<th id="njfjl"></th>
<span id="njfjl"><noframes id="njfjl">
<th id="njfjl"></th>
<span id="njfjl"><video id="njfjl"></video></span>
<strike id="njfjl"></strike>
<th id="njfjl"></th><th id="njfjl"></th>
<strike id="njfjl"><noframes id="njfjl"><strike id="njfjl"></strike>
<span id="njfjl"><noframes id="njfjl">
指導
網站地圖
返回首頁

International Relations Coursework格式范文:Can the EU Serve as an Integration Model for ASEAN?

論文價格: 免費 時間:2022-11-08 20:09:55 來源:www.europeanvox.com 作者:留學作業網

International Relations Coursework格式范文-歐盟能否成為東盟的一體化模式?本文是一篇留學生國際關系課程作業,主要內容是講述“剝貓皮的方法不止一種”這句古老的諺語已經成為一個老生常談的短語,足以說明和描繪原型過程的畫布,典范標準或完美標本并不是成功的唯一途徑。Coursework范文中提到這句短語在競技體育、職業選擇以及習慣性的日常生活中都適用于生活建議,在成就偉大時,這個成語也適用于國際關系。任何級別的合作都被視為在所有相互尊重的領域取得的成就;撇開分歧、確定共同目標的能力,以及實現這一目標的決心。國際關系合作的成功表現為民族國家在共同性的基礎上結成聯盟,朝著一個雄心勃勃的目標前進,在為實現集體目標而連接武器的地區進一步發展為民族國家。下面就請參考這篇留學生國際關系Coursework寫作范文。

Coursework格式范文

The age old saying of “there’s more than one way to skin a cat” has served as a clichéd phrase to adequately illustrate and paint the canvas of the archetypal process, exemplar standard or the perfect specimen isn’t the only path to success. This expression has been applicable as life advice, in competitive sports, career choices, as well as habitual daily-life in achieving greatness, the idiom has also lent to International Relations. Cooperation at any level is considered an achievement in all respectful fields; the ability to set aside differences, identify commonality for a purpose and the overlapping determination in reaching that ambition. The success of cooperating in International Relations takes the form of nation states coming together in alliance on the basis of commonality towards an ambitious goal, furthering into nation states in regions linking arms in pursuit for a collective objective. This profound bond is the grouping of nation states in a region exuding behaviors as a collective who understand differences, identify common interests and strive towards a unified goal. The examples of regionalization would be of the European Union, the EU, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations or ASEAN. While the two regional groupings have been known to be successful, the level of integration between the two differ quite considerably. The EU’s level of integration furthers ASEAN by many folds; the ability to integrate not only areas for free trade, but the unification of the market, currency, common passport, a customs union and a commonality in foreign policy as a region all through a common institution. 

這種深厚的紐帶是一個地區的民族國家的集體,他們表現出理解差異、認同共同利益并努力實現統一目標的集體行為。區域化的例子包括歐盟、歐盟和東南亞國家聯盟或東盟。雖然這兩個區域集團已經取得了成功,但兩者之間的一體化程度差異很大。歐盟的一體化水平使東盟發展了許多倍;不僅能夠整合自由貿易領域,而且能夠通過一個共同機構將市場、貨幣、共同護照、關稅同盟和外交政策的共同性統一為一個區域。

The overwhelming success of the European Union dwarfs that of ASEAN where the Asian counterpart has only been able to achieve integration regionally through free trade and economic movement. The difference in level of integration begs the question of whether the EU model has the ability to befit that of ASEAN and provide guidelines and prove to be exemplar in regional integration. To begin whether the EU model is capable of providing as a structural guideline for ASEAN, we inspect the circumstances of the purpose each integration from its origins, and examine the validity of the two then systematically determine whether the EU model is capable of befitting that of ASEAN to achieve paralleling success in the East.

歐盟的壓倒性成功使東盟相形見絀,在東盟,亞洲國家只能通過自由貿易和經濟運動實現區域一體化。一體化水平的差異引發了一個問題,即歐盟模式是否有能力適應東盟模式,并提供指導方針,并證明其在區域一體化中具有示范作用。為了開始歐盟模式是否能夠作為東盟的一個結構性指導方針,我們檢查了每一次一體化的起源目的,并檢查了兩者的有效性,然后系統地確定歐盟模式是否適合東盟模式,以在東方取得類似的成功。

The integration of the European Union is herald as the greatest union of nation states in a region, highest achievement in integration of a common currency, customs union, single market, common passport and foreign policy under a common institution. The ability for the members to share sovereignty and surrender to a collective long-term goal of a regional cooperation above domestic interests creates a supportive environment in channeling political will. The European Union marked the pioneer for regional integration which exhibited a collective ideology of a ‘community approach’ rather than the traditional balance of power mode accrediting Robert Schuman of France and Konrad Andenauer of Germany. The collective to channel political will led to the construction of a legally binding common institution which oversaw the integration project. This Western model empowered the consensus approach with a pronged initiative of solidarity and tolerance by not isolating any member regarding major domestic issues of a banking crisis resulting in an increase in public debt. Greece represents the first test to the European Union’s Single currency resulting in a great increase in both public debt and deficit. The consensus approach meant that Union were hesitant in decision-makings as well as implementing policies until the vast majority of member states were pursued to collectively pursue and implement such policies. The process of proposals passed through the Working Party, then to the Permanent Representatives Committee (Coreper) then finally a Council configuration secures that a proposal befits the interests of the entire Union. The willingness to provide significant financial transfer to help poorer members catch up with the collective norm meant that stronger members in the Union saw the importance of financial weaker nation states and placed collective will power above domestic interests but meant a lag and a pull back on financial capabilities for further advancements.

歐洲聯盟的一體化被譽為一個地區最大的民族國家聯盟,在共同貨幣、關稅聯盟、單一市場、共同護照和共同制度下的外交政策一體化方面取得的最高成就。成員國能夠分享主權并屈服于超越國內利益的區域合作這一集體長期目標,這為引導政治意愿創造了有利的環境。歐盟標志著區域一體化的先驅,它展現了一種“共同體方式”的集體意識形態,而不是法國的羅伯特·舒曼和德國的康拉德·安德瑙爾所認可的傳統力量平衡模式。引導政治意愿的集體導致了一個具有法律約束力的共同機構的建立,該機構負責監督一體化項目。這一西方模式通過團結和容忍的雙管齊下舉措增強了協商一致的做法,在導致公共債務增加的銀行危機的重大國內問題上不孤立任何成員國。希臘是對歐盟單一貨幣的第一次考驗,導致公共債務和赤字大幅增加。協商一致的做法意味著歐盟在決策和執行政策方面猶豫不決,直到絕大多數成員國被要求集體推行和執行這些政策。提案通過工作組,然后通過常駐代表委員會(Coreper),最后通過理事會組合,確保提案符合整個聯盟的利益。愿意提供大量資金轉移以幫助較貧窮的成員趕上集體規范,這意味著歐盟中實力更強的成員國認識到了金融實力較弱的國家的重要性,并將集體意志力置于國內利益之上,但這意味著金融能力的滯后和進一步發展的后撤。

Under the leadership of France and Germany meant that Paris and Berlin were the driving force behind the EU integration, and under this leadership can attribute to the success of the integration itself in the ability for the two countries to overlook historical differences between the two and step together for a success of a better tomorrow. The critical element that make regionalism successful in Europe in achieving the European Union was the ability to push aside differences; the capability in reconciling historical pasts. With historical reconciliation, especially between France and Germany with a turbulent historical past of the war of 1870, the First and Second World War. The reconciliation brought the cohesion that allowed for the development of relationship building and the necessary political will for cooperation and ultimately integration. The achievement through years of sustained political effort from leaders of both countries paved way that facilitated the mend of commonality towards sculpting a regional community. This is a reflection of the European Union’s ability and ‘community approach’ and through a common institution of the European Econmic Community formed a Free Trade Area, instill a Customs Union that led to a Single Market and Single Currency. The regional cooperation of economics wasn’t the limit as foreign policy overlapped amongst the members which allowed for a common passport. These aspects and byproducts through political will in achieving an ambitious common goal forged an atmosphere of peace, prosperity and security in the European environment.

