• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文OA文献 >APEC, ASEAN+3, and American Power: The History and Limits of the New Regionalism in the Asia-Pacific
【2h】

APEC, ASEAN+3, and American Power: The History and Limits of the New Regionalism in the Asia-Pacific

机译：亚太经合组织，东盟+3和美国大国：亚太新区域主义的历史与局限

页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

In the 1990s both non-state-centred and state-centred regional processes of integration have emerged as increasingly important counterpoints to the globalisation project and US globalism. In some parts of the world, most notably Western Europe, regional identity reflects long-standing processes of economic and political integration, which have been facilitated by shared political and even cultural practices. In the "Asia-Pacific", by contrast, not only are processes of regional integration and coordination of more recent vintage, the very definition of the region has been a far more highly contested and far more incompletely realised project. The failure of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum to even begin to realise the hopes of its advocates is a powerful reminder of just how difficult regional and political cooperation in such circumstances can be. What is of far greater long-term significance than the faltering APEC project is the contradictory impact of US hegemony on regional processes. This article begins by exploring the limits of the new regionalism in the post-Cold War East Asia via a focus on the Cold War history of the region. It then turns to the changing character of US hegemony in the post-Cold War era. We emphasize that in the context of the complex shifts and continuities of the past five decades there are far more serious constraints on the new regionalism in the Asia-Pacific than in Europe, or the Americas, where regionalisation and regionalism is arguably most advanced. We also look closely at APEC and ASEAN+3, paying particular attention to the role of the United States, which has played a pivotal role in shaping regional outcomes. Finally, we consider the prospects for a distinctive East Asian form of regionalism grounded in a much narrower conception of the Asia-Pacific. We conclude that while there are profound limits on the coherence and unity of ASEAN+3 in the context of the continued salience of US power in the region, APEC has now clearly been displaced by ASEAN+3 as the most significant embodiment of the new regionalism in the Asia-Pacific.
机译：在1990年代，非以国家为中心和以国家为中心的区域一体化进程已经成为全球化项目和美国全球化的越来越重要的对立面。在世界某些地区，最著名的是西欧，区域认同反映了长期的经济和政治一体化进程，而这种进程在共同的政治甚至文化实践的推动下得以实现。相比之下，在“亚太地区”，不仅是区域整合和协调进程的更新，而且该区域的定义一直是竞争激烈，实现程度不高的项目。亚太经济合作组织（亚太经合组织）论坛的失败甚至没有开始实现其倡导者的希望，这有力地提醒了在这种情况下区域和政治合作可能会多么困难。比起步履蹒跚的亚太经合组织项目，具有更大的长期意义的是美国霸权对地区进程的矛盾影响。本文首先着重探讨冷战后东亚地区新区域主义的局限性。然后，它转向了后冷战时代美国霸权的变化特征。我们强调，在过去五十年复杂的变化和连续性的背景下，与欧洲或美洲相比，亚太地区的新区域主义受到的限制要严重得多，欧洲或美洲是区域化和区域主义最先进的地区。我们还将密切关注APEC和ASEAN + 3，特别关注美国的作用，美国在塑造地区成果方面发挥了关键作用。最后，我们考虑以更狭窄的亚太概念为基础的独特东亚区域主义形式的前景。我们得出的结论是，在美国在该地区不断崛起的背景下，东盟+3的一致性和统一性受到深远的限制，但亚太经合组织显然已被东盟+3取代，成为新区域主义的最重要体现。在亚太地区。

著录项

  • 作者

    Berger Mark T.; Beeson Mark;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2003
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号