|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
011565
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Dec 1996.
|
| Description |
254-274
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
132039
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
083486
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In this introduction, the editors trace the increasing theoretical diversity of ASEAN research and discuss the contributions to this issue against the current state of the art. Contributions confirm the post-Asian crisis advancement of constructivist scholarship, but by also analyzing ASEAN from the Liberal and English school perspectives, the articles assembled in this issue nevertheless stand for theoretical pluralism. This article continues to open a governance perspective and, against this background, attests to ASEAN's marked success in pacifying an erstwhile turbulent world region but also to ASEAN's much more ambiguous record in responding to the new challenges associated with globalization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
107112
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
MAY 13 OF THIS YEAR marks the 55th Anniversary of diplomatic relationship between the Russian Federation and the Kingdom of Cambodia. I have the honor, on this occasion, to convey, on behalf of the Royal Government and the people of Cambodia and on my own behalf, to the government and the people of the Russian Federation greetings and assurances of their sincere feelings towards your country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
020634
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Fall/Winter 2001.
|
| Description |
396-420
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
140694
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Prime Minister Abe Shinzo’s decision to enter talks on the TransPacific Partnership (TPP) has been a game changer in the competition over Asia Pacific free trade agreements (FTAs). His move helped to create a space for multilateral, mega-FTA competition before South Korea could fully prepare and implement its “global FTA hub strategy” predicated on bilateral deals. In this article, I provide an overview of South Korea’s evolving strategies toward FTAs and explore how it has responded to the “Abe effect.” My focus is on two challenges for South Korea in participating in the TPP: US geopolitical pressure once Japan entered negotiations, and the de facto FTA negotiations with Japan under the TPP. Dealing with Japan is an especially tall order given the troubled history of South Korea–Japan economic and political relations. KEYWORDS: Korea-Japan relations, TPP, Abe Shinzo, hub strategy, security-economy nexus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
130617
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
113390
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
153214
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
New Delhi, Pentagon Press, 2017.
|
| Description |
xxii, 146p.hbk
|
| Standard Number |
9788182749436
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 059110 | 327.541/THO 059110 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
157037
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
157040
|
|
|
| 12 |
ID:
101971
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The present issue of the journal is devoted to Russia's cooperation with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
Established in 1967, ASEAN has become one of the most authoritative and influential regional organizations. The experience of its development has confirmed that countries with different levels of socio-economic development, different political systems and histories can constructively interact, realizing the "unity in diversity" concept in practice. ASEAN's effective dialogue partnership with individual states and international structures helps expand cooperation and ensure security in the Asia Pacific region on the practical level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 13 |
ID:
130159
|
|
|
| 14 |
ID:
140007
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper discusses Singapore’s progress in implementing the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) and tries to explore whether the city-state has encountered any domestic conflict whilst doing so. It concludes that being a highly trade- and FDI-dependent economy, it is in Singapore’s national interest to be a part of the AEC. It is one of the leading ASEAN countries to implement the AEC initiatives. When examining domestic conflicts, Singapore presents a unique case as the city-state has long been exposed to the competitive forces of globalization, well before the development of the AEC. The country adopts non-protectionist measures to manage competitive pressures from the global economy. Almost full employment and a low incidence of poverty also minimize the negative impacts of liberalization. Case studies of the electronics and aviation sectors highlight how these two sectors are adjusting to liberalization and competition from the global economy, including the AEC. With respect to the electronics sector, which is an integral part of regional production networks, Singapore is continually progressing up the value chain. In the case of the aviation sector, the city-state continues to meet global and regional challenges through cooperative arrangements with the aviation industries of other countries and by upgrading and expanding its air services.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 15 |
ID:
193337
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Act East Policy is wider in scope incorporating a range of issues in East Asia, South East Asia and Indo- Pacific for economic and security integration . India and ASEAN have increasing convergence on security interests with key partners both in bilateral and multilateral format . Both are afflicted with political and social tension multiplied by challenges from new powers in the region as well as growing strategic competition. No less challenging is climate change, frequency of natural disaster, cyber warfare and menace of technology weaponization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 16 |
ID:
159413
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Ever since the formation of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
(SAARC) in 1985, the motivation for the expansion of the Association has been
expressed by its founding members. The prospective expansion comes naturally
to international organisations (IOs), visible in the increase in membership of
the European Union (EU) from six to 28 European countries. Similarly, the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has doubled its membership
since its inception. SAARC membership grew in 2007, with the inclusion of
Afghanistan. Yet, there is limited assessment on the opportunities and challenges
that have arisen since Afghanistan’s arrival in SAARC 10 years ago. This article
provides an evaluation of Afghanistan within SAARC, and a further comparison
to processes of enlargement in the EU and ASEAN. It is argued that Afghanistan’s
membership poses significant challenges for SAARC, owing to its political instability.
Its stature as a war-torn country has meant that it has failed to prioritise its role
in the Association. Furthermore, the membership of Afghanistan has significantly
contributed to the conflict relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan, further
constraining SAARC processes and agendas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 17 |
ID:
055168
|
|
|
| 18 |
ID:
143894
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The deterioration of Russia’s relations with the West over the Crimea in 2014, and the ongoing crisis in the Ukraine, has led to a new emphasis on the Asia Pacific in the country’s foreign policy. However, it remains a matter of debate whether Russia’s “pivot to the East” represents a fundamental strategic shift or merely a tactical geopolitical manoeuver. In addition, it remains open to question whether Russia’s Asian pivot encompasses countries across the region other than just China which remains at the heart of the Kremlin’s Asia-Pacific policy. This article examines Southeast Asia in current Russian foreign policy and strategic thinking, assesses Russia’s stance towards the region with regard to bilateral ties and multilateral mechanisms and presents an outline of the future development of Russia’s engagement with Southeast Asia. The arguments put forward in the article suggest that Southeast Asia is at least secondary to China within the Asian pivot, while the pivot itself is at least secondary within Russia’s overall foreign policy. The main value of Southeast Asia for Moscow lies in its image-building strategy, with the West as the primary audience. We can therefore assume that there is unlikely to be any groundbreaking developments in Russia’s relations with Southeast Asia for the foreseeable future, although the former will welcome cooperative initiatives from the latter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 19 |
ID:
101997
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
FROM THE VERY FIRST DAYS of its history, ASEAN as a large regional structure, its specifics and prospects as well as its relations with the great powers, the Soviet Union/Russia including, remained in the focus of attention of Russian science. Such prominent scholars as N. Maletin, A. Rogozhin and G. Chufrin have been following the Association's evolution since its inception. All of them have commendable academic achievements on their record, yet I am convinced that Professor of Moscow State Institute (University) of International Relations Nikolai Maletin deserves special mention. For over 10 years now, he has been editing annual collections of articles on the most topical problems and developments in Southeast Asia issued by the Institute of Oriental Studies, RAS. In 2004, he marked the 40th anniversary of ASEAN with a highly informative monograph. Recently, he, together with two colleagues, edited a book written by experts of the Institute for Far Eastern Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 20 |
ID:
186605
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) is often regarded unfavourably, depicted at best as irrelevant in the battle to promote and protect human rights in Southeast Asia, and at worst, complicit in the abuse of human rights by its silence in the face of the region's human rights' tragedies. While AICHR has many limitations, we regard it as a work-in-progress, evolving as it was always meant to. To understand this evolution, we conceive of AICHR as a participatory space in which contestation of what AICHR can, and cannot, do is being undertaken by its Representatives. This contestation includes exposing its secretive face of power by revealing: the space human rights can be discussed in; who can participate and who is excluded in this discussion; and how malleable the norms that operate within this space are to change. The latter aspect of contestation engages with the thorny ‘problem’ of consensus. We argue that the presence of Representatives from outside of government has introduced a desire in AICHR for change; a dynamism that makes it a participatory space witnessing contestation that has the potential to enable AICHR to evolve. A space, therefore, that for all its shortcomings is worth watching.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|