Search

The unprecedented global health crisis caused by COVID-19 has unleashed individual, self-centredresponses in most states, including Asian and European countries. Multilateralism may be moreimperative than ever, but the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) does not seem to epitomise a feasibleinternational platform to guide cooperation. This article attempts to assess whether the ASEM stillconstitutes a relevant instrument of intercontinentalism, as there seem to be indications suggestingthat EU-Asia relations will not abandon their apparent multilateral stalemate. In fact, ASEM couldrather deepen asymmetries between a highly institutionalised EU and an institutionally devoid Asia.Notwithstanding, the current pandemic offers ASEM an unprecedented opportunity to recover somesalience as a relevant multilateral EU-Asia platform, namely, the centrality of economics. Given theirremediable necessity to strengthen economic cooperation to alleviate the impact of COVID-19, this isa unique opportunity to strengthen connectivity as well as a multilateral cooperation and governancethat would otherwise blur.

This study revisits the trade and welfare effects of 19th century bilateralism exploiting the latest developments in structural gravity models, including the consideration of domestic trade. Using bilateral trade data between 1855 and 1875, I show that the Cobden-Chevalier network, i.e. a system of bilateral trade agreements including the Most Favored Nation clause, had large, positive and significant effects on members’ trade. These, however, were heterogeneous at the treaty-level. I then calculate its general equilibrium effects on total trade and welfare. They are considerable, while trade diversion effects are negligible. These results reshape the understanding of the Cobden-Chevalier network, helping in further rationalizing the “free trade epidemic” of the 1860s and 1870s.

Ireland’s involvement in international development has become a significant aspect of its foreign economic policy. Its engagement has moved from priorities that were largely domestically determined in the early 1970s and based on bilateral relationships between Ireland as donor and the recipient programme countries, toward priorities and involvements within a multilateral policy framework. This has come about through Ireland’s increasing engagement with international organizations, particularly the UN and the EU. However as the boundaries blur between Overseas Development Aid (ODA) policy and shared global goals, such as addressing climate breakdown and mitigating the scale of international distributive inequality, this can lead to tensions within countries about the implications of international commitments for the priorities at play in domestic politics. This is evident where Ireland’s ODA-driven commitments in the international field are in tension with domestic policy priorities, but also where tension arises in the area of national economic development policy.

By developing international law, international courts – ‘intermediate Global Public Goods (GPG)’ – can also contribute to the protection and promotion of final GPG. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in particular, is capable of promoting GPG by adjudicating inter-state claims. However, one of the main obstacles faced by the World Court relates to the existing tension between the bilateral nature of its own proceedings and the multilateral nature of the conflicting substantive law. Considering that procedure may guide and shape the application of substantive law, it will be argued that it should itself be interpreted and developed in a manner to ensure community interests. This chapter argues that the Court should assume expanded procedural powers in order to ensure the effective application of substantive law whenever GPG are at issue. Most procedural rules can be adjusted and tailored for multiparty aspects with the aim of protecting community interests and enhancing the international court’s legitimacy.

Through bilateral treaties between Moscow, Ankara, Tehran and Kabul, revolutionary diplomacy shaped the ‘Northern Tier’ of the Middle East in the early 1920s. This article argues that the infamous Young Turk leaders, though in exile after the First World War, remained at the centre of a significant moment in transnational revolutionary diplomacy in Eurasia. Based on a hitherto underutilised collection of published and unpublished private papers in juxtaposition with other archival sources, this article illustrates the working of a dual process of internationalism. While campaigning for Muslim internationalism, the Young Turk leaders were able to partake in international politics, but ironically reduced their own legitimacy and capacity as non-state actors by championing revolutionary bilateralism between Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan and Soviet Russia.

Uighur is an ethnic group which originally come from the Turkestan clan, which is predominantly found in Central and Western Asia Regions. As a minority within the People's Republic of China northwestern region, Its existence often sparks negative stigma from the China government. They are labelled as separatist groups. Large-scale demonstrations in 2009, which eventually led to riots between Uighur and Han Chinese population in Xinjiang, managed to worsen the situation. As a country that has primordial ties with the Uighur, Turkey has responded to the issue of discrimination that befell the Uighur. Therefore, this problem could bring tension to both Turkey and China. Utilizing the concept of bilateral diplomacy, this paper aims to examine the extent of the Turkish government's response to the issue of ethnic violence in Xinjiang. The findings show that the Uighur issue has always overshadowed Turkey-China bilateral relations ever since Its rise. Despite the disagreement, both have maintained a relatively good relation.

