In November 2008, the Regional Economic Studies Programme of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) and the Singapore office of the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) of Canada organised a forum on "Regional Economic Integration - ASEAN and Canadian Perspectives". The forum concluded that fundamentally the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) were two different kinds of agreements. First, while NAFTA focused entirely on trade and investments, the scope of AFTA was much broader, going beyond issues of trade and investments alone. Secondly, NAFTA was a lightly institutionalized regional trade agreement. There was no formal policy of institutional or policy development, and it lacked legislative instruments. Although ASEAN had a secretariat, its regional institutions remained weak in comparison to those of the European Union. Thirdly, the dispute-settlement mechanism in ASEAN was different from that of NAFTA. The ASEAN provisions were scattered over a number of documents and covered both economic (trade and investment) issues and other disputes (e.g., political or territorial), while NAFTA provisions were contained in a single document and could be applied only to matters related to trade and investments. Finally, although many studies presented trade liberalisation as a win-win proposition, the distribution of costs and benefits was mostly uneven. In the case of Canada, short-run gains in efficiency from expanded trade could be identified, but it was harder to determine longer-term dynamic gains. On the other hand, in the case of ASEAN, it was still grappling with the issue of the development divide, especially since the admission of Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam into the group.
Comprises papers presented at the ASEAN Roundtable of 18 June 2009. Covers issues of social, strategic and political implications, the economy and finance.
In November 2008, Center for Asia-Pacific Area Studies (CAPAS), Academia Sinica, Taiwan, the ASEAN Studies Centre (ASC), Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), Singapore, and the Taiwan Institute of Economic Research (TIER) organized a symposium in Taipei on ASEAN-Taiwan economic relations. The symposium concluded that while a free trade agreement between Taiwan and ASEAN was not, for political reasons, possible at the moment, Taiwan businesses could take part in the ASEAN regional integration process. Involvement in ASEANs production chain would give Taiwanese enterprises access to other markets Australia, New Zealand, India, Japan, etc. The symposium also concluded that to strengthen ASEAN-Taiwan relations, a Taiwan-ASEAN business council could be formed among Taiwanese companies doing business in ASEAN. However, ASEAN needed to provide the appropriate environment including schools and medical facilities for Taiwanese investors and managers. Information on ASEAN countries and doing business in them should be readily available, especially in Chinese, as many Taiwanese investors had limited grasp of the English language.
This book presents a comprehensive analysis of the status and progress of China-ASEAN green development and examines the common development issues in China and ASEAN Member States (AMSs). It also explores development trends within the framework of global and regional environmental governance and discusses the approaches towards green development in China and AMSs, offering its own definition of green development and using a “pressure-state-response” (PSR) model to build a framework for assessing green development. The book includes typical policy measures and numerous practices for green development in China and AMSs in the form of tables, figures and boxes. Based on detailed analysis, it argues that the global 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development brings significant opportunities to China and AMSs, that the ongoing pragmatic cooperation should be further advanced, and that a connection between the Belt and Road Initiative and green ASEAN Community should be established to achieve regional sustainable development. As such it furthers readers’ understanding of environment and development and practical policy advice for promoting China-ASEAN cooperation on environment and green development. Intended for decision makers from the government, business sector, and civil societies who are working to boost green development and China-ASEAN cooperation, it is also a valuable resource for government officials, researchers and non-experts interested in creating a balanced relationship between the environment and development.
In November 2008, Center for Asia-Pacific Area Studies (CAPAS), Academia Sinica, Taiwan, the ASEAN Studies Centre (ASC), Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), Singapore, and the Taiwan Institute of Economic Research (TIER) organized a symposium in Taipei on ASEAN-Taiwan economic relations. The symposium concluded that while a free trade agreement between Taiwan and ASEAN was not, for political reasons, possible at the moment, Taiwan businesses could take part in the ASEAN regional integration process. Involvement in ASEANs production chain would give Taiwanese enterprises access to other markets Australia, New Zealand, India, Japan, etc. The symposium also concluded that to strengthen ASEAN-Taiwan relations, a Taiwan-ASEAN business council could be formed among Taiwanese companies doing business in ASEAN. However, ASEAN needed to provide the appropriate environment including schools and medical facilities for Taiwanese investors and managers. Information on ASEAN countries and doing business in them should be readily available, especially in Chinese, as many Taiwanese investors had limited grasp of the English language.