在法國和德國的領導下,意味著巴黎和柏林是歐盟一體化的推動力,而在這種領導下,可以將一體化本身的成功歸功于兩個國家能夠忽略兩者之間的歷史差異,并攜手共創美好明天。使區域主義在歐洲成功實現歐洲聯盟的關鍵因素是能夠消除分歧;調和歷史過去的能力。隨著歷史的和解,尤其是法國和德國之間的和解,他們經歷了1870年戰爭、第一次和第二次世界大戰的動蕩歷史。和解帶來了凝聚力,有助于發展關系建設,也有助于合作和最終融合的必要政治意愿。兩國領導人通過多年持續的政治努力取得的成就為促進共同性的修補,塑造一個區域共同體鋪平了道路。這反映了歐盟的能力和“共同體方法”,并通過歐洲經濟共同體的共同制度形成了自由貿易區,灌輸了一個關稅聯盟,從而形成了單一市場和單一貨幣。區域經濟合作不是限制,因為成員國之間的外交政策重疊,允許使用共同護照。通過實現雄心勃勃的共同目標的政治意愿,這些方面和副產品在歐洲環境中營造了和平、繁榮與安全的氛圍。

With an ambitious idea seen through to the very end can prove to solidify and validate the EU model of integration especially in its historical record of responding to crisis. The validity of cooperation is tested in the face of turmoil and with such response by the European Union model, this integration has proved time and time again that in crisis it has responded astoundingly, as well establish mechanisms that eliminate repeating failures. Crisis that brought leveraged adversity namely the failed plan for a European Community in 1954 led to the creation of the European Economic Community, the EEC, the empty chair crisis of 1965 led to the de facto acceptance of the Qualified Majority Voting reflecting the consensus approach, QMV, and its eventual acceptance resulting in the 1986 Single European Act. A currency crisis of the 1980s birthed to the European Monetary System and ultimately the Euro, and finally the demise of communism in Europe led to the establishment of a common foreign and security policy paving way for the widest enlargement EU members into the Union’s integration.

將一個雄心勃勃的想法貫穿始終,可以鞏固和驗證歐盟的一體化模式,尤其是在應對危機的歷史記錄中。在動蕩面前,合作的有效性受到了考驗,在歐盟模式的這種回應下,這種一體化一次又一次證明,在危機中,它做出了驚人的回應,并建立了消除重復失敗的機制。帶來杠桿逆境的危機,即1954年歐洲共同體計劃的失敗,導致了歐洲經濟共同體(EEC)的成立,1965年的空椅子危機導致了合格多數投票的事實接受,反映了協商一致的方法QMV,并最終被接受,導致1986年的《單一歐洲法案》。20世紀80年代的一場貨幣危機催生了歐洲貨幣體系,最終催生了歐元,最后,共產主義在歐洲的消亡導致了共同的外交和安全政策的確立,為歐盟成員國最廣泛地加入歐盟鋪平了道路。

In retrospect, there were many requirements that had to be met for numerous nation states to come together in unison linked by interests. Requirements that places the Association of Southeast Asian Nations to the test in its own integration. The process of the European integration may have had the head start and set an example to other regions for the strive for regionalism but the European Union isn’t without flaws, flaws that once examined may unveil why the Western model is ill suited for ASEAN. The European Union has been the most developed model of regional integration, although historically through common institutions and the sharing of sovereignty for problem solving, recent crises haven’t been handled well. Shaken by an economic and financial crisis, and the lack of a timely and coherent response to the Eurozone crisis called into question the integrity of the union and increased doubts of the integration process altogether. The financial crisis revealed structural and institutional fault lines which led to a decline of the Western orientated world power into one that gave rise to Asia and its market power. Mechanisms in place that aimed to reverse or buffer the effects of the economic and financial crisis were economic adjustments or austerity measures but came off as threatening towards domestic affairs. The adjustments allowed for the fragility of political cohesion and stability; the Lisbon Treaty, also known as the Reform Treaty, that replaced the European Constitution. One of major changes of the Lisbon Treaty will be the new president of the European council with two and half year term which will replace the current presidency rotating between member states every six months. Although the Lisbon Treaty sought a reform that would restructure leadership, it paved way for a failure that would undermine the integrity of the shared collective that the European union herald greatly. The obstacle that the Lisbon Treaty faced was that Ireland placed the Lisbon Treaty on referendum, and the Irish public did not accept the Treaty and rejected its ratification. With this wave of doubt in the ratification, the Czech Senate voted for the Lisbon but lacked the signatory approval of the Czech president, without such proved his Euro-Skeptic attitudes towards it sand fueled a demonstration of the Czech public who shared disapproval of this Treaty. With this apparent failure convinced the interests to stray away from any further institutional changes, “More Europe, no more.” This example explores that a regional restricting that a shared collective no longer spreads the region evenly, the region’s interest has slowly diminished and national interests have overtaken decisions made in this Union. Evident of this change of heart is Germany’s shift in perception, as one of the strongest advocate and champ of integration, Germany leaned towards the skeptic camp as well as issuing public doubts of the Eurozone.

