BRICS Expansion: Threat or Opportunity for ASEAN?

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.

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.

используя уроки, извлеченные из Ассоциации государств Юго-Восточной Азии (АСЕАН), в данной статье исследуются возможности дальнейшей региональной интеграции в рамках Евразийского экономического союза (ЕАЭС). ЕАЭС может извлечь уроки из успешного опыта АСЕАН по содействию экономической интеграции посредством обширных торговых соглашений, стандартизация стандартов, институциональной прочности и регионального единства. Единое окно АСЕАН (ASW), Экономическое сообщество АСЕАН (AEC) и Зона свободной торговли АСЕАН (AFTA) являются некоторыми из основных особенностей интеграционных инициатив АСЕАН, которые подчеркивают важность снижения торговых барьеров, ускорения таможенных процессов и содействия сотрудничеству между странами-членами. Согласно исследованию, ЕАЭС должен придерживаться сопоставимой тактики, такой как расширение своих соглашений о свободной торговле (ССТ) с другими странами, заключение соглашений о взаимном признании и укрепление собственных организаций, таких как Евразийская экономическая комиссия (ЕЭК). Развитие регионального единства и кооперативных инициатив в таких отраслях, как энергетика, вместе с мерами по привлечению прямых иностранных инвестиций (ПИИ) также может значительно усилить экономическую интеграцию ЕАЭС. В отчете предполагается, что ЕАЭС может улучшить свой имидж как более конкурентоспособного и сплоченного экономического блока, извлекая уроки из опыта АСЕАН. using lessons learned from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), this paper investigates the possibilities for further regional integration within the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). The EAEU may learn from ASEAN's successful experience promoting economic integration through extensive trade agreements, standardization of standards, institutional strength, and regional unity. The ASEAN Single Window (ASW), the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), and the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) are some of the main features of ASEAN's integration initiatives that emphasize the significance of lowering trade barriers, expediting customs processes, and promoting collaboration among member nations. According to the research, the EAEU should pursue comparable tactics, such as enlarging its free trade agreements (FTAs) with other countries, putting mutual recognition agreements into place, and fortifying its own organizations, such as the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC). The advancement of regional unity and cooperative initiatives in industries like infrastructure and energy, together with measures to draw in foreign direct investment (FDI), may also greatly strengthen the economic integration of the EAEU. The report suggests that the EAEU may enhance its image as a more competitive and cohesive economic bloc by drawing lessons from ASEAN's experience.

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

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 examines network governance (NG) within the context of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and its sectoral communities, specifically the ASEAN Economic Community, the ASEAN Political-Security Community, and the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community. The goal is to explore NG’s importance in fostering cooperation among ASEAN member states and addressing regional challenges. The study begins by providing an overview of ASEAN and its objectives, highlighting the crucial role of NG in promoting collaboration and policymaking through ASEAN processes. It then offers a comprehensive literature review that evaluates the conceptual framework of NG and previous research related to its significance for ASEAN. The article further explores theories and scholarly works discussing NG within ASEAN, offering insights into key themes and discussions in the literature. Specific examples from the three sectoral communities are included based on an analysis of ASEAN NG mechanisms and structures. The evaluation of NG effectiveness in tackling regional challenges considers the contributions of state actors, such as government representatives and non-state actors (NSAs), including civil society organizations and private sector entities. This analysis reveals the inherent challenges and opportunities in implementing NG within ASEAN frameworks. It also underscores the importance of collaborative efforts between state actors and NSAs and the need for supportive institutional frameworks and mechanisms to enhance NG effectiveness in ASEAN. Overall, this article aims to deepen the understanding of NG within ASEAN, illuminating its role in promoting regional integration, addressing challenges, and advancing development across ASEAN’s three sectoral communities.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) aspires to be a neighborhood where richly diverse nations can attain common purposes by cooperating together in consensual and graduated steps. It proposes and posits “One Vision, One Identity, and One Caring and Sharing Community” as the uniting common ground. Composed of ten sovereign states, ASEAN has at its core an international legal framework, through which it shapes its steps toward a shared vision. The goal of sustainable development, as articulated through the UN Conference on Environment and Development, is a central vision shared by each ASEAN member state.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Economic Community (AEC) was inaugurated in December 2015 with the primary aim of achieving a strong and prosperous community through accelerating economic integration. The notion of a single market, underpinned by the free flow of trade in services and skilled labour, is integral to the spirit of the AEC. To facilitate the intra-regional mobility of health professionals, Mutual Recognition Arrangements (MRAs) were signed, for nursing in 2006 and for medicine and dentistry in 2009, and now sit within the AEC objectives. This study examines the observed and potential impact of the health-related MRAs on health worker mobility within the region, particularly with regard to qualified doctors and nurses. To explore the available evidence, the authors undertook a narrative literature and document review, consistent with the RAMESES guidelines for qualitative research in international development and policy making in the area of health. Peer-reviewed articles and the grey literature from the period beginning in 2005 were reviewed. We find that the implementation of health-related MRAs has been slow and complex due to a number of barriers and challenges, such as resistance to the inflow of health professionals by the local workforce, shortcomings in the implementing mechanisms and an individual preference among health professionals for seeking better opportunities outside the region. Despite increasing worker mobility generally within ASEAN through formal and informal mechanisms, the MRAs themselves do not appear yet to have facilitated the freer movement of health workers. To strengthen health worker mobility, the full implementation of the health-related MRAs is essential, requiring support from broader trade and immigration policies and a stronger political commitment. Policy makers in ASEAN Member States will need to manage competing national interests in order to harness support for effective implementation.

