Regional Cooperation Arrangements Research Articles

Science diplomacy and Asian states: Transforming the governance landscape in the Arctic

Abstract As ice recedes, the governance of the Arctic is undergoing a significant change. What was once considered a frozen desert with little relevance to the legal system, the Arctic has gradually become a global object of governance. Furthermore, the growing political salience of the Arctic Ocean has generated interest in its governance beyond Arctic states, particularly Asian states such as China, India, Japan, Singapore and South Korea. These countries have been actively participating in regional cooperation arrangements, including the Arctic Council. Undoubtedly, science diplomacy has been an important driver in shaping the governance of the Arctic and maintaining it as a low-tension area. However, this perception is now being put to the test following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Amidst this crisis, we explore whether science diplomacy can continue to promote peaceful collaboration in the Arctic region. Our research suggests that science diplomacy could potentially aid in the future of Arctic governance, particularly with regard to the involvement of Asian states. We analyse the legal and geopolitical factors involved in determining the potential roles of Asian states in Arctic governance, including whether they could serve as a bridge between the West and Russia or if their actions might further fragment Arctic governance.

International Sanctions on North Korea: A Two‐Level Solution

The North Korean nuclear problem has remained unsolved for 25 years. A variety of approaches can be used to resolve the problem, ranging from economic incentives to dialogues, sanctions, and military strikes, but sanctions appear to be the most plausible solution as a realistic method. Still, the question remains how to make sanctions against North Korea more effective. This article focuses on a regional approach to international cooperation and suggests that a regional security arrangement should be established in Northeast Asia to resolve the North Korean nuclear crisis. Today, the international order is undergoing change. Globalization is in retreat. Under these circumstances, international problems seem to be solved most effectively through regional cooperation. Northeast Asia has no significant regional cooperation arrangements. A successful regional cooperation requires two elements. First, the South Korean government needs to utilize the North Korean nuclear problem, redefining it as a threat to regional peace; such a shift in threat recognition would elevate the importance of a regional solution. Second, the process of building a regional arrangement needs institutionalization. The existing regional dialogues can hardly help solve the nuclear problem. In this sense, it is necessary to recalibrate the Six‐Party Talks as an institution implementing sanctions as resolutions adopted in the UN Security Council.

Varieties of regional monetary cooperation: a tool for reducing volatility in developing economies?

Can regional monetary cooperation shield developing regions from global volatility? The article argues that the main contribution of regional monetary cooperation to enhancing the shock-buffering ability of its member countries is to provide short-term liquidity and to increase regional trade and financial links. In contrast, traditional optimum currency area (OCA) theories formulate the advantages of regional monetary cooperation in terms of allocative efficiency gains and aim at a full currency union as final stage. As such, traditional theory widely ignores the shock-buffering capacity of regional monetary cooperation as well as their varieties. In contrast, the article argues that intermediate stages of regional monetary cooperation have their own rationales related to such shock-buffering capacity. This paper systematically examines the variety of regional cooperation arrangements in the developing world that range from regional payments systems over the pooling of reserves to exchange rate coordination. We propose that the potential for shock buffering is dependent on the chosen form of cooperation. Furthermore, in contrast to full monetary integration, which is highly demanding in terms of policy coordination, the requirements for regional policy coordination are significantly lower, depending on the form and aim of the arrangement.

Trends in the global space arena – Impact on Africa and Africa's response

Since the establishment of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Exploration and Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) in 1959, many actions that affect the advancement of the space frontier have been taken, within and outside COPUOS, in the interest of the global community, but without much input from Africa. Yet a number of African countries have joined those with assets in space, albeit without the necessary infrastructure on the ground. These actions vary in scope, in importance and in participation; however, they affect us all. Examples include the legal instruments that are in operation today for the exploration and peaceful uses of outer space, sustainability of the outer space environment and the Global Exploration Strategy– Framework for Coordination (GES–FC), conceived by 14 spacefaring nations; this laid out the details needed for an active global space exploration programme. This paper reflects on existing space-related regional cooperation arrangements at the inter-governmental level, including the African Leadership Conference on Space Science and Technology for Sustainable Development (ALC). Noting that, despite UN General Assembly endorsement of the need for developing countries to have access to the International Space Station (ISS), almost all in Africa have not, it asks what Africa might gain from such an experience. The paper concludes with an examination of where and why Africa needs to focus its immediate space-related efforts – on the ground here on Earth or in outer space?

Comment on “International and Regional Cooperation: Asia's Role and Responsibilities”

Comment on “International and Regional Cooperation: Asia's Role and Responsibilities”

Russia and its Neighbors: Military Power, Security Politics, and Interstate Relations in the Post-Cold War Arctic

In recent years, and particularly after Russia’s spectacular flag planting on the ocean floor at the North Pole on 2 August 2007, there has been much talk about “polar imperialism” and the danger of a “great game” in the Arctic. This article sheds light on the topic of interstate relations and the long-term conflict potential in the northernmost part of the globe. While recognizing the continued relevance of military power in the Arctic and the presence of a number of unresolved legal disputes, the article argues that Russia and its northern neighbors have a common interest in maintaining regional stability and avoiding a remilitarization of the region. The 1982 Law of the Sea Convention and regional co-operation arrangements such as the Arctic and Barents Councils are important tools towards this aim. On the other hand, there are many uncertainties regarding Russia’s priorities and strategies for the region.Keywords: Arctic, security, climate change, interstate relations, disputes.Citation: Arctic Review on Law and Politics, vol. 1, 2/2010 p. 279-298. ISSN 1891-6252

Building Blocks or Stumbling Blocks? : The GMS and AFTA in Asia

Keywords: regionalism, multilateralism, AFTA, GMS. I. Introduction The last two decades have witnessed a proliferation of formal regional trade arrangements (RTAs) mostly in the form of free trade areas (FTAs). The interest in forging bilateral trade agreements (BTAs) has further increased the number of FTAs over recent years (see Menon 2007). There is strong demand to form or to join all kinds of RTAs on political grounds. As Bhagwati (1997) puts it, No politician is happy unless he has put his signature on at least one of them. There is also an apparently strong compulsion to avoid being an outsider on economic grounds. (1) As far back as 1964, Robert Mundell demonstrated how trading partners who do not join a preferential trading arrangement might be made worse off (through terms of trade effects) (2) even when global welfare is enhanced. Even in the absence of terms of trade effects, the fact that an outsider's competitors may have negotiated preferential access to its major markets suggests that the costs of not joining could be high. The threat of trade and investment diversion is viewed as a compelling reason to seek membership in RTAs (Lawrence 1996). Alongside these HAs, there has also been significant interest in less formal arrangements sometimes referred to as growth triangles or quadrangles or more generally as subregionalism. Every member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) today is also a member of at least one subregional or regional co-operation arrangement, many are members of both, and some are even members of multiples of each. (3) This is sometimes referred to as the spaghetti bowl effect (Bhagwati 1993). In light of these developments, it is pertinent to ask the question, what are the inter-relationships between subregionalism, regionalism, and multilateralism? Apart from the inter-relationships, it is also interesting to consider the conditions under which subregionalism or can assist a country in moving towards multilateralism. Put a different way: is there anything that countries can do to ensure that their membership in subregional or regional cooperation arrangements will act as building rather than stumbling blocks towards free and trade and investment? The relevance of this question is rooted in the fact that, in economic terms, preferential trade liberalization will always be inferior to non-discriminatory or multilateral tariff reductions. (4) Thus, if subregionalism or can help move a country towards multilateralism, then it is working in the right direction, and reducing the risks that the proliferation of FTAs will have on the smooth functioning of the world trade system. In answering these questions, we use the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) co-operation arrangement to represent subregionalism and the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) to represent regionalism. These choices are appropriate for our purpose because all countries in the GMS cooperation arrangement except China are also members of AFTA and are either already members of the WTO or are actively pursuing membership. The paper is organized in six sections. Section II provides a brief overview of the GMS programme and AFTA to set the stage for the ensuing analysis. In section III, we examine how subregionalism is affecting both and multilateralism. Next, we turn to the relationship between and multilateralism. One of the questions that we attempt to answer in this section is whether it is necessary to have open regionalism in order for the arrangement to be a building block towards multilateral principles and objectives. In other words, can multilateral objectives be achieved even without regionalism? This question is relevant because some countries in the region have pursued while others have been less willing to do so. In section V, we look at what additional benefits WTO membership can bring to countries that are already members of both subregional and regional cooperation arrangements. …

Can Open Regionalism Work in the Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Co-operation?

Whether a regional economic co-operation under an framework brings about expected economic gains cannot be judged from statistics alone. Attractive statistics for intra-regional trade and other trade-related indices such as intra-industry trade can be very deceptive. For the Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Co-operation (IORARC), the basic fundamentals that are essential for the functioning of open regionalism are not in place. Regional economic co-operation, after all is a dynamic process that requires a firm commitment from member countries. For IOR-ARC, it is argued that this component is also lacking and the sharing of the Indian Ocean waters alone is not adequate to provide a blueprint for effective regional economic co-operation. 1. Introduction The Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Co-operation (IOR-ARC) was one of the latest initiatives in the establishment of regional arrangements for economic co-operation. This initiative is based on the observation that many new economic groupings are being conceived what is now called the domino theory of regionalism (Baldwin 1995) - and motivated by the conviction that the process of co-operation on a regional basis would be beneficial. IOR-ARC was formed as some Indian Ocean region countries wanted to assert their space as a response to other mega trading blocs, in particular, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation Forum (APEC); and the need of Australia, India, and South Africa to play a leadership role in the global market. However, unlike most regional cooperation arrangements, IOR-ARC was formed on the basis of the APEC model where the concept of is emphasized. Open regionalism involves regional economic integration without discrimination against economies outside the region.1 In contrast, discriminatory regionalism involves preferential trading arrangements, free trade areas, and customs unions, where official trade barriers for members are lower than for non-members. The concept of open regionalism emerged from, and has helped, the practice of economic co-operation in the Asia-Pacific region (Garnaut 1994). Open regionalism was articulated by the first Pacific Economic Cooperation Council (PECC) - the precursor to APEC - in 1980 as an ideal for the future development of economic relations in the Asia-Pacific region. APEC embraced the concept in 1989 at its first inaugural meeting in 1989 (Bergsten 1997, and others). The second regional bloc to embrace this concept was the IOR-ARC. Unlike APEC, which took nearly three decades to materialize after the initial conception of Pacific economic co-operation and nearly a decade after the formation of PECC (see, for instance, Soesastro 1995), the IOR-ARC came into operation without any serious attempt to engage in economic co-operation in the past. An Indian Ocean Commission was formed by Mauritius and its neighbouring islands in 1984 for economic co-operation but it hardly managed to take off and is currently very close to the stage of natural disintegration (McDougall 1997). The IOR-ARC was officially formed in March 1997 with 14 member countries, namely, Australia, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mozambique, Oman, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, and Yemen. Since this regional grouping covers a vast geographic area, different cultures, large distances (Rajan and Marwah 1997, p. 196), and involves countries at very different stages of trade liberalization (Sachs and Warner 1995, pp. 7295), it has been questioned whether economic co-operation in the IOR-ARC under the open regionalism framework would be meaningful in a practical sense. This article attempts to shed some light on this question. The rest of this article is organized as follows: Section 2 provides the background to IOR-ARC. The analytic basis of open regionalism is discussed next. …