十字路口的东盟:CPTPP与RCEP之间的陷阱与轨迹

Chien-Huei Wu
{"title":"十字路口的东盟:CPTPP与RCEP之间的陷阱与轨迹","authors":"Chien-Huei Wu","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgz032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the wake of the mega-free trade agreements, all of the 10 member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations are determined to participate in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and to maintain the centrality of the Association of South East Asian Nations whereas Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore, and Vietnam have also opted for the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. In view of divergent positions of member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations, this paper asks two questions: empirically, what drives individual member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations toward the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership or Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership; normatively, do the different positions embraced by member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations weaken the coherence of external relations of the Association of South East Asian Nations and undermine its centrality in Asian regionalism. I argued that Singapore’s participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership is mainly motivated by its wish to set the rules of free trade agreements in the Asian Pacific. Brunel aims to diversify its domestic economy and to undergo economic reform through international commitments. Vietnam and Malaysia joined the Trans-Pacific Partnership with a view to accessing American market, but Vietnam’s Trans-Pacific Partnership participation should also be understood in the context of its aggressive free trade agreements strategy. This paper argues that solidarity within member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations does not prevent economically advanced member countries from participating in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership for market access; nonetheless, the need of Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar should be taken into account through special and differential treatment in Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership negotiations.","PeriodicalId":347754,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Free Trade Agreements (Topic)","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ASEAN at the Crossroads: Trap and Track Between CPTPP and RCEP\",\"authors\":\"Chien-Huei Wu\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jiel/jgz032\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the wake of the mega-free trade agreements, all of the 10 member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations are determined to participate in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and to maintain the centrality of the Association of South East Asian Nations whereas Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore, and Vietnam have also opted for the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. In view of divergent positions of member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations, this paper asks two questions: empirically, what drives individual member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations toward the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership or Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership; normatively, do the different positions embraced by member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations weaken the coherence of external relations of the Association of South East Asian Nations and undermine its centrality in Asian regionalism. I argued that Singapore’s participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership is mainly motivated by its wish to set the rules of free trade agreements in the Asian Pacific. Brunel aims to diversify its domestic economy and to undergo economic reform through international commitments. Vietnam and Malaysia joined the Trans-Pacific Partnership with a view to accessing American market, but Vietnam’s Trans-Pacific Partnership participation should also be understood in the context of its aggressive free trade agreements strategy. This paper argues that solidarity within member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations does not prevent economically advanced member countries from participating in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership for market access; nonetheless, the need of Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar should be taken into account through special and differential treatment in Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership negotiations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":347754,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PSN: Free Trade Agreements (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PSN: Free Trade Agreements (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgz032\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PSN: Free Trade Agreements (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgz032","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

随着大型自由贸易协定的签署,东盟10个成员国都决心加入区域全面经济伙伴关系协定,并保持东盟的中心地位,而文莱、马来西亚、新加坡和越南也选择了全面与进步跨太平洋伙伴关系协定。鉴于东南亚国家联盟成员国的不同立场,本文提出了两个问题:从经验上看,是什么推动了东南亚国家联盟的个别成员国走向区域全面经济伙伴关系或全面与进步跨太平洋伙伴关系协定;从规范上讲,东盟成员国的不同立场是否削弱了东盟对外关系的一致性,削弱了东盟在亚洲区域主义中的中心地位?我认为,新加坡参与跨太平洋伙伴关系的主要动机是希望制定亚太地区自由贸易协定的规则。布鲁内尔旨在使其国内经济多样化,并通过国际承诺进行经济改革。越南和马来西亚加入跨太平洋伙伴关系是为了进入美国市场,但越南参与跨太平洋伙伴关系也应该放在其积极的自由贸易协定战略的背景下理解。本文认为,东南亚国家联盟成员国内部的团结并不妨碍经济发达成员国参与《全面与进步跨太平洋伙伴关系协定》的市场准入;尽管如此,在区域全面经济伙伴关系谈判中,应通过特殊和差别待遇考虑柬埔寨、老挝和缅甸的需要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
ASEAN at the Crossroads: Trap and Track Between CPTPP and RCEP
In the wake of the mega-free trade agreements, all of the 10 member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations are determined to participate in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and to maintain the centrality of the Association of South East Asian Nations whereas Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore, and Vietnam have also opted for the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. In view of divergent positions of member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations, this paper asks two questions: empirically, what drives individual member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations toward the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership or Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership; normatively, do the different positions embraced by member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations weaken the coherence of external relations of the Association of South East Asian Nations and undermine its centrality in Asian regionalism. I argued that Singapore’s participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership is mainly motivated by its wish to set the rules of free trade agreements in the Asian Pacific. Brunel aims to diversify its domestic economy and to undergo economic reform through international commitments. Vietnam and Malaysia joined the Trans-Pacific Partnership with a view to accessing American market, but Vietnam’s Trans-Pacific Partnership participation should also be understood in the context of its aggressive free trade agreements strategy. This paper argues that solidarity within member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations does not prevent economically advanced member countries from participating in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership for market access; nonetheless, the need of Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar should be taken into account through special and differential treatment in Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership negotiations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信