This report, the first in the ASEAN Studies Centre report series, begins with a brief account of the important points raised during the discussions made at the workshop on "The ASEAN Community: Unblocking the Roadblocks," organized by the ASEAN Studies Centre and the Regional Economic Studies Programme on 15 April 2008. The first endeavour in which the new ASEAN Studies Centre was actively involved, the closed-door workshop gathered Southeast Asian experts on ASEAN for what was essentially a brainstorming session on the nature of the ASEAN Community that the association aspires to be, segmented into its three pillars - the ASEAN Economic Community, the ASEAN Security Community, and the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community. The session examined the benefits expected from regional community building for the people of Southeast Asia and the obstacles that lay on the way to its achievement. The workshop suggested certain measures for removing those obstacles. It then discussed the newly signed ASEAN Charter: the significance of its provisions, how it could help build the ASEAN Community, and how it might fall short of doing so. The workshop also heard a short briefing on the aims and functions of the ASEAN Studies Centre and proffered suggestions for it.
China has long claimed the ownership of a network of widely-scattered islands and their surrounding waters and resources in the South China Sea. These claims overlap in a substantial way with those of at least three ASEAN countries: Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia. To this day, the South China Sea has remained one of the region's most dangerous 'flashpoints'. Despite regional efforts to calm the situation, the complicated nature of the issue continues to challenge regional security. The ASEAN Studies Centre has taken this initiative to host a discussion on "Energy and Geopolitics in South China Sea", with contributions from Michael Richardson and a number of experts in this area to put across their analytical views of the issue.
In November 2008, the Regional Economic Studies Programme of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) and the Singapore office of the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) of Canada organised a forum on "Regional Economic Integration - ASEAN and Canadian Perspectives". The forum concluded that fundamentally the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) were two different kinds of agreements. First, while NAFTA focused entirely on trade and investments, the scope of AFTA was much broader, going beyond issues of trade and investments alone. Secondly, NAFTA was a lightly institutionalized regional trade agreement. There was no formal policy of institutional or policy development, and it lacked legislative instruments. Although ASEAN had a secretariat, its regional institutions remained weak in comparison to those of the European Union. Thirdly, the dispute-settlement mechanism in ASEAN was different from that of NAFTA. The ASEAN provisions were scattered over a number of documents and covered both economic (trade and investment) issues and other disputes (e.g., political or territorial), while NAFTA provisions were contained in a single document and could be applied only to matters related to trade and investments. Finally, although many studies presented trade liberalisation as a win-win proposition, the distribution of costs and benefits was mostly uneven. In the case of Canada, short-run gains in efficiency from expanded trade could be identified, but it was harder to determine longer-term dynamic gains. On the other hand, in the case of ASEAN, it was still grappling with the issue of the development divide, especially since the admission of Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam into the group.
The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is comprised of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Possessing a significant share of the world's oil and gas reserves and including some of the world's fastest growing economies, the GCC is a significant regional grouping. As with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Council has made significant progress towards economic integration. Seeking to draw out lessons applicable to ASEAN, this report looks at the structure and evolution of the GCC. This includes the context within which the Council was established, its rationale, and economic importance. It then follows the organization's development over time, paying particular importance to its progress from Customs Union and Common Market towards Monetary Union. The report then sets out the key challenges ahead for the Council, and concludes by highlighting the structural, organizational, and political lessons that resonate with ASEAN and its membership.
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.