 183 p.

Fort B., Webber D. (2006). Regional Integration in East Asia and Europe: Convergence or Divergence? London and New York: Routledge. 334 p.

Funabashi Y. (1993). The Asianization of Asia. Foreign Affairs. Vol. 72. P. 75–85.

Gamble A. (2012). The Changing World Order: From the Opening of the Berlin Wall to the Financial Crash.

In Tel M. (ed.) State, Globalization and Multilateralism. Dordrecht; New York: Springer. P. 45‑60.

Gamble A., Lane (eds) (2009). The EU and World Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. 299 p.

Garnaut R., Drysdale P. (eds) (1994). Asia Pacific Regionalism: Readings in International Economic Relations. Pymble: Harper Educational. 433 p.

Gerard K. (2014). ASEAN’s Engagement of Civil Society: Regulating Dissent. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 196 p.

Gilpin R. (2000). The Challenge of Global Capitalism. Princeton University Press. 373 p.

Godehardt N., Nabers D. (2011). Regional Orders and Regional Powers. Abingdon: Routledge. 255 p.

Grevi G. (2013). The EU Strategic Partnerships: Process and Purposes. In Ponjaert F., Telo’ M. (eds) The EU’s Foreign Policy. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate. P. 159‑173.

Haacke J. (2003). ASEAN’s Diplomatic and Security Culture: Origins, Developments and Prospects. London: Routledge. 304 p.

Haggard S. (2000). The Political Economy of the Asian Financial Crisis. Washington DC: Institute for International Economics. 272 p.

H nggi H., Roloff R., R land, J. (2006). Interregionalism and international relations. London: Routledge. 364 p.

Hettne B., Inotai A., Sunkel O. (2001). Globalism and the New Regionalism. London: Palgrave MacMillan. 270 p.

Hettne B., Farrell M., Van Langenhove L. (eds) (2005). Global Politics of Regionalism. London: Pluto Press. 321 p.

Hettne B., Ponjaert F. (2014). Interregionalism and World Order: the Diverging EU and US models. In Telo’ M. (ed.) EU and New Regionalism. Aldershot, Ashgate. P. 115–139.

Hettne B., Sderbaum F. (2000). Theorizing the rise of regioness. New Political Economy. Vol. 5. No. 3. P. 457–474.

Hettne B., Sderbaum F. (2006). The UN and Regional Organisations in Global Security: Competing or Complementary Logics? Global Governance. Vol. 12. No. 3. P. 227–232.

Higgott R. (1997). De facto and de jure regionalism: the double discourse of regionalism in the Asia Pacific. Global Society. Vol. 11. No. 2. P. 165–183.

Higgott R. (1998). The Asia‑Pacific and Europe Compared. In Coleman W., Underhill G. (eds) Regionalism and Global Economic Integration. New York: Routledge. P. 42–67.

Hotta E. (2008). Pan-Asianism and Japan’s War 1931–1945. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 290 p.

Hurrell A. (2005). The Regional Dimension in IR Theory, In Farrell et al. (eds) Global Politics of Regionalism. Theory and Practice. London; Ann Arbor: Pluto Press. P. 38–53.

Ikenberry G. J. (2012). Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order. Princeton University Press. 372 p.

Jetschke A., Portela. (2013). ASEAN–EU Relations: From Regional Integration Assistance to Security Significance? Hamburg: GIGA German Institute for Global and Area Studies, Focus, No. 3. 8 p.

Katzenstein, P.J. (2005). A World of Regions. Asia and Europe in the American Imperium. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 297 p.

Keohane R.O. (1984a). The World Political Economy and the Crisis of Embedded Liberalism. In J.H. Goldthorpe (ed.) Order and Conflict in Contemporary Capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P.15‑38.

Keohane R.O. (1984b). After Hegemony. Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton University Press. 290 p.

Keohane R.O. (1986). Reciprocity in international relations. International Organization. Vol. 40. No. 1. P. 1–27.

Keohane R.O. (2002). Power and Governance in a Partially Globalized World. London: Routledge. 298 p.

Keohane R.O., Morse J.C. (2015). Counter‑ Multilateralism. In Morin J.F. et al. The Politics of Transatlantic Trade Negotiations. Farnham, Surrey; Burlington: Ashgate. P. 17‑26.

Kupchan, C. (2012). No One’s World, The West, the Rising Rest and the Coming Global Turn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 258 p.

Laursen, F. (ed.) (2003). Comparative Regionalism. Aldershot: Ashgate. 300 p.

Lo V.I., Hiscock M. (2014). The Rise of the BRICS in the Global Political Economy: Changing Paradigms? Cheltenham: Elgar.

