Constructing Regional Community and Order in Europe and Southeast Asia

Abstract

Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies Series Standing Order ISBN 1-4039-9575-3 (hardback) & 1-4039-9576-1 (paperback)You can receive future titles in this series as they are published by placing a standing order.

Interregionalism or Merely a Fourth-Level Game? An Examination of the EU-ASEAN Relationship

“…To state the obvious, the two regional entities have very different institutional contours, membership norms and ideological underpinnings. In particular the historical path dependency of ASEAN [56] is of a very different nature than that of Europe [10,45,85,99]). For example, the overriding concern of political leaderships in Southeast Asia with maintaining national sovereignties must be understood in reference to the colonial experience of all of the members of ASEAN, with the exception of Thailand, and their relatively short period of existence as independent nation-states following decolonisation.…”

Identity and desecuritisation: the pitfalls of conflating ontological and physical security

“…The guiding premise of this post-structuralist literature, which is associated with critical theories of security to varying degrees (Hansen 2011), has been that identity is constituted through difference; state identities lack a stable, pre-given essence, and hence states are in permanent need of reproducing their identities by constructing Other(s) as different, morally inferior, and physically threatening. Recent contributions to the identity literature in IR have challenged the association between the reproduction of identity and the construction of threat in two directions: Some have focused on the endogenous processes of constructing selfnarratives, thereby attempting to delink identity formation from practices of Othering (Berenskoetter 2007(Berenskoetter , 2012Steele 2008;Lebow 2012 Figure 2 Ontological insecurity and (re)securitisation wedded to the role of external Others in identity constitution, but through detailed empirical analyses of representations of Self and Other in different encounters in international relations, stressed the need to recognise different forms and degrees of Otherness (Rumelili 2004(Rumelili , 2007Diez 2005;Hansen 2006;Morozov and Rumelili 2012). As Prozorov (2011) recently underlined, the internal (through narratives, in time) and external (in relation to Others, across space) processes of identity constitution cannot be dissociated from one another (also see Rumelili 2007: 21-28).…”

“…Ontological security through reconfiguring Self/Other relations Building on the seminal work of David Campbell on identity and foreign policy (1992), a number of scholars have investigated the implications of the Self/Other distinctions that underpin the relations among states in international politics (Neumann 1996(Neumann , 1999Weldes et al 1999;Guillaume 2002;Rumelili 2004Rumelili , 2007Hansen 2006;Bukh 2009). The guiding premise of this post-structuralist literature, which is associated with critical theories of security to varying degrees (Hansen 2011), has been that identity is constituted through difference; state identities lack a stable, pre-given essence, and hence states are in permanent need of reproducing their identities by constructing Other(s) as different, morally inferior, and physically threatening.…”

European integration and the problem of the state: universality, particularity, and exemplarity in the crafting of the European Union

“…;Waever (1998);Cederman (2001);Rumelili (2004Rumelili ( , 2007; and several of the pieces in Ba´tora and Mokre (2011). 2 I am throughout the paper using 'crafting' instead of 'writing', to avoid any confusion about narrowly associating the enactment of Europe only with linguistic practices.…”