This essay is motivated by an interest in a particular aspect of Indonesian foreign policy. Indonesia�s foreign policy has been called upon to serve the goals of national development. The national development takes place within a regional and global environment. Indonesia�s most immediate environment is the sub-region of Southeast Asia, and for that reason the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which remains the cornerstone of Indonesian foreign policy.
 ASEAN Community is a continuing process. It will continue to promote the expansion and then deepening of the implementation of ASEAN Community Blueprints beyond 2015. ASEAN Community Vision 2025 was approved and signed at ASEAN Summit Meeting, 21 � 22 November 2015 in Kualalumpur, Malaysia. In the mean time for Indonesia itself, there are some impediments in the implementation of Indonesia�s maritime nexus will continue to hedge against the ASEAN Economic Community as well as the major powers interests, especially with RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership led by ASEAN but heavily influence by China and the Trans Pacific Partnership that once led by the United States of America and seems abandon in Donald Trump era.
 The study reveals that he strategic implication of the above possible development appeals the need of new approaches to Indonesia. Some basic assumptions can be derived from the foregoing examination of Indonesian foreign policy concepts, a changing Asian strategic environment, and uncertainties of interdependence. It may be reasonable to assume that Indonesia has the capability to increasingly strengthen linkages among defense, security, and foreign policy aspects which leads to an adequate Indonesian national security policy.

East Asia was slow in establishing free trade agreements (FTAs) compared to other parts of the world, where FTAs began to be actively formed in the late 1980s. Despite a slow start, East Asia quickly caught up with other regions in the FTA race. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has been a main player in the FTA race in East Asia, as ASEAN enacted ASEAN Free Trade Area as early as 1993 and then in the 2000s enacted five ASEAN+1 FTAs, separately with China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand. Economic as well as non-economic motives are found behind active establishment of FTAs by East Asian countries. Talks about establishing a region-wide FTA began in the early 2000s, but region-wide FTAs have not yet been formed. Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) covering 12 East Asian as well as Pacific countries was signed, but the US withdrawal from the TPP terminated the TPP process. Instead of the TPP, TPP11 or Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) without the USA was successfully negotiated and signed. Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) involving 16 East Asian countries has been under negotiation but facing difficulty in reaching an agreement because of different views on various issues including market access among the negotiating members. Faced with growing protectionism in the world, it is important for RCEP and CPTPP to be enacted to keep the momentum toward trade liberalization. To successfully conclude the negotiations, compromise and strong political will of the leaders are needed. The paper also found that FTAs have contributed to promote trade between and among FTA members, contributing to the promotion of regional economic integration.

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

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has always presented observers with something of a paradox. Its reputation as the most successful regional grouping among less developed countries stands in marked contrast to its singular lack of achievement, despite a succession of proposals, in promoting economic cooperation among its member states. The percentage of the total trade of the member states conducted with each other, although higher than the intraregional trade of other groupings of less developed countries, fell in the 1970s and has only recently recovered to the levels prevailing at the time of ASEAN's creation in 1967 (see Table 1). While ASEAN's success in defusing regional conflicts provided the political prerequisites for the rapid growth of the economies of the region, the direct contribution to this growth made by regional economic arrangements was negligible. Given this unpromising record, the skepticism that greeted the announcement in January 1992 of ASEAN's most recent trade initiative, the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), is understandable. Was this skepticism justified or have circumstances changed such that the incentives for ASEAN governments to pursue regional economic cooperation are much greater than in the past? Commentators often attribute ASEAN's previous lack of success in the economic realm to a lack of political will. But lack of political will is merely a shorthand expression for the response of governments to the imbalance between the damage that domestic actors believe regional economic cooperation will do to their interests, and the expected gains to be derived from

ABSTRACTThe term ‘security community’ refers to the development of a regional consensus of shunning war as a means of settling disputes among participant states. Assuming this basic premise of a security community, this article positions ASEAN as a unique security community by arguing that it is contingent upon the socio-cultural norms practiced in ASEAN member states’ societies. The conceptual framework of a traditional security community is inapplicable to ASEAN as it does not have any supra-national institutions which can bind its members to compliance towards regional norms. The societal norms of member states give ASEAN a regional identity consciousness that is based upon informality and a unique normative structure. The intention of this article is to deconstruct these societal or popular socio-cultural norms and examine how they influence decision making at the elite level.

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.

This article provides a new piece for two of the puzzles of institutionalized cooperation in Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). First, with regard to the organization's four decades of existence, there has always been a marked gap between ASEAN's rhetorical goals of cooperation and its actual achievements. What explains these systematic failures of implementation? Second, from the outset, ASEAN was criticized for its light institutionalization, which failed to deliver the substantial cooperation goals. Despite selected institutional reforms, ASEAN's autonomy has not increased remarkably and it has not made any major institutional innovations. Why does ASEAN design institutions it does not use? Why does this transformation gap occur? The author suggests a sociological institutional explanation and argues that major impulses for cooperation have come from outside Southeast Asia, most importantly from Europe. By mimicking the European integration process, ASEAN member states have effectively created an isomorphic organization. The Association's institutional development reflects a concern for international legitimacy and less an objective functional demand arising from the specific interactions of member states. This copying process has led to network governance within the organization.