There are many ways of understanding what it is for an argument to be valid. Although we usually identify the concept of validity with (classical first-order) logical validity and, in turn,...

In this research work, the author focuses on the analysis new tendencies in contemporary foreign trade policy. Accordance to the foreign trade policy theory further trade liberalization and improved framework policies would increase trade and promote growth. It must be emphasized that openness to trade is associated with higher incomes and growth and there is the need for new approaches to trade cooperation in light of the forces that are currently re-shaping international business. What indicates the importance and innovativeness of the research is the presentation of the new models of foreign trade policy and trade interests. First of all it must underline that in the new theoretical terms in the demand for trade policy very important is factor specificity. The low specificity of factors means that factor returns are equalized throughout a region’s economy. On the other hand some factors are stuck in their present uses; therefore, factor returns are not equalized throughout a region’s economy but are industry-specific. The main objective of the research task is to give a comprehensive analysis of current trends in foreign trade theory and policy and in particular the models of foreign trade policy, trade interests indicated by export orientation and import sensitivity, foreign trade policy in different types of authoritarian regimes, protectionism pressures in different political system, the level of protectionism pressures, the variation in the foreign trade policy among states, the liberalization of China foreign trade policy and their effects, the tendencies to international trade liberalization and the problem of environmental protection, and the tendencies to bilateralism in the foreign trade policy. It should be stressed that free trade in itself is not responsible for economic growth, but more significant are the determining macroeconomic stability and increasing investment.

We examine the EU's and Australia's approaches to trade bilateralism, placing both actors in a comparative historical context and analysing potential synergies and obstacles to their bilate...

This article traces East Asia’s evolving multilateralisms and role in transitioning East Asia away from “US hub-and-spokes” bilateralism toward a more networked system of security arrangements. Drawing on the English School, it argues for revisiting multilateralism’s diplomatic foundations as a way to direct attention to (1) the practice’s region-specific content and (2) the ways that multilateralism has introduced system-transitioning changes that include system-level dynamics associated with membership, actor hood, and the types of security at stake. The result is a more complex security environment and normative context that calls for more multifaceted responses from all, including the United States and China whose current multilateral diplomacies both draw from and challenge the multilateral norms and practices that have been created. Theoretically, re-attention to multilateralism’s diplomatic foundations also offers the English School an opportunity to make more distinctive contributions to ongoing debates about East Asia’s networking processes and security arrangements.

In global politics, the relations between India and China have long been branded by the countries' customary rivalry. Bitterness and resentment between the two came to the fore with the exile of Da...

As states have established preferential trade agreements outside of the World Trade Organization over the past three decades, different designs have been developed: region-to-region, region-to-sing...

Given the essential positive history of China’s relations with India, China’s world view and the fact of geographical contiguity, the essential approach that China follows vis-à-vis India post 1949 is based on bilateralism. The bilateral approach has defined China’s negotiations over the border as well as economic relations between the two. In the past bilateralism has allowed China to consolidate its control over Tibet and follow a mercantilist economic policy vis- a- vis India. But the change in the geopolitical status of both nations indicates that bilateral relations, after Wuhan, have been reset to represent those between two ‘major powers’ who have broader regional and global interests as well. Although bilateralism will continue to underline their policies towards each other in matters of common development, regional development or the building of a community with a shared future for humanity, China will need to redefine its approach to bilateralism by broadening and deepening it to create a truly mutual relationship.

Ten years after the crisis, contradictions of a globalized capitalist economy rear their heads. The trade war between US and China provides surprising insights on its reorganization. China, an industrial powerhouse, claims respectability as an indispensable stakeholder in international regimes, as a challenged US retreats behind protectionism and punishing bilateralism.

