Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T14:46:21.485Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Eurasian Economic Axis: Its Present and Prospective Significance for East Asia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2010

Christopher M. Dent
Get access

Extract

The economic relationship between East Asia and the European Union (EU) has been the subject of increasing academic attention. This has been heightened by politico-institutional endeavors to strengthen the weak link in the “Triad” (Europe, East Asia, North America—the world's dominant economic regions) since the early 1990s, including various bilateral initiatives such as the 1991 Japan–EU Declaration and the 1996 Korea–EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement, as well as the new interregional “dialogue framework” provided by the Asia–Europe Meetings (ASEM). The ASEM has wider geoeconomic significance in that it constitutes the last interregional Triadic arrangement to fall into place, the others being the Asia–Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) forum (augmenting the transpacific axis) and the New Transatlantic Agenda (transatlantic axis).

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , August 2001 , pp. 731 - 759
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

List of References

Abe, A. 1999. Japan and the European Union. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Acharya, R. 1995. “The Case for China's Accession to the WTO: Options for the EU.” In The European Union and China: A European Strategy for the Twenty-First Century, edited by Grant, R.. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs.Google Scholar
Akaha, T., ed. 1999. Politics and Economics in Northeast Asia: Nationalism and Regionalism in Contention. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Albert, M. 1993. Capitalism against Capitalism. London: Whurr.Google Scholar
Bergsten, F. 1997. “Open Regionalism.” World Economy 20(5): 545–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobrow, D. B. 1999. “The US and ASEM: Why the Hegemon Didn't Bark.” The Pacific Review 12(1): 103–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourke, T. 1996. Japan and the Globalization of European Integration. Aldershot: Dartmouth.Google Scholar
Bridges, B. 1999. Europe and the Challenge of the Asia-Pacific. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Cable, V. 1995. “What Is International Economic Security?” International Affairs 71(2):305–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casadio, G. P. 1996. “China's Role in World Trade and Its Re-entry to the GATT: A European View.” In Business Transformation in China, edited by de Bettignies, H. C.. London: International Thomson Business Press.Google Scholar
Chase-Dunn, C. 1989. Global Formation: Structures of the World Economy. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chia, S. Y. and Tan, J. L. H., eds. 1997. ASEAN and EU: Forging New Linkages and Strategic Alliances. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commission Of The European Communities [cited as CEC]. 1994a. Towards a New Asia Strategy. COM(94) 314 final, Brussels.Google Scholar
Commission Of The European Communities. 1994b. Recommendations for a Framework Agreement for Trade and Co-operation between the European Community and the Republic of Korea. SEC(94) 1649 final, Brussels.Google Scholar
Commission Of The European Communities. 1996a. Investing in Asia's Dynamism: EU Direct Investment in Asia. Brussels.Google Scholar
Commission Of The European Communities. 1996b. Framework Agreement for Trade and Co-operation between the European Community and its Member States, on the One Hand, and the Republic of Korea on the Other. Brussels.Google Scholar
Dent, C. M. 1996. “EU-East Asia Economic Relations: Completing the Triangle?” European Dossier Research Paper No. 42. London: European Research Centre.Google Scholar
Dent, C. M. 1997a. “Economic Relations between the EU and East Asia: Past, Present, and Future.” Intereconomics 32(1):7—13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dent, C. M. 1997b. The European Economy: The Global Context. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dent, C. M. 1998a. “The ASEM: Managing the New Framework of the EU's Economic Relations with East Asia.” Pacific Affairs 70(4):495–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dent, C. M. 1998b. “New Interdependencies in Korea—EU Trade Relations.” Journal of Contemporary Asia 28(3):366–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dent, C. M. 1998c. “South Korea's Foreign Economic Policy: New Parameters and Problems Examined.” Global Economic Review 27(2):59—76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dent, C. M. 1999. The European Union and East Asia: An Economic Relationship. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dent, C. M. 2000. “Coming to Terms: The Economic Impact of the East Asian Financial Crisis on the European Union.” In Asia-Europe Co-operation after the 1997/98 Asian Turbulence, edited by Lee, C.. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Dent, C. M., and Johnson, D.. 2000. “Taiwan-EU Economic Relations: A European Perspective.” EurAmerica 30(1): 109—57.Google Scholar
Djisman, S. 1997. “EU-ASEAN Relationship Trends and Issues.” In ASEAN in the New Asia, edited by Chia, S. Y. and Pacini, M.. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.Google Scholar
Drysdale, P. 1991. “Open Regionalism: A Key to East Asia's Economic Future.” Pacific Economic Papers No. 197. Australia-Japan Research Centre.Google Scholar
Drysdale, P., and Vines, D., eds. 1998. Europe, East Asia, and APEC: A Shared Global Agenda? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ferguson, R. J. 1997. “Shaping New Relationships: Asia, Europe, and the New Trilateralism.” International Politics 34(4):395—415.Google Scholar
Forster, A. 1999. “The European Union in Southeast Asia: Continuity and Change in Turbulent Times.” International Affairs 75(4):743—58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frieden, J. A., and Lake, D. A., eds. 1995. International Political Economy: Perspectives on Global Power and Wealth. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Frobel, F., Heinricks, J., and Kreye, O.. 1980. The New International Division of Labor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Garten, G. 1992. A Cold Peace: America, Japan, and Germany and the Struggle for Supremacy. New York: Times Books.Google Scholar
