| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
101989
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
WHAT DEFINITION would best reveal the nature of relationships existing today between the national economies in the ASEAN area? To our mind, it would be best to refer to regional economic cooperation between Southeast Asian countries and acknowledge its growing intensity and attractiveness for the participants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
085846
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
ASEAN, whose internaional prestige grew as a result of its diplomatic role in 1970s, can be seen as providing a model for linking the very disparate states of the Asia-Pacific region in a common association.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
183799
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Though China's dialogue relations with the Association for Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) began in 1991 right after the end of the Cold War, counterterrorism cooperation between China and ASEAN and between China and ASEAN member states (AMS) only got more serious attention in the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 (9/11) terrorist attacks. China collaborated with ASEAN and AMS in counter-terrorism to address their common security anxieties against terrorist groups operating in China and Southeast Asia with existing linkages with each other established by al-Qaeda. The rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in 2014 further encouraged China to promote counterterrorism cooperation with ASEAN and AMS, especially after some terrorist groups in China and Southeast Asia pledged their allegiance to ISIS. Using a neoliberal theory of international relations, this article examines the current status of counterterrorism cooperation between China, ASEAN, and AMS and presents their present achievements in this field. It also dissects the nature of counterterrorism cooperation between China, ASEAN, and AMS by discussing their existing mechanisms and current efforts. Finally, this article identifies some challenges in their counterterrorism cooperation and examines the future direction of this cooperation toward the strengthening of neighborhood diplomacy between China and ASEAN and between China and AMS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
103108
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
110071
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In the context of the rise of China, Southeast Asian countries and Australia have begun shifting towards an accommodation policy. Robert Ross examines the accommodation policy in South Korea, Mochizuki discusses Japanese accommodationists, and Manicom and O'Neil show some evidence of Australian accommodation of Chinese strategic preferences. The scholarship has, however, narrowly focused on and overestimated the role of security. Through a study of the origin, process, structural conditions and impacts of accommodation policy, this paper broadens the concept of accommodation to capture its multiple meanings and practices. It finds that a selective accommodation policy and strategy toward the rise of China developed in Australia is a sign of the changing power relations under which the mainstream paradigms of containment and engagement, hard balancing or bandwagoning, have proved inadequate to the task of dealing with China, and that economic interdependence has driven the politics of accommodation in Australia and several Asian countries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
124202
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The situation in the South China Sea has lately been acquiring the trappings of a Pacific-scale risk area. So far, though, no one ventures to cross the red line. All signs are that it is more than the territorial disputes between China and several Southeast Asian member countries of ASEAN. In more than one sense, the South China Sea problem is an issue reverberating beyond the regional borders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
176294
|
|
|