The responses from Japan and India to the China‐led Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) were not positive unlike many other Asian countries. Only in late 2017 did Japan extend its cooperation with BRI and India is still on record that it does not support BRI. The positions taken by both Japan and India, together and singly, in relation to BRI as well as the interrelationship of policy, politics, and institutions at the global level are discussed. The discussion also explores how Japan supplements its central alliance with the United States till the 1980s with other key relationships such as India and Australia in security and in its initiatives with India on Vision 25 and the Asia‐Africa Growth Corridor (AAGC). The discussion also explores the shift by India following its non‐alignment policy and its friendship treaty with the Soviet Union and with the end of the Cold War, on its renewed foreign policy of diplomacy and bilateralism and multilateralism with many countries and organizations. The challenges and opportunities of collaboration by Japan and India are discussed, together with the geo‐economic and geo‐political aspects of BRI for both countries in moving forward.

The aim of this article is to articulate conceptually the varieties of international co-operation in which states take part. In theories of international relations, international co-operation is generally analysed either through instances of multilateral collaboration (EU, UN, NATO), through bilateral alliances (Franco-German relationship), or through “minilateral” clubs (G7). Yet the literature does not offer a concept for linking these three models of international co-operation. Nevertheless, in practice, states simultaneously use varieties of international co-operation to address global public problems such as climate change, migration crises, and the fight against terrorism. To address this shortcoming, it is necessary to shift the focus from each type of international co-operation to their “interstices”, in order to identify the relations between the types of international co-operation and their reciprocal effects on decisions taken by the state. It is to do this that the concept of “flexilateralism” has been developed. This neologism describes the policy through which a state simultaneously implements varieties of international co-operation to address a public problem. A state’s “flexilateral” policy, or flexilateralism, is operationalised by revealing four varieties of international co-operation: bilateralism (co-operation between two states), minilateralism (co-operation within an exclusive group of states), multilateralism (co-operation within an inclusive group of states), and unilateralism (no co-operation). The concept of flexilateralism is applied through the case of France’s defence procurement policy in the context of the Brexit negotiations. By taking seriously varieties of international co-operation, the concept of flexilateralism goes a step further to explain the policy-making and implementation of state’s foreign policy.

This paper aims to determine a way how to assess the impact of a strategic partnership on bilateralism and check that impact. In that sense, the strength of strategic partnership influence on bilateralism areas has been probed. In order to check the impact the research has been conducted on the case of the strategic partnership between the Republic of Serbia and six countries. Under those circumstances, different methods have been applied: expert-based evaluation method, DEMATEL (Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory Method) and statistical method. Some data has been collected by a survey questionnaire on 15 specialists, but the main data is accurate data from statistical yearbooks. There are two general results of this research. One of them is the model of the assessment of the strategic partnership impact on bilateralism. The second result is the confirmation of the strategic partnership impact on bilateralism. That impact varies from zero to perfect impact depending on a strategic partner and bilateralism area. The original purpose of the model is to assess bilateralism and the strategic partnership impact. In addition, the model is multipurpose and can be used to assess different relationships in public and private sector. The research results can help to understand cooperation in general and relationship between different areas. This study extends prior researches by examining the comprehensive process of bilateralism scope assessment. On the basis of the research results, implementation of the comprehensive process has been confirmed and improved.

Malaysia and Indonesia share many similarities like common religion, history, culture and common ancestry; however, despite of this socio-cultural fraternity, the relations between the two countries are replete with discord and friction. The main objective of this study is to find the problematic areas between Malaysia-Indonesia relations and to present ASEAN as a way forward to improve relations between the two countries. The central finding of this study is that is that cooperation level between Malaysia and Indonesia is high in multilateral institutions, however their bilateral relations are always marked with fluctuations. This study selected three key problematic areas in Malaysia-Indonesia relations: conflicting territorial claims, issue related to the Indonesian migrants in Malaysia and cultural conflicts. This study presents ASEAN as a case study and suggests that ASEAN can prove a platform to improve mutual relations between Malaysia and Indonesia because working more closely within the framework of ASEAN will cause a spillover effect in socio-political and security related areas between Malaysia and Indonesia. This is an exploratory research and secondary data like the academic research on Malaysia-Indonesia relation has been used in this study to highlight the problems between the two countries and suggest a way forward. This study has used English School of International Relations as theoretical background because the English School suggests that multilateral institutions are pertinent for decreasing the state centric realist apprehensions through creating norms, rules and regulations. This study is divided in three sections: the first section will explain the background of Malaysia-Indonesia tensions, the second section will discuss the English School as theoretical background, and the third section will present ASEAN as a multilateral institution through which the problematic issues between Indonesia and Malaysia can be resolved. Keywords: Malaysia-Indonesia relations, ASEAN, multilateralism, bilateralism

