Стратегическое партнерство АСЕАН-ЕАЭС: поощрение международной торговли и экономической синергии. Уроки АСЕАН

INTRODUCTION In the past decades, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has evolved rapidly to become one of the key emerging regional institutions in the world. As one of its key agendas, ASEAN has promoted progressive regional integration alongside the reduction of the intra-regional development gap. The process of ASEAN integration has been wide-ranging and inclusive, leading to significant benefits to members, even the less-developed ones such as Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, and Vietnam (CLMV). Although the “CLMV growth story is one ASEAN success story with lessons … on the potential benefits of economic integration” (ERIA 2014), maintaining the momentum for further improvement is essential. The idea of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) is not new. The initiative actually represents a continuation of the “Concentric Circle Strategy”, which gradually builds on ASEAN integration in the form of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) to be created by 2015 and ASEAN-plus integration with “ASEAN centrality”. The RCEP was initiated by ASEAN itself in 2011 with the Association's Framework for RCEP. In 2012, leaders of all sixteen economies — including ASEAN members, China, Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and India — supported and agreed to launch the RCEP negotiations. Fundamentally, the RCEP resembles the various efforts around the region for broader regional integration, such as the East Asian Free Trade Area (EAFTA) initiative by China and the Comprehensive Economic Partnership in East Asia (CEPEA) proposal by Japan. Since the RCEP originates from ASEAN's aspirations, a couple of natural questions arise. The first is whether the RCEP arrangement can be really effective for sustaining growth and narrowing the development gap in the CLMV countries. The second question is whether the RCEP can benefit from the AEC framework. In answering these questions, one may need to start by identifying their possible impacts on these member economies. Complications introduced by the new context of Asia-Pacific integration — i.e., the ongoing Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations — should also be considered carefully even though not all the CLMV countries participate directly in the process. These questions and issues constitute the main analytical focus of this chapter. The remainder of the chapter is structured as follows. Section 2 summarizes the main possible impacts of the RCEP on the CLMV countries.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is pushing for closer economic integration to maintain its competitiveness as a free trade area in the world economy. The push is to transform, by 2015, the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) into the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC).The AEC would create a single market for goods, services, and investments and a single production base for the region. Closer economic integration, however, requires an effective system for the settlement of the kind of disputes that inevitably arise from the further liberalization of trade and investment. To this end, in 2004,ASEAN adopted the Protocol on Enhanced Dispute Settlement Mechanism, which establishes a near rule-based Dispute Settlement Mechanism for the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA DSM). In the decade since its establishment, the AFTA DSM has never been invoked. This article explores the limitations and constraints of the AFTA DSM and proposes an arbitration model as the ideal method of conflict resolution for ASEAN and the eventual AEC.

This article explores the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) initiatives, such as the ASEAN Free Trade Area, the ASEAN Economic Community, the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement, the ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, as well as Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) initiatives, including the New Development Bank, the Contingent Reserve Arrangement, the BRICS Business Council and the proposed BRICS payment system. The study seeks to answer three key questions: If BRICS adopts similar mechanisms and initiatives to those of ASEAN, would it become more relevant or attractive for ASEAN member states? Given that ASEAN was formed in 1967 and has taken nearly 50 years to develop its current mechanisms, structure and non-interference principle, can BRICS learn from this model to enhance its own regional cooperation and integration more effectively? What are the potential economic impacts and strategic considerations for ASEAN if more ASEAN member states join BRICS? The article concludes that while BRICS offers significant benefits and could potentially overshadow ASEAN, it is imperative for ASEAN to innovate and improve its mechanisms to remain relevant in the evolving geopolitical landscape.

ASEAN Economic Integration through Trade and Foreign Direct Investment: Long-Term Challenges

Integration organizations exhibit variations in the extent of integration interaction, economic capacity, and global significance. The European Union (EU) stands out as the most successful in terms of regional integration, actively engaging in external relations with diverse regions, individual nations, and integration blocs. Particularly noteworthy is the EU's robust advancement of interregional policies in Latin America with the Common Market of South America (MERCOSUR) and in Asia with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Interregionalism is commonly construed as collaboration between two integration blocs, termed the "pure" or ideal form of interregionalism. However, another variant exists, involving interaction not with the integration bloc as a whole but with its individual member countries, known as quasi-interregionalism. Within Southeast Asia (SEA), a coexistence of various interregionalism types is observable, such as "pure" interregionalism between the EU and ASEAN, and quasi-interregionalism in dealings between the EU and countries like Indonesia, Singapore, and Vietnam within the association. This article focuses on the case of quasi-interregionalism in the EU-Indonesia context. The EU's interregional approach towards Indonesia aims to establish a bilateral free trade agreement (FTA). Similarly, the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) actively pursues interregional policies, fostering trade and economic cooperation with ASEAN members, having already finalized FTAs with Singapore and Vietnam. A key issue is the ongoing negotiations for an FTA agreement with Indonesia, initiated in the spring of 2023. The significance of this study lies in the limited exploration of interregional dynamics between the EAEU and Indonesia by both domestic and international scholars. Comparing this with the more extensively studied case of EU-Indonesia quasi-interregionalism can provide a foundation for a deeper examination of the topic. This article aims to compare the interregional experiences of the EU and EAEU with Indonesia, identify factors influencing interregional policy implementation in the region, and offer a forecast regarding the future of EU and EAEU agreements with Indonesia. Comparative analysis criteria include the status of trade relations, their institutionalization level, and obstacles to concluding FTA agreements.