回顧過去,許多民族國家必須滿足許多要求,才能因利益而團結一致。要求東南亞國家聯盟在其自身的一體化中經受考驗。歐洲一體化進程可能已經取得了先機,并為其他地區爭取區域主義樹立了榜樣,但歐盟并非沒有缺陷,一旦被審查,可能會揭示為什么西方模式不適合東盟。歐盟一直是最發達的區域一體化模式,盡管從歷史上看,通過共同機構和分享主權來解決問題,但最近的危機并沒有得到很好的處理。由于受到經濟和金融危機的沖擊,以及對歐元區危機缺乏及時和一致的反應,歐盟的完整性受到了質疑,一體化進程也受到了越來越多的質疑。金融危機揭示了結構性和制度性的斷層,導致西方主導的世界大國衰落為亞洲及其市場力量的崛起。旨在扭轉或緩沖經濟和金融危機影響的現有機制是經濟調整或緊縮措施,但對國內事務造成威脅。這些調整導致了政治凝聚力和穩定的脆弱性;里斯本條約,又稱改革條約,取代了歐洲憲法?!独锼贡緱l約》的主要變化之一將是歐洲理事會的新主席,任期兩年半,將取代成員國每六個月輪值一次的現任主席。盡管《里斯本條約》尋求一項改革,以重組領導層,但它為失敗鋪平了道路,這將破壞歐盟大力倡導的共同集體的完整性?!独锼贡緱l約》面臨的障礙是,愛爾蘭將《里斯班條約》置于公投,愛爾蘭公眾不接受該條約,拒絕批準該條約。隨著這一波對批準的質疑,捷克參議院投票支持《里斯本條約》,但沒有得到捷克總統的簽字批準,這也證明了他對該條約的歐洲懷疑態度,并助長了捷克公眾對該條約表示反對的示威。由于這一明顯的失敗說服了利益集團遠離任何進一步的制度變革,“更多的歐洲,不再有?!边@個例子探討了一個地區性的限制,即一個共同的集體不再在該地區均勻分布,該地區的利益慢慢減少,國家利益已經超越了在這個聯盟中做出的決定。這種轉變的明顯表現是德國觀念的轉變,作為一體化的最有力倡導者和倡導者之一,德國傾向于持懷疑態度的陣營,并公開質疑歐元區。