Threats to food security have increased around the world following the increasing threat of climate change over the last few years. Such threats have also become apparent in Southeast Asia. This region is home to 10% of the world's population and is host to the world's largest rice and palm oil exporters. Malaysia and Indonesia play an important role in securing the future supplies of palm oil because these two countries account for 85% of global palm oil production. However, the impact of climate change may cause a food crisis in the future, thus raising the possibility of food losses in the region. This paper is an attempt to revisit the position of Malaysia and Indonesia in Southeast Asia with a particular emphasis on the two countries' role in countering future food crises. It is argued that the current economic relation policies of Malaysia and Indonesia have somewhat neglected the importance of future food security in Southeast Asia. The idea of establishing a council for palm oil producers between the two countries is seen as a ‘game changer'. However, the effect of such an effort is uncertain, and it pays little attention to the need for securing Southeast Asia's future food system. The council needs to commit to moving beyond a ‘revenue driven' rationale. Concerning a regional engagement approach, stronger economic relations between Malaysia and Indonesia can be attributable to a more resilient food system in Southeast Asia. Keywords: Malaysia, Indonesia, palm oil, bilateralism & Southeast Asia

This paper puts forth a new scholarly approach to trade negotiations, for practitioners of international agreements, or simply to business students attempting to understand Ricardian trade theory. The paper hypothesizes that matrices can provide a simpler conceptual framework for considering Ricardo’s comparative advantage, especially when multiple goods and multiple countries are involved, in order to determine which countries should produce which goods. Numerous theoretical examples are presented, singularly, and jointly, as are different possible flaws and assumptions, additional applications, and alternative uses of the matrices, such as employing matrices to increase production of certain goods needed during crises or shortages. The article also argues that “terms of trade” should not be “assumed” in trade models but be based upon indifference curves, and addresses other influencing factors such as neoclassical changes in utility or in production. Found valid, the paper applies this method of trade simplification to pressing international situations, the question of “Brexit,” the sobriquet for the United Kingdom’s effort to withdraw from the European Union, which creates interesting possibilities for new trade deals, and the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The conclusion conceptually compares bilateral and multilateral trade, singularly, and with all countries together.

This chapter focuses on the social dimension of the concept of national neighbourship as a potentially useful category by means of which to investigate bilateral relations. We understand this concept as a social relation based on knowledge, emotions or behaviour (three components of attitudes), directed at a neighbour whether constituted by a state, nation or individual. We develop our category by describing its various aspects (co-residence, recognisability and a relational one) and the levels at which it appears (in local communities, borderlands and among neighbouring cultures). Then, by crossing the three components of attitudes with their three addressees, we obtain nine domains in which national neighbourships manifest themselves. These domains, when filled with examples from the Polish–German reality, serve as a proposal for operationalising our underlying concept.

This chapter calls for a conceptualisation of the Polish–German relationship in terms of asymmetric rather than embedded bilateralism. The objective is to understand how asymmetry structures the dynamics of the Polish–German relationship, with a particular focus on how Poland – a weaker partner – deals with power asymmetries while seeking to strengthen its position in the EU field of power. The theoretical analysis proceeds in three parts. First, asymmetry is discussed in relation to the French–German bilateral relationship, in order to shed light on the importance of relative equality or complementarity in resource distribution between partners for the embedded bilateralism to remain functional and resilient. Second, emphasis is put on the structural power asymmetries that characterise the Polish–German relationship and make it qualitatively distinct from the French–German relationship. Third, the consequences of the EU hierarchical structure for the dynamics of the Polish–German bilateralism are examined. The analysis draws on Pierre Bourdieu’s field model, while outlining strategies of adaptation and contestation pursued by the subordinate actor, as well as the dominant actor’s reaction to contestation of the existing power structure. The empirical section provides a brief illustration of the argument.

