The Meaning of Interregionalism

March 29, 2018

At the most basic level, interregionalism may be defined as ‘institutionalised relations between world regions’ (Hanggi et al. 2006:3). From this general definition however leaves significant room for variation in typologies of interregionalism. Interregionalism being the product initially of the external relations of one such organisation – the European Union – to define such dialogues exclusively as those between regional integration arrangements. Interregionalism, in general can be defined as any external relationship in which a region (however defined) is engaged.

Further, there will be two poles where interregionalism can be define. Firstly, where interregionalism is defined as institutionalised relationships between groups of states from different regions, each coordinating to a greater or lesser degree. For example the relation between EU a highly institutionalised regional organization to the African, Carribean and Pacific States looser aggregations of states for which the engagement in a specific interregional dialogue is their raison d’etre as a grouping. There are 3 forms of interregionalism from this spine, (i) the classic type the relationships between regional organizations – mentioned as ‘bilateral interregionalism’ (Rulands (1999:2-3), ‘pure interregionalism’ (Aggarwal and Fogerty (2004:1) and ‘old interregionalism’ (EU-ASEAN, EU-MERCOSURE). The second type involves dialogues between a regional organization on the one hand and a more-or less coordinated grouping of states on the other hand (e.g. the Asia-Europe Meeting/ASEM) and the third type concerns engagement between two more-or-less coordinated regional groups (e.g. the Forum for East Asia-Latin America Cooperation/FEALAC). This latter two collectively termed “transregionalism”.

Old Interregionalism vs New Interregionalism

Old interregionalism is signed by interregionalism dialogue as an expression facility of EU as an external policy actor which emerged from the product of regional architecture between Yaounde convention 1963 and the end of bipolar conflict (1989). It was characterised by strict intergovernmentalism and inward focus. The establishment of European Steel Community was the first step into its external role with main function including international trade promotion. While the formation of EEC (European Economic Community) with its external components like agricultural trade, common market and its relation with overseas countries and territories has shown the outward face of Europe. Since the beginning EU want to have its own global identity distinct from the United States by developing a network of external relationships with its characteristic on group-to-group dialogue.

It is in the post-bipolar period that the study of EU’s interregionalism has been subject to a greater awakening, a product of fundamental transformation in the architecture of interregionalisme where “open regionalism”as a consequence of gloabalization become more institutionalized. It is correspondingly within Triad of regions – North America, Europe and Asia – that the new interregionalism has developed to the greatest extent both in the form of bilateral interregionalism (EU-ASEAN) and Transregionalism (ASEM) as well as in the marginal cases mentioned by Hanggi like APEC.

It was also stated by the researchers of interregionalism about the specific role of interregionalism either as power balancing, rationalising global for a and in the reflexive formation of collective identities.

Diversity of Interregionalism

April 5, 2018

Interregionalism often compare to the other form and level of cooperation like Bilateralism, Regionalism and Multilateralism. The changing geopolitical environment where there is transition of the international system from a short-lived unipolar American hegemony to a world of relative power fundamentally challenges the established political and economy primacy of the US – has resulted in changes that associated with bilateralism. In the economic field we see the new actors like China, India, Brazil penetrating regions like the Middle East, Africa or Latin America – which are traditionally seen as Western “profit markets”. This is followed by what Ravenhill 2003 call as ‘new bilateralism’.

As a response to this, the EU supports setting up relations with this new economies resulting in the so-called Strategic Partnership with ‘the special ten: Brazil, Canada, China, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, South Korea and the United States. It can be concluded that EU policies are a combination of multilateral, interregional and bilateral approach. This phenomenon can open to the diversity of contemporary interregionalism as well as the fact that interregional relations are often nested with other forms and levels of cooperation, that is say bilateralism, regionalism and multilateralism.

Challenges in Developing Interregionalism Study

Although interregionalism study now is experiencing deadlock (Ruland 2014) since the tendency to concern more on global governance as project of promoting cosmopolitan values, legislation and contractualisation of interstate relations -- but some efforts can be conducted through several steps like firstly review the findings in the interregional relations study as conceptualized in the international relations theory (state of the art). Ruland has summarised in the seven points of (1) a lot of disagreement exists on what defines interregional dialogue forums. For example APEC whether as a region, a mega region, pan-regional agreement, a transregional forum, or a form of multilateral interregionalism; (2) theorising on interregional dialogue forums concentrated on two major themes: to what extent regional organizations have developed actorness qualities and what functions interregional dialogue forums perform for the emerging global governance architecture; (3) a holisitic approach explaining interregional relations is thus far missing; (4) much of the literature on interregionalism argues from systematic and structural ‘outward-in’perspectives; (5) empirical research confirms that interregional forums indeed perform the functions ascribed to them by theoretical deduction, albeit to a much lesser extent than anticipated; (6) most of our empirical information on interregional forums is derived from Triadic relations between North America, EU-Europe and East Asia; (7) like many other international organizations, interregional dialogue forums suffer from serious democracy deficit. Secondly, meetings the critics among other from Alfredo C. Robles (2008) about the poverty of interregionalism research and thirdly designing agenda for future innovative research around institutional balancing and hedging, network analysis and interregional relations as norm transmitters.