The growing urgency rising from the problems of the European Union is that rapid integration without commensurate strengthening of political and economic institutions. The emerging gaps can allow for lessons to be learned by other regional groupings in terms of institutional capacity and necessary coordination in integration. The challenges that follows of the EU integration can be accredited to fiscal coordination, amidst a worsening of economic outlook the reform adjustments to cleanse the financial system with austerity measures led to fragility of economies of EU member states like Greece, Spain, Portugal and renewed speculation in the financial market.  The second challenge that the European Union faces is a long-standing identity crisis, the Eurozone with 16 members, European Union members allotting at 27 issues a high number heterogeneity.  The attachment of European capital to national sovereignty and its reluctance to give power to Brussels for decision making lends to a decrease in the willingness to share sovereignty. On a recent note, at the Copenhagen climate change conference in December 2009, the EU inability to collectively voice at the conference revealed the Union’s weakness as an international actor. The conclusion of the conference ended with the EU agreeing to a deal that leaders of the region agreed that “no deal would have been a better deal”, endorsing a deal with no legal bindings, and an informal setting of promises to curb emissions speaks volumes on EU being unable to assert itself at the most critical juncture on the world stage and stains the legacy of its integration and its ability to conform to differences and shared sovereignty in the region. If the deal wasn’t endorsed, it would have rallied a collective of voices who share the sentiment that such a deal would make no changes to the environment. The European Union in many of its successes poses numerous present-day challenges that undermine the achievements of this regional integration, its inability to respond to difficulties of a financial crisis and the burdening increase of doubt spreading throughout the region on the crumble of an aligned collective interest.

由于歐洲聯盟的問題,日益緊迫的是,在沒有相應加強政治和經濟體制的情況下,迅速實現一體化。新出現的差距可以讓其他區域集團在體制能力和必要的一體化協調方面吸取經驗教訓。歐盟一體化所帶來的挑戰可以歸結為財政協調,在經濟前景惡化的情況下,通過緊縮措施凈化金融體系的改革調整導致希臘、西班牙、葡萄牙等歐盟成員國經濟脆弱,金融市場重新出現投機行為。歐盟面臨的第二個挑戰是一場長期存在的身份危機,歐元區有16個成員國,歐盟成員國分配了27個問題,數量差異很大。歐洲資本對國家主權的依附及其不愿將決策權交給布魯塞爾,導致分享主權的意愿下降。最近,在2009年12月的哥本哈根氣候變化會議上,歐盟無法在會議上集體發言,這暴露了歐盟作為國際行動者的弱點。會議結束時,歐盟同意達成一項協議,該地區領導人同意“沒有任何協議會是更好的協議”,贊同一項沒有法律約束力的協議,非正式的減排承諾表明,歐盟無法在世界舞臺上最關鍵的時刻表明自己的立場,并玷污了其一體化的遺產,以及其順應該地區分歧和共同主權的能力。如果這項協議沒有得到認可,它將聚集一批聲音,他們都認為這樣的協議不會改變環境。歐洲聯盟在其許多成功中構成了當今的許多挑戰,這些挑戰破壞了這一區域一體化的成就,它無力應對金融危機的困難,并使整個區域對一致的集體利益的崩潰產生了越來越多的懷疑。

The Asian counterpart to the European Union is the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, also known as ASEAN. When foreign ministers from Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore came together to sign the Bangkok Declaration on August 8th, 1976 it established this newly founded association, in hopes to manage and contain intra-regional conflicts. The Association grew to ten members with the additional Singapore, Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam. The goal extended to maintaining peace, and bringing stability in a community marred by war to ensure that each member is free to pursue domestic development in their respective nations. The success of ASEAN was the ability to house a community of nations whom were independent and sovereign with different historical pasts, multitudes in diversity of languages and beliefs and rarely any overlap of culture to peacefully co-exist. Aspects of diversifying historical pasts, and intra-regional conflicts didn’t hinder the forging of the association, the ten Southeast Asian nations were able to overcome suspicions of one another and set aside latent hostilities.

歐洲聯盟的亞洲對應機構是東南亞國家聯盟,也稱為東盟。1976年8月8日,當泰國、印度尼西亞、馬來西亞、菲律賓和新加坡的外交部長齊聚一堂簽署《曼谷宣言》時,該協會成立了這個新成立的協會,希望管理和遏制地區內的沖突。該協會發展到十個成員,另外還有新加坡、文萊、柬埔寨、老撾和越南。目標延伸到維護和平,并在一個飽受戰爭蹂躪的社區中實現穩定,以確保每個成員都能自由地在各自國家追求國內發展。東盟的成功在于能夠容納一個擁有不同歷史背景、多種語言和信仰、很少有文化重疊的獨立主權國家共同體,從而和平共處。由于歷史歷史的多樣化和地區內的沖突并沒有阻礙該聯盟的建立,這