This chapter studies the bilateral cooperation between Poland and Germany in security and defence and follows a twofold aim. First, it examines whether the Polish–German bilateral relationship in this policy area constitutes a building block of embedded bilateralism. Second, the analysis uncovers whether the three explanatory categories put forward in this volume – historical legacy, interdependence and asymmetry – impact the bilateral cooperation in security and defence and whether they support or limit it. Our study shows that asymmetry has strong explanatory power, serving as an impediment to Polish–German cooperation in security and defence. Historical legacy also has explanatory sway, but mainly adds to the negative effect of asymmetry in the sense that an ‘asymmetry of historical legacies’ can be detected between the two neighbours. Furthermore, asymmetry also hinders both the resilience of the bilateral cooperation to crisis and the ability and willingness to exert joint leadership in the EU. Thus, Polish–German security and defence cooperation does not subscribe to the concept of embedded bilateralism.

As the conduct of international relations changes in tone, bilateral diplomacy is back in vogue. This trend does not leave the European continent unaffected. Many EU member states make good use of their diplomatic network across the continent to better understand what other member states aspire to achieve, and to promote their own voice within the European system. This chapter sheds conceptual clarity on the resurgence of bilateral diplomacy in Europe. First, it argues that, in the absence of multilateral successes, bilateralism constitutes the fallback position for structuring the international system. Second, it explains the ways in which embedded bilateral networks add depth to intra-European relationships. Third, it addresses the question as to whether this revival of bilateralism undermines the EU supranational institutions. Although bilateral and multilateral approaches have historically alternated in prominence, they can also complement and reinforce one another. For Germany and Poland alike, there is much to explore.

For many years diverging issues and interests have dominated bilateral relations between Poland and Germany in the field of climate and energy policies, contributing to a feeling of mistrust between both countries. Yet existing thematic controversies cannot fully explain the lack of cooperation, especially since there are sectoral areas in which a close collaboration is possible and desirable. In order to uncover the nuances of Polish–German relations in the fields of climate and energy, this chapter analyses in detail one dimension of embedded bilateralism: regularised intergovernmentalism. It argues that a weak formalised cooperation between Poland and Germany results from different perceptions of their roles in the EU policy-making process, which is reinforced by dominating narratives around the climate and energy policies of both countries, manifested by decision-makers. Nevertheless, the EU contextual policy-making sphere, as well as stable and experienced human resources at the working level, can overcome this drawback.

The classification of kinship systems according to specific types, based on rules of incest, descent, inheritance, marriage and residence has given preference to formalistic explanations and descriptions of relationships of biology and affinity. Island SoutheastAsia, in particular from Southern Sumatra to the Malay Peninsula, Indonesia West of the Torres Straits, and the Southern Philippines, seems to replicate this pattern of social grouping. In mainland Southeast Asia, where Confucianist ideology served to impose more gender hierarchies upon local cultures, women were still capable of managing farms and trade entirely on their own. Tension and resistance over the dominance of male representations of the' self against the female 'other' in revivalist movements are significant in Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and the Philippines, and one has only to look at the weekly forums, seminars and workshops on women's issues held by public institutions and non-govemmental commissions to realise this.

Discrimination is generally conceived of as a feature of protectionism and the source of retaliatory spirals. In this paper, I argue that this perspective on trade discrimination is conceptually and empirically deficient. The extent of discrimination is almost exclusively considered with respect to the form of cooperation, that is, the number of countries that cooperate. This view disregards the fact that the bargaining approach also determines the extent to which a country can discriminate in concession-making. By neglecting the bargaining method, the existing literature tends to underestimate the prevalence of discriminatory treatment in international trade and in periods of liberalization in particular. Furthermore, a case study of the government procurement negotiations at the Uruguay Round shows that discrimination between countries and items may go along with and actually promote liberalization. On the basis of these insights, I make a first step toward a better understanding of discrimination by developing a baseline model explaining liberalization through discrimination., {"references":["Rohlfing, Ingo (2009): Discrimination in International Trade: A Different Perspective. Acta Politica 44 (2): 192-210."]}