Human rights and the interregional dialogue between Asia and Europe: ASEAN–EU relations and ASEM

Abstract

Since the early 1990s, human rights have been a contentious issue for relations between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the European Union (EU), especially in the Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM). It is an issue that has constantly led to tensions in interregional cooperation. However, the ASEAN–EU dialogue on human rights has, in fact, had a significant impact on regional dynamics by stimulating the process of regional identity formation, especially in Southeast Asia. The core mechanism through which this development takes place is that of interaction, the process in which the two regional groupings engage while negotiating human rights policy. It can be argued, therefore, that interregional and intraregional human rights interactions are mutually dependent. ASEAN's rather confrontational mode of interaction with the European Union in relation to human rights has served as a catalyst for the dynamic growth of a collective definition of self in ASEAN. It has led to an ‘essentialization’ of ASEAN's idea of self as opposed to a common other, something which has undermined the possibility of maintaining an interregional dialogue that is not confrontational. However, it has also contributed to the development of a regional space for communicating about human rights and has thus played a central role in the gradual transformation of ASEAN's collective identity formation.

Keywords:

• ASEAN–EU relations
• collective identity
• human rights
• interaction
• interregionalism
• Southeast Asia

Acknowledgments

Maria-Gabriela Manea is a researcher at the Department of Political Science, University of Freiburg. She is currently working on two projects, the first on security governance in Indonesia and Nigeria, the second her dissertation on the Asian-European interregional dialogue on human rights.

Notes

1. This approach occupies a middle ground between rationalist and reflectivist International Relations theory and builds on rationalist constructivism. An overview of this debate can be found in Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen from the mid-1990s onwards.

2. This theoretical approach to social action is inspired by the theory of communicative action of Jürgen Habermas (1981).

3. The ‘better argument’ is a criterion guiding the process of communication. It eventually evolves into ‘true reasoning’ whose aim is to reach a common understanding and a reasoned consensus. For Risse (2000: 9–10), it is described by (1) a conformity with perceived facts in the world, (2) a moral rightness of the norms underlining arguments, and (3) the truthfulness and authenticity of the speaker.

4. According to Risse (2000: 14–6), there are certain conditions of communicative action: (1) actors must have equal access to the discourse so that they can change it and make communication credible, (2) actors must have the capacity to empathize with one another, and (3) actors must share a ‘common lifeworld’ or set of common narratives, history, and culture.