Současná Evropa 2013, 2013(3):55-73

Zhodnocení pokroku Asijsko-evropského setkání 2010-2012

Vladimír Beroun

S poukazem na současnou intenzivní ekonomickou euroasijskou spolupráci a prohlubující se interregionalismus je tématem článku Asijsko-evropské setkání (Asia-Europe Meeting, ASEM) a jeho aktuální vývoj. Autor se zabývá otázkou, do jaké míry zaznamenal ASEM pokrok ve formulaci svých cílů a priorit. Protože literatura není jednotná o stavu tohoto procesu a zaměřuje se především na budoucí postavení aktérů, je provedena elementární komparační kvalitativní analýza závěrečných předsednických prohlášení z posledních dvou summitů (ASEM8 z roku 2010 a ASEM9 z roku 2012). Autor se pokouší rozkrýt, zda došlo k formálnímu pokroku ve vzájemné spolupráci Evropa-Asie. Vychází ze shody, že ASEM je svým charakterem nezávazného mezivládního dialogu a širokým záběrem prioritních oblastí kulturou konsenzu, čemuž odpovídá i míra konkretizace cílů a priorit. Jako poměřovací základna je použito závěrečné Předsednické prohlášení ASEM8.

Keywords: ASEM, ASEAN, interregionalismus, triadická rovnováha, bezpečnost, opatření na budování důvěry

Evaluation of the Progress of the Asia-Europe Meeting 2010-2012

With reference to current intensive Eurasian economic cooperation and deepening interregionalism, the core topic of this article is the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) and its current development. The author investigates to what extent the Asia-Europe Meeting has made progress in formulating its goals and priorities. As the related literature concerning the state of evolution is divided and focuses mainly on the future position of actors, the author conducts an elementary comparative qualitative analysis of the Final Chair's Statements of the last two summits (ASEM8 of 2010 and ASEM9 of 2012). The author attempts to uncover whether there has been progress in formal cooperation between Europe and Asia, working on the assumption that the Asia-Europe Meeting is by nature a non-binding intergovernmental dialogue based on consensus, which also corresponds to the level of specification of objectives and priorities. The Final Chair's Statement ASEM8 is used as a baseline for assessment. The article then evaluates parameters such as depth, concretization and scope of relevant topics, and also the extent to which the outlined cooperation platform is able to formulate flexibly answers to current challenges and issues of mutual relations.

Keywords: ASEM, ASEAN, Interregionalism, Triadic Balance, Prevention, Confidence-building Measures

Published: December 1, 2013  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Beroun, V. (2013). Evaluation of the Progress of the Asia-Europe Meeting 2010-2012. Contemporary Europe, 2013(3), 55-73
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. BERSICK, S. - VAN DER VELDE, P. (2011). The Asia-Europe Meeting: Contributing to a New Global Governance Architecture: The Eighth ASEM Summit in Brussels (2010). Amsterdam University Press.
    2. BUZAN, B. (1998). The Asia-Pacific : What Sort of Region in What Sort of World?. In MCGREW, Anthony G. Asia-Pacific in the New World Order.
    3. BUZAN, B. - WÉVER, O. - DE WILDE, J. (1998). Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Go to original source...
    4. CAMMACK, P. - RICHARDS, G. A. (1999). Introduction: ASEM and Interregionalism. In: Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy. Vol. 4, No. 1, s. 1-12. Go to original source...
    5. FRIEDBERG, A. (1994). Ripe for Rivalry: Prospects for Peace in a Multipolar Asia. In: International Security. 1993/1994, roč. 18, č. 3, s. 5-33. Go to original source...
    6. HAAS, E. B. (1971). The Study of Regional Integration: Reflections on the Joy and Anguish of Pretheorizing. Lindberg: L. N. and Scheingold, s. 607-609.
    7. HÄNGGI, H. (1999). ASEM and the Construction of the New Triad. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy. Vol. 4, No. 1, s. 56-80. Go to original source...
    8. CHEN, Z. (2005). NATO, APEC and ASEM: Triadic Interregionalism and Global Order. In: Asia Europe Journal. Go to original source...
    9. LUND, M. S. (1996). Preventing Violent Conflicts: A Strategy for Preventive Diplomacy. Washington: United States Institute of Peace Press, s. 37.
    10. MOLS, M. (1981). Integration und Kooperation in Lateinamerika. Ferdinand Schöningh.
    11. MÜRLE, H. (1998). Global Governance: Literaturbericht und Firschungsfragen. INEF Report. Duisburg, Institut für Entwicklung und Frieden (Institute for Development and Peace), Gerhard-Mercator Universität/ Gesamthochschule, vol. 32, s. 5.
    12. NYE, JR, J. S. (1968). International Regionalism. Boston: Little Brown and Company.
    13. NYE, J. S. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs.
    14. PALMER, N. D. (1991). The New Regionalism in Asia and the Pacific. Lexington : Lexington Books.
    15. POLLACK, J. (2007). U.S. Strategies in Northeast Asia : A Revisionist Hegemon. In: KIM, B.-K. - JONES, A. Power and Security in Northeast Asia. New York: Rienner, 2007, s. 55-98. Go to original source...
    16. RITTBERGER, V. (1997). International Conference Diplomacy: A Conspectus. In: BOISARD, M. A. - CHOSSUDOVSKY, E. M. - LEMOINE. J. Multilateral Diplomacy/LA Diplomatie Multilaterale: The United Nations System at Geneva/Le Systéme Des Nations Unies a Geneve. Geneva: Springer.
    17. ROLOFF, R. (1998). Globalisierung, Regionalisierung und Gleichgewicht. In: MASALA, C. - ROLOFF, R. (eds.) Herausforderungen der Realpolitik. Köln: SYH-Verlag, s. 61-94.
    18. STEINER, T. D. (2000). Europe Meets Asia : 'Old' vs. 'New' Inter-Regional Cooperation and ASEM's Prospects. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
    19. TSARDANIDIS, Ch. (2005). The BSEC: From New Regionalism to Interregionalism? Agora Without Frontiers, Vol. 10, No. 4, s. 364.
    20. Brussels Declaration (ASEM8): "Towards More Effective Global Economic Governance", Brussels, 5 October 2010.
    21. Chair's Statement of the 8th Asia-Europe Meeting: "Greater well-being and more dignity for all citizens". Brussels, 4-5 October 2010.
    22. Chair's Statement of the 9th ASEM Summit: "Friends for Peace, Partners for Prosperity". Vientiane, Lao PDR, 5-6 November 2012.
    23. Towards a New Asia Strategy: Communication from the Commission to the Council. In: COM (94) 314. Brusel: Commission of the EC, 1994.
    24. ASEM InfoBoard [online]. 2012 [2012-12-26]. About ASEM. Dostupné z www.aseminfoboard.org.
    25. Daily Mail [online]. 2011-06-04 [2012-12-27]. How China owns $1.2TRILLION of American deficit. Dostupné z www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article1394315/China-unloads-97-cent-short-term-U-S-Treasury-debt-owns-12TRILLION-American-deficit.html.
    26. European Union - EEAS (European External Action Service) [online]. 2012 [2012-12-26]. EU involvement in ASEM. Dostupné z www.eeas.europa.eu/asem/index_en.htm.
    27. Evropská komise, DG Trade. EU Bilateral Trade and Trade with the World - Asian ASEM Countries. [online]. 2013 [2013-05-05]. Dostupné z http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/september/tradoc_113472.pdf.
    28. Rozhovor se zaměstnancem Ministerstva zahraničních věcí ČR, Praha, 1. 2. 2013.

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content