Jürgen Rüland

ASEAN and the Asian crisis: theoretical implications and practical consequences for Southeast Asian regionalism

The following article joins the debate about the theoretical and empirical implications of the Asian crisis on Southeast Asian regionalism. It argues that the realist-institutionalist dichotomy does not provide a fruitful framework of analysis. ASEAN policies are characterized by a policy mix, albeit one that is influenced by a strong dose of realism - a tendency that has been exacerbated by the Asian crisis. The crisis has thrown ASEANs collective identity into deep disarray - and thus also questions constructivist approaches. Departing from these theoretical issues the article traces ASEAN responses to the crisis in three key areas: economic cooperation, enlargement and values. The article concludes with a few lessons for regionalism which may be derived from the Asian crisis.

Decoupling rhetoric and practice: the cultural limits of ASEAN cooperation

Abstract Why have ASEAN member states declared and why do they continue to declare their intention to enhance cooperation and devise projects when implementation lags behind their rhetoric? Why do they rhetorically commit themselves to cooperation, when they continue to stick to self-interested policies to the detriment of ASEANs collective interest? And given these diverging practices, how likely is it that the objective of a more legalized and binding cooperation associated with the recently ratified ASEAN Charter is being implemented? This article draws attention to ASEANs hybrid or dual character of international cooperation, consisting of the emulation of the European integration project and the persistence of deeper cultural strata of Southeast Asias cooperation project that determine the limits of cooperation: Southeast Asias social structure and political culture that have not produced those mechanisms that might facilitate international cooperation. If our explanation is correct that cooperation within ASEAN comes about as a simultaneous process of emulation and established cultural practices, we expect change only under specified conditions. Based on our argument and the theoretical literature on normative change, we identify and discuss in greater detail three potential outcomes of change: inertia, localization and transformation. The three modes make different predictions concerning change within ASEAN. Based on an analysis of the two major shocks with which ASEAN has had to contend in the last two decades, namely the Cold War in Asia and the Asian financial crisis, we argue that ASEANs dominant response to major ideational challenges has been combinations of localization and inertia and has not been followed by a fundamental change of practice

BALANCERS, MULTILATERAL UTILITIES OR REGIONAL IDENTITY BUILDERS? INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND THE STUDY OF INTERREGIONALISM

This article presents an overview on the state of the art of research on interregional relations. It clarifies underlying concepts and focuses on the theory-guided literature exploring the functions of interregional forums for the emerging global governance architecture. Empirical evidence provided by many of the reviewed studies suggests that interregional relations are part of complex institutional balancing games played by regions which curtail their potential as multilateral utilities. Empirical studies examining norm diffusion between regions are still in their infancy. This leaves considerable space for innovative research going beyond the notion of the EU as a ‘normative power’ trying to persuade other regions to adopt its model of regional integration.

The limits of democratizing interest representation: ASEAN’s regional corporatism and normative challenges:

This article addresses the problem of interest representation in regional organizations. Departing from a theory-guided four-dimensional typology, the study explores how the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) responded to normative challenges of its system of interest representation. The findings suggest that ASEAN has skilfully countered external democracy promotion and domestic pressures for democratizing regional governance through variable strategies including rejection, isomorphic adaptation and localization. The multiple strategies employed by the grouping have largely kept intact its ‘cognitive prior’ which rests on a blending of imported European and older local organicist ideas. Given the resilience of this cognitive prior, the prospects for a wholesale liberal-pluralist transformation of ASEAN’s system of interest representation appear dim.

Parliaments and Political Change in Asia

This study of the national parliaments of India, Indonesia, the Philippines, South Korea and Thailand is inspired by four major theoretical discourses: Neo-institutionalism, parliamentarianism versus presidentialism, majoritarian versus consensus democracy, and transition theory. The book examines the specific role of parliaments in political decision-making, regime change, democratization and consolidation of democracy in a comparative perspective. It argues that parliaments play a greater part in the political decision-making than often asserted and that there is no cogent causal relationship between parliamentary performance and system of government.

Democratisation Through International Migration? Explorative Thoughts on a Novel Research Agenda

The article provides an introduction into this EJEAS issue on democratisation and international migration. Third Wave democratisation and the recent unprecedented increase in international labour migration may have the same structural origins, but so far few attempts have been made to link the two research agendas. One explanation might be that existing research on democratisation has neglected the exogenous dimension, and that migration research was preoccupied with destination countries. By drawing from the contributions to this Issue and the literature on norm diffusion, we argue that migrants have the potential to act as norm entrepreneurs and as agents of democratisation. The article maps out three avenues of norm diffusion: Migration can be the cause for changes of political attitudes at the individual level, it can be an enabling factor for collective action and it may lead to institutional change at the national and global level. To further assess how precisely these pathways might support or impede democratisation, more theory-guided empirical studies on the subject are urgently needed.

40 years of ASEAN: perspectives, performance and lessons for change 1

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 ASEANs marked success in pacifying an erstwhile turbulent world region but also to ASEANs much more ambiguous record in responding to the new challenges associated with globalization.

The Nature of Southeast Asian Security Challenges

The article argues that there has been a convergence of security challenges in Southeast Asia and the OECD world since the end of the Cold War, but this has not been matched by a convergence of security cultures. Interstate wars and military conflicts, absent in the OECD world since the end of World War II, have also subsided in Southeast Asia, while non-conventional security threats - such as international terrorism, organized crime, irregular migration, environmental degradation and pandemics - have increased in both worlds. However, despite incipient institution-building, Southeast Asian security policies still differ markedly from those of the OECD world. Power and state-centric approaches and a strong reliance on national sovereignty impair collective action.

Responses to Rapid Social Change: Populist Religion in the Philippines

Introduction Recent publications with titles such as “Christianity Re-Born: The Global Expansion of Evangelicalism in the Twentieth Century,”1 “The Next Christendom. The Coming of Global Christianity”2 and “Charismatic Christianity as a Global Culture” 3 reflect the fact that Christianity in its Evangelical and Pentecostal/Charismatic version is gaining ground worldwide. According to the World Christian Encyclopedia, these strands of Christianity accounted for 4.5 percent of all Christians in the mid-1970s and for 11.8 percent in 1995. The greatest increase in Pentecostals/Charismatics and, to a lesser extent, Evangelicals has taken place in Africa and Latin America. In Africa the percentage of Pentecostals/Charismatics rose from 4.8 percent of the population in the mid-1970s to 15.9 percent in 1995. The share of Evangelicals increased during the same period from 4.6 percent to 8.8 percent. The figures for Latin America are equally impressive: Pentecostals/ Charismatics multiplied from 4.4 percent in mid-1970 to 27.1 percent in 1995 and Evangelicals doubled from 3.4 to 7.6 percent. In Asia the success story is one of Pentecostal/Charismatic Christianity, as its share rose from 0.5 percent in the mid-1970s to 3.6 percent in 1995, while the Evangelicals remained virtually unchanged at 0.5 and 0.8 percent, respectively.4

Interregionalism and International Relations: Reanimating an Obsolescent Research Agenda?

Although studies on interregionalism currently struggle with a deadlock, the author argues that there is still space for innovation. The argument is developed in three steps: first, the author summarises major findings of previous studies on interregional relations. This is followed by a discussion of Robles’ sweeping critique of the state-of-the-art of interregionalism studies with the objective of showing that much of this critique is unfounded and that it is possible to take previous studies on interregionalism as a point of departure for more innovative work. From there, the author proceeds in a third step towards sketching an agenda for future research built around institutional balancing and hedging, network analysis and interregional relations as norm transmitters. At the end of the chapter, the author identifies three points in need of future attention: (i) interregionalism research is still a highly Eurocentric research agenda, aggravating the Western-centric tendencies in theorising on international relations; (ii) comparative studies on interregionalism are almost entirely absent; and (iii) if interregionalism is to become more than an epiphenomenon of international relations and regionalism, scholars should also act as policy advisors, stressing the significance of a legalised, contractualised and institutionalised system of global governance.