INTRODUCTION The Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) has continued to pursue a free and open investment regime to promote more investment flows and investment integration in the region. On one hand, an increase in investment flows will sustain economic growth and improve social conditions in terms of employment and technology transfer. On the other, integration will create better investment environment with lower cost and time efficiency. Despite the global economic turbulence in 2008–09, the trend of foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows to ASEAN has continuously improved due to strong macroeconomic foundations, increasingly favourable investment climate, and improving policy environment in ASEAN. The attractiveness of ASEAN has considerably increased since the Blueprint of ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) was signed in November 2007. The Blueprint incorporates several high-impact agreements such as the ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement (ATIGA), ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services (AFAS), and ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (ACIA). These agreements help create a more favourable economic environment for investors and traders in the region by increasing the region's attractiveness for investment, production and trade. Additionally, the ASEAN Agreement on the Movement of Natural Person (MNP) that was signed in November 2012 also aims to facilitate movement of businessmen and professionals in the region. Institutional capacity was also strengthened with the establishment of the ASEAN Investment Forum (AIF) in 2011, with the participation of lead investment agencies from each ASEAN country. Altogether, many regional measures have been undertaken to promote investment climate and strengthen the region's investment environment, resulting in a more free flow of investment across ASEAN. In addition to the regional initiatives, each ASEAN Member State (AMS) has also introduced measures to further improve their investment climate and facilitate investment flows, i.e., liberalizing their investment regimes, opening up more industries for investment, providing more attractive investment incentives, and simplifying investment procedures and taxation. This chapter aims to describe the transitional process of ASEAN's regional investment integration as well as its impacts on FDI flows in the region, both inflows and outflows. Empirical evidence are presented together with a discussion on the implications of ASEAN's efforts towards regional integration under the AEC initiatives and key deliverables. The availability of ASEAN investment data, particular the outflow foreign direct investment (OFDI), is limited.

This study tests the relationships of visitor spending, foreign direct investment in the tourism sector, and the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita among members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) during the period of 1988 to 2011 to prove the tourism-led growth hypothesis. The results of panel regression show that tourism-led growth hypothesis is valid for the ASEAN countries. Factors determining the GDP per capita in these countries are visitor spending, foreign investment and government consumption in tourism sector, human capital and trade openness. The results from this study suggest that the governments of the ASEAN countries are able to have effective growth policies by encouraging foreign direct investment in the tourism sector and improving their human capital. Therefore, ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) which will strengthen and facilitate investment cooperation and human capital developments in the tourism sector among ASEAN countries will have a significant benefit to economic growth in the region.

Comment on “Regional Cooperation and Integration in the Mekong Region”

Expert insights into the impact of aeropolitics on regional air market integration in ASEAN

The creation of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was to form a trade bloc that could compete in the world economies. The ASEAN integration on 2015 is also seen as externally influenced. This study aimed to determine the predictive relationship between and among the ASEAN countries, and the ASEAN countries with the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) countries such as Australia, China, United States, Japan and New Zealand. The study employed the vector autoregression (VAR) to determine the predictive relationship of the ASEAN with the free trade countries. Indonesia had a predictive relationship with Japan and Laos. Malaysia had predictive relationship with Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, Japan, Indonesia. Meanwhile, Philippines had predictive relationships with Vietnam, Japan, China, Australia and United States. Singapore showed predictive relationship with Laos, New Zealand, Thailand, Vietnam, Australia, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, United States and Vietnam. The economy of Thailand was found to show predictive economic relationship with Australia and a strong economic relationship with Japan, Laos, New Zealand. While Vietnam maintained predictive relationship with New Zealand, Philippines, United States, Australia, Japan, and Philippines. Laos, on the other hand, was influenced by Indonesia, New Zealand, Japan, Thailand and United States. In conclusion, the success of the trade integration of ASEAN also depends on other non-ASEAN countries.Keywords: Economics, trade integration, vector autoregression (VAR), descriptive-correlational design, Philippines

This appendix of the book The Interpretation of Investment Treaties presents 2009 Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Comprehensive Investment Agreement Signed by the Economic Ministers at the 14th ASEAN Summit in Cha-am, Thailand on 26 February 2009. The objective of the Agreement is to create a free and open investment regime in ASEAN in order to achieve the end goal of economic integration under the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) in accordance with the AEC Blueprint. The book responds to the unintended and inconsistent interpretations of investment treaties, which are undermining the predictability and legitimacy of international investment law.Keywords: ASEAN; ASEAN Economic Community (AEC); international investment law; investment treaties; Thailand

This systematic literature review synthesizes peer-reviewed research to analyze the economic consequences of political instability in Myanmar following the 2021 military coup and examines the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)'s role in mitigating regional impacts. Employing the PRISMA 2020 framework, the study systematically identifies and evaluates relevant literature from Scopus-indexed journals and reports from key international institutions published between 2021 and 2025. The findings reveal that the coup triggered severe macroeconomic disruption, including sharp GDP contraction, inflation, and currency depreciation. It significantly disrupted trade flows and foreign direct investment, with notable spillover effects across ASEAN's integrated production networks due to supply chain interruptions and heightened political risk. The review further identifies a critical gap in ASEAN's response, highlighting that while the bloc has engaged diplomatically and provided humanitarian aid, its economic stabilization mechanisms—such as those under the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC)—remain underutilized. Institutional constraints rooted in consensus-based decision-making and the principle of non-interference limit decisive economic intervention. The study concludes that political instability in Myanmar represents a structural economic shock with regional ramifications, underscoring the urgent need for ASEAN to strengthen its economic governance frameworks and develop proactive, coordinated crisis management instruments to enhance regional resilience and support sustainable recovery in politically fragile member states.

Background: This article offers a new perspective of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as network governance (NG) using the policy network theory (PNT) for the analysis.Methods: Two case studies were selected from the ASEAN Community to examine the applicability and effectiveness of NG in promoting ASEAN cooperation. These case studies were chosen due to their prominence and the prevalence of critical comments about their effectiveness in promoting cooperation. The content analysis utilised primary data from ASEAN reports, documents, research articles and processes, and studies on NG and policy networks. A literature review was conducted using online academic databases and ASEAN-related websites. The search covered the period from June 2019 to March 2021, with further searches conducted between January and July 2023. These data collection efforts provided a robust analysis of the case studies within the NG and ASEAN integration contexts.Results: The findings show ASEAN as a hybrid structure which has supported its survival and relevance. This approach provides legitimacy for ASEAN globally by purposefully adopting structures similar to the EU without the supranational elements. It also showcases ASEAN’s motivation for asserting its centrality. Adopting a hybrid structure has led to ASEAN's soft institutionalisation, driven by its norms and characterised by a less empowered secretariat, where the member states are the decision-makers and implementors of policies. It opens a pathway to recognising ASEAN states’ autonomy, where the actors’ will and interests affect decision-making and define performance.Conclusions: This article demonstrates NG's viability in promoting ASEAN's centrality in regional cooperation and institutional arrangements and allows for a nuanced assessment of its performance considering the context of the issue and ASEAN's history and emphasising the member states' primacy in policymaking. The NG framework contributes to ASEAN’s legitimacy, regional cooperation and performance despite its inherent limitations.

The total number of Regional Trade Agreement (RTA) has increased rapidly over the past 30 years, from 22 in 1990 to 308 in 2020. The association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) aimed to increase regional integration among members through ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) that came into force in 1993 and broadened its regional integration started in 2005 through trade agreements with China, Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and India. This paper study the impact of 5 ASEAN RTAs simultaneously to get comprehensive results. The Hausman-Taylor estimator was used to overcome endogeneity problems in the gravity equation without dropping the time-invariant variables which become the advantage of this method. The results show that AFTA increases trade flows between members and promotes imports and exports to the rest of the world. ASEAN regional integration outside the region with six trade partners show positive effect to members and has a minimal negative effect to non-members globally.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the impressive economic performance of most of its members have increased the weight of the region's views in world fora. However, ASEAN has been unsuccessful in fostering a regional integration arrangement (RIA) leading to an increase in intraregional trade and foreign direct investment. In January 1992, ASEAN launched the Asean Free Trade Area (AFTA) seeking to establish a free trade area (FTA) by 2008.Market integration increases economic interdependence and thereby raises the need for policy integration and discipline. This paper argues that a number of difficulties that ASEAN faced in promoting intraregional trade are likely to continue to affect AFTA (e.g., low economic complementarity and macroeconomic imbalances requiring large changes in equilibrium real exchange rates). The experience of other RIAs suggests other potential problems.AFTA's prospects of evolving into deeper forms of sustainable integration are remote. Some cooperation in areas of common interest seems likely.