Mansfield E., Milner H. (1997). The Political Economy of Regionalism. New York: Columbia University Press. 327 p.

Meunier S., Morin J.F. (2015). No Agreement is an Island: negotiating TTIP in a Dense Regime Complex. In

Morin J.F. et al. The Politics of Transatlantic Trade Negotiations. Farnham, Surrey; Burlington: Ashgate. P. 173‑186.

Morin J.F., Novotna T., Ponjaert F., Tel M. (eds) 2015. The Politics of Transatlantic Trade Negotiations, Aldershot: Ashgate. 227 p.

Murray P., Brennan L. (eds) (2015). Drivers of Integration and Regionalism in Europe and Asia. London, Routledge. 432 p.

Nye J. (1968). International Regionalism. Boston: Little Brown and Company. 432 p.

Pekkanen S.M, Ravenhill J., Foot R. (2014). The Oxford Handbook of the International Relations of Asia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 810 p.

Pempel T.J., Tsunekawa K. (eds) (2014). Two Crises, Different Outcomes East Asia and Global Finance. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 267 p.

Pierson P. (2004). Politics in Time. History, Institutions and Social Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University press. 196 p.

Ponjaert F., Santander S. (2009). The EU and its far‑abroad: interregional relation with other continents.

In Teló M. (ed.) EU and Global Governance. Abingdon: Routledge. P. 283–306.

Ponjaert F., Tel M. (eds) (2013). The EU’s Foreign Policy: What Kind of Power and Diplomatic Action? Aldershot : Ashgate

Prantl J. 2013. Effective Multilateralism. Through the Looking Glass of East Asia. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 323 p.

Qin Yaqing, Zhu Liqun. (2012). Neo Internationalism and China’s Diplomacy. In Tuo Cai (ed.) Chinese Perspectives on globalization and Autonomy. Chongqing: Chongqing Publishing house (translated by Brill,

Leiden)

Risse T. (2016). The Diffusion of Regionalism, Regional Institutions, and Regional Governance. In B rzel T.A., Risse T. (eds) Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 87‑109.

Roberts C.B. (2012). ASEAN regionalism: Cooperation, Values and Institutionalisation. London: Routledge. 280 p.

Rosenau J., Czempiel K.O. (eds) (1992). Governance without Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 311 p.

Ruggie J. (ed.) (1993). Multilateralism Matters. New York: Columbia University Press. 479 p.

Rland J. (1999). The Asia-Europe Meeting: The Theory and Practice of Inter-regionalism. London: Routledge.

Rland J., Schucher G., Storz C. (2008). Asian-European relations: building blocks for global governance? London; New York: Routledge. 293 p.

Santander S. (ed.) (2012). Relations internationales et r gionalisme. Entre dynamiques internes et projections mondiales. Presses Universitaires de Li ge. 371 p.

Sberro S. (2014). Interregional Relations. In Tel M. Globalization, Europe, Multilateralism. Burlington: Ashgate. P. 349–360.

Sbragia A.M. (2008). Review Article. Comparative Regionalism: What Might it Be? Journal of Common Market Studies. Vol. 46. No. 1. P. 29–49. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468‑5965.2008.00809.x

Tay S. (2008). The ASEAN Charter: Between National Sovereignty and the Region’s Constitutional Moment. Singapore Yearbook of International Law. Vol. 12. P. 151‑170.

Teló M. (2013). International relations: a European perspective. Ashgate. 224 p.

Teló M. (2014a). European Union and New Regionalism. Competing Regionalism and Global Governance in a Post-hegemonic Era. Aldershot: Ashgate. 478 p.

100

Teló M. (2014b). Globalization, Europe and Multilateralism. Towards a Better Global Governance? Aldershot: Ashgate. 470 p.

101

Teló M. (2016). Regionalism in Hard Times. Oxon: Routledge. 86 p.

102

Yatentchouk R. (1955). L’ONU, la s curit r gionale et le probl me du r gionalisme, Paris, Pedone.

103

Woolcock S. (2014). The Pillars of the International Trading System. In Telo’ M. (ed.) Globalisation, Multilateralism, Europe: Towards a Better Governance? Oxon: Routledge. P. 203‑214.

104

Wuelbers S.A. (ed.) (2007). EU and India Relations. A Critique. New Delhi: Academic Foundation. 199 p.

105

Zhang X. (2015). China’s perspective: the Perception of TTIP by an Emerging Third Party. In Morin J.F. et al.

106

The Politics of Transatlantic Trade Negotiations. Farnham, Surrey; Burlington: Ashgate. P. 113‑126.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.