Search

This paper examines how APEC has transformed itself into an international forum for the vision of regional integration. It aims to quantify the documentation produced by the international organization and provide quantifiable evidence that aligns with prior knowledge rather than relying solely on intuition. For this purpose, I use various text mining techniques to extract multi-dimensional features from the text of APEC Leaders' Declarations from 1993 to 2023. In terms of interest and expectations for APEC as a forum, it is found that members have experienced two major peaks and troughs over the last three decades. It is found that the change point coincides with the Asian financial crisis of 1997 and the tensions between the United States and China since 2017. To explore more various aspects of economic integration in the Asia-Pacific region, this study also considers how consistently APEC has been an international forum for addressing issues, which members are active, and how members have clustered based on their views of APEC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Asia Pacific is not only the world's largest and most populous region, it is also home to some of its fastest growing economies. At the same time, it is also a region that contains complex security hotspots, including tensions on the Korean Peninsula and maritime disputes in the East and South China Seas. The United States and China are vying for economic and military influence in the region, affecting the balance of power and security dynamics on a global scale. In recent years, the European Union (EU) has become a key trading partner for most countries in the Asia-Pacific region and is also seeking to play a relevant role as a security actor. Both regions face the same challenges and share an interest in preserving peace in their respective areas, while upholding the rules-based international order. Specifically, the EU wants to step up its security role in the Asia-Pacific by boosting cooperation with the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries and other strategic partners. In the current context of huge global shifts, this article argues that the area in which the EU can make a valuable contribution to stability in the region is in supporting Asia-Pacific nations to address non-traditional security challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The bipolar world order that emerged after the Second World War has shaped the international system. This change in the international system has also affected the Asia-Pacific region. A similar balance of power and threat in the international system has also experienced at the regional level in Asia-Pacific. During the Cold War, nation states in the Asia-Pacific region became the instrument of the power struggle and balancing strategy between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. In this period, some important developments such as Korea War, Vietnam War and disputes between this region states have legitimized and facilitated the US presence in the Asia-Pacific region. The Alliance relationship has been the most important instrument used in balancing policies in the region. States' power, capacity, geographical positions, intentions and perceptions about each other are the most important parameters in determining balancing strategies. In the light of these parameters, Asia-Pacific region has created a systemic balance during the Cold War. This study aims to reveal Asia-Pacific balancing strategy in the context of U.S. bilateral relations with China, Japan, South Korea and North Korea. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

'Medical Devices' include everything from highly sophisticated, computerized, medical equipment, right down to simple wooden tongue depressors. Regulations embody the public expectations for how buildings and facilities are expected to perform and as such represent public policy. Regulators, who develop and enforce regulations, are empowered to act in the public's interest to set this policy and are ultimately responsible to the public in this regard. Standardization contributes to the basic infrastructure that underpins society including health and environment, while promoting sustainability and good regulatory practice. The international organizations that produce International Standards are the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). With the increasing globalization of markets, International Standards (as opposed to regional or national standards) have become critical to the trading process, ensuring a level playing field for exports, and ensuring that imports meet the internationally recognized levels of performance and safety. The development of standards is done in response to sectors and stakeholders that express a clearly established need for them. An industry sector or other stakeholder group typically communicates its requirement for standards to one of the national members. To be accepted for development, a proposed work item must receive a majority support of the participating members, who verify the global relevance of the proposed item. The regulatory authority (RA) should provide a method for the recognition of international voluntary standards and for public notification of such recognition. The process of recognition may vary from country to country. Recognition may occur by periodic publication of lists of standards that a regulatory authority has found will meet the Essential Principles. In conclusion, International standards, such as, basic standards, group standards, and product standards, are a tool for harmonizing regulatory processes, to assure the safety, quality, and performance of medical devices. Standards represent the opinion of experts from all interested parties, including industry, regulators, users, and others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the emergence of and relationships between Track 1 and Track 2 arrangements in East Asia and the Asia-Pacific. It argues that the emerging complex webs of institutional arrangements in East Asia and the Asia-Pacific exhibit a multi-layered structure of governance in which public and private actors are increasingly connected, but hierarchically organized. It also suggests that the coexistence of multiple governance mechanisms with overlapping but different memberships at both Track 1 and Track 2 levels signals difficulty in their attempts to enhance the overall efficacy of the governance mechanism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the history and institutional norms of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN. Founded in 1967 by Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand, ASEAN membership has doubled since then. ASEAN has been criticized for weak responses to regional political and economic crises, its ability to act undermined by the member states' commitment to respect for national sovereignty and noninterference in one another's internal affairs. The article discusses whether this commitment to weak international institutions is changing due to the incentive of continued economic growth.

Despite calls over the years for the Asia-Pacific region, or some subset of it, to develop a regional security regime, no deliberate action to achieve this has been taken. This paper considers the possible ends of a regional security regime and the means towards achieving them. The ends themselves would differ according to whether any regime focused on security, traditionally and narrowly conceived, on comprehensive security or on human security. No matter which approach is taken, if the regime is to be successful in any sense beyond that of rhetoric, some of the region's cherished norms such as non-intervention as that is currently interpreted will have to be at least modified, if not completely scrapped. Even if the region collectively decides it needs a security regime and can agree on its ends, there are many alternative ways of achieving the ends and the processes of working out detailed rules will be difficult and time-consuming. None of this is to say that establishing a regional security regime will be impossible. It is to say that it will involve a lot of work, and a lot of compromise by state policy-makers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]