|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
083489
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Over the last 40 years ASEAN has developed a set of goals and norms with regard to the conduct of regional and international relations that provide an alternative paradigm to the dominant contemporary Western liberal approach to 'global' governance. ASEAN's alternative paradigm is rooted in Asia's cultures and the region's colonial and Cold War experiences. Using an historical institutionalist approach, the analysis details the paradigm's central features - the importance of neutrality; sovereignty and territorial integrity; the peaceful settlement of disputes; informal, non-confrontational negotiations; and the promotion of domestic stability and social harmony - which together underscore the importance of state autonomy and non-interference in the affairs of other states. The paradigm's influence in global affairs has increased markedly in recent years, most notably as the ASEAN-China linkage has matured and China has given its strong support to ASEAN's approach to the conduct of international relations. This turn of events suggests that the ASEAN paradigm presents a significant challenge to Western hopes for a common approach to 'global' governance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
167468
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
168509
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Since it was founded in 1967, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has attracted both sceptics and proponents. With Southeast Asia’s economy growing rapidly and tied into all parts of the global economy and the region geopolitically important to the world’s major powers, how ASEAN manages its internal affairs and East Asian relations is crucial. The differences in how sceptics and proponents perceive ASEAN, and why they take up such contrasting positions, need to be fully appreciated as scholars and commentators review and assess ASEAN’s performance. This analysis uses three analytical criteria – effectiveness, legitimacy and efficiency – to juxtapose and evaluate the competing arguments of the two approaches so as to better understand how and why sceptics and proponents can examine the same institutions and events and reach very different conclusions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
132400
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Despite none of its members being a major economic or military power, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has played a leading role in building East Asia's regional institutions. In exploring this apparent puzzle, the analysis reviews the literature on state leadership at the regional and international level, asks why the region's major powers ceded leadership on the question of regional institution building to ASEAN, and assesses the consequences for East Asia's regional architecture of ASEAN's leadership role in institution-building. The conclusion is that leadership at the state level entails a state, or a group of states, proposing, executing and getting others to agree on a course of action to deal with a specific problem or challenge. The analysis also underscores the point that, while ASEAN has been the leader in East Asian institution-building, the Association and its members should not automatically be expected to play a leadership role on all issues preoccupying the region.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
153716
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
As regions become more institutionalized, they are characterized by two competing trends. First, key regional institutions can become hub institutions that act as transmitters of a comprehensive set of norms. Second, as regional institutions increase in number, regions themselves are liable to become more fragmented. How these trends have played out is explored in two key regions, the Americas and the Asia-Pacific. It is concluded that regions are not static entities but are ever-changing structural arrangements. Hub institutions can be challenged and the consequences can be significant as regions gain in importance on the international stage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
049154
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
London, Macmillan Press Ltd., 1997.
|
| Description |
viii, 235p.
|
| Standard Number |
0312165277
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 038620 | 355.0218/RIC 038620 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
172129
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The contributions of Alice D. Ba, Mark Beeson, and Anja Jetschke and Patrick Theiner to the discussion about how to understand and explain ASEAN as a regional organization raise significant issues. Most importantly, their ideas extend our ability as scholars and commentators to productively debate and evaluate the institutional developments and policies of ASEAN and, indeed, all regional organizations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
068520
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
158391
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The United States/European-inspired liberal international order has long been challenged in the Asia-Pacific. During the Cold War years, Washington sponsored a developmental, state-interventionist order to contain the threat from Asian communism. This developmental order persisted even as the end of the Cold War allowed the US to promote a liberal regional order. Moreover, after the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997-98, the US was increasing constrained by its post-9/11 preoccupation with the Middle East, the rise of China, its responsibility for the Great Recession of 2008-09 and the infighting that consumed Washington. While elements of a liberal order can be found in the Asia-Pacific today, they must continue to contend with non-interventionist and developmental values still found in the region.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
072404
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006.
|
| Description |
xi, 492p.
|
| Standard Number |
0195419898
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 051361 | 337/STU 051361 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
094599
|
|
|
| 12 |
ID:
068519
|
|
|
| 13 |
ID:
097125
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
As we move further and further into the twentieth century, the Western 'global governance' norm of interventionism is being challenged by East Asian norm of non-interference and territorial integrity. The two sets of norms are historically and philosophically rooted and have influential backers. Intriguingly, while the two approaches appear irreconcilable, some countries have lent their support to both sets of norms. As East Asia emerges as a major force in global relations can a way be found for the two sets of contrasting norms to exist side-by-side, perhaps each governing particular regional relations, or is it even possible that a compromise set of 'global' norms might be developed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 14 |
ID:
087559
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Developmental State (DS) has been central to East Asia's rapid economic development over the last three decades. This analysis reviews the origins of the concept of the DS, the broader theoretical battles that provide the context in which the concept has been used, and the conditions that facilitated the emergence of the DS itself. The way in which the changing events in East Asia have influenced analyses of the DS will also be addressed with special attention paid to the onset of globalization, the end of the Cold War, and the impact of the Asian financial crisis. Finally, an assessment is undertaken of analyses of the DS that have appeared in the pages of The Pacific Review over the last twenty years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|