|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
140004
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
As the end of 2015 draws nearer, the prospect of meeting all the goals of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) Blueprint appears dimmer by the day. The literature identifies two prominent gaps in ASEAN’s journey towards an economic community as defined by its own vision. First, the extensive literature on the AEC, and this includes the scorecard designed to monitor the implementation of its goals, suggests that there appears to be a gap between commitments and the achievements of the AEC Blueprint targets. Second, attaining a “free flow of services” as stated in the AEC goals, is also hampered by a gap between commitments in liberalization and actual practice. The objectives of this paper are twofold. First, it seeks to review the gap between commitments and practice in Malaysia. Second, it aims to examine domestic conflicts that may constrain Malaysia’s services liberalization efforts in ASEAN. A key question considered in the analysis is the source or sources of these conflicts. Is the conflict confined to the private sector or is the government conflicted from within in terms of services liberalization? In other words, are there certain policies that may negate or off-set liberalization efforts? The key finding in this paper shows conflicting objectives in government policies to be the main reason for the slow pace of liberalization thus far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
140003
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The ten Southeast Asian economies will announce the formation of an ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) on 31 December 2015. The AEC aspires to deliver an integrated market and production base with the free movement of goods, services, capital and skilled labour. However, member economies are still a long way from achieving an integrated production space as they have not yet fulfilled all the stipulated targets set in the 2007 AEC Blueprint. A possible explanation for the current state of economic integration is the presence of conflicting domestic economic interests in member countries. This paper reviews the literature on this issue and synthesizes main observations from selected country studies examining the nature of these conflicting interests. It concludes by providing key policy recommendations for fostering domestic consensus in the respective countries studied in this special issue so that they may support the implementation of their respective commitments as well as deeper ASEAN economic integration beyond 2015.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
112357
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
090977
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The attempt of the Georgian government to reform and restructure its military forces in the past ten years demonstrates the difficulty of conducting Western-style defense reform in postconflict states, which have not seen a formal end to armed conflict. Western-style reforms were intended to bring Georgia greater peace, stability, and accountability, with the added benefit of training additional soldiers to support regional peacekeeping operations. Domestic political imperatives within Georgia, however, demanded that the government restore the territorial integrity of the state by "reintegrating" South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Adjara. In this context, additional organizational and doctrinal interoperability of Georgian forces was desirable, but only to the extent that it enabled Georgian forces to meet these primary domestic political requirements. For Georgia, a country with a weak military tradition and unresolved domestic conflicts causing political controversy at home, military reform was not just an abstract step toward democracy but a potential means to an end of resolving those same conflicts by force or threat of force.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
127012
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
A major task of global diplomacy is settling local war-related international crises. However, the post-Cold War period has witnessed the emergence of some new trends. Instead of taking a neutral stance whenever and wherever possible, and pushing warring parties towards peace, leading Western powers are beginning to act differently. In most trouble spots, a 'right' party - the good guys - is chosen that enjoys the political, military, and diplomatic support it needs to achieve a victory over the bad guys. Proceeding from their current interests, more powerful countries often ignore the fact that, as a rule, there is no right or wrong party in domestic conflicts and civil wars; indeed, the responsibility often lies with both sides. Recently, there have been many examples of such a policy, so it might be interesting to look back at how it all began - in Yugoslavia in the early 1990s
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|