Gilpin, R. 1975. US Power and the Multinational Corporation. New York: Basic Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilpin, R. 1984. “The Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism.” International Organization 38(2):287–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haggard, S. 1990. Pathways from the Periphery: The Politics of Growth in Newly Industrializing Countries. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hanson, B. T. 1998. “What Happened to Fortress Europe? External Trade Policy Liberalization in the European Union.” International Organization 52(1):55—85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, J. 1992. Rival Capitalists. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hughes, B. B. 1996. “The Future of Global Political Economy.” International Political Economy: State-Market Relations in the Changing Global Order, edited by Goddard, C. R., Passe-Smith, J. T., and Conkin, J. G.. London: Rienner.Google Scholar
Huntington, S. 1993. “Why International Primacy Matters.” International Security 17(4):68–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huntington, S. 1996. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Kennedy, P. 1988. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
Keohane, R. O., and Nye, J. S.. 1977. Power and Interdependence. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Kim, B. S., ed. 1997. Europe-East Asia Economic Relations: Current Status and Prospects. Seoul: Korea Institute for International Economic Policy.Google Scholar
Kindleberger, C. 1973. The World in Depression: 1929–1939. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Krasner, S. D. 1976. “State Power and the Structure of International Trade.” World Politics 2803 17–48.Google Scholar
Krasner, S. D. 1983. International Regimes. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Luttwak, E. 1990. Disarming the World's Economies. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies.Google Scholar
Maull, H. K., and Wanandi, J.. 1998. Europe and the Asia-Pacific. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mofe, . 1997. Towards a New Era of Opportunity: Korea—Partner for Europe in Asia. Seoul: Ministry of Finance and Economy.Google Scholar
Moran, T. 1993. “An Economic Agenda for Neo-Realists.” International Security 18(2):211–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuttall, S. 1996. “Japan and the European Union: Reluctant Partners.” Survival 38(2): 104–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'brien, R., Goetz, A. M., Scholte, J. A., and Williams, M.. 2000. Contesting Global Governance: Multilateral Economic Institutions and Global Social Movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rajan, R. S. 1999. “What Does the Euro Mean for Asia?” Institute for Policy Studies. Singapore. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Richards, G., and Kirkpatrick, C.. 1999. ‘“Reorienting Interregional Cooperation in the Global Political Economy: Europe's East Asian Policy.” Journal of Common Market Studies 37(4):683–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risse-Kappen, T. 1995. “Structures of Governance and Transnational Relations: What Have We Learned?” In Bringing Transnational Relations Back In: Non-State Actors, Domestic Structures, and International Institutions, edited by Risse-Kappen, T.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothacher, A. 1983. Economic Diplomacy between the EC and Japan, 1959–1981. Aldershot: Gower.Google Scholar
Segal, G. 1997. “Thinking Strategically about ASEM: The Subsidiarity Question.” The Pacific Review 10(1):124–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slater, J., and Strange, R., eds. 1997. Business Relationships with East Asia: The European Experience. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, D. A. 1997. “Technology, Commodity Chains, and Global Inequality: South Korea in the 1990s.” Review of International Political Economy 4(4):734—62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M. 1998. “The European Union and the Asia-Pacific.” In Asia-Pacific in the New World Order, edited by McGrew, A. and Brook, C.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Strange, S. 1987. “The Persistent Myth of Lost Hegemony.” International Organization 41(3):5 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strange, S. 1994. States and Markets. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Strange, S. 1995. “European Business in Japan: A Policy Crossroads?” Journal of Common Market Studies 33(1):1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurow, L. 1992. Head to Head: The Coming Economic Battle among Japan, Europe, and America. London: Nicholas Brealey.Google Scholar
Tyson, L. D. 1992. Who's Bashing Whom? Trade Conflict in High-Technology Industries. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
Unctad. 1997. Sharing Asia's Dynamism: Asian Direct Investment in the European Union. Geneva: United Nations.Google Scholar
Wallerstein, I. 1979. The Capitalist World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Waltz, K. N. 1979. The Theory of International Relations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Wang, T. T. 1995. “The Transformation of Mainland China's Economic System in a Bid to Re-Enter GATT.” Issues and Studies 31(3): 1–19.Google Scholar
Wong, J. 1996. “China and the World Trade Organization.” Asian Economic Journal 10(3):291–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolcock, S. 1993. “The European Acquis and Multilateral Trade Rules: Are They Compatible?” Journal of Common Market Studies 31:539—58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurfel, D., and Burton, B.. 1996. Southeast Asia in the New World Order: The Political Economy of a Dynamic Region. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuckerman, M. 1998. “A Second American Century.” Foreign Affairs 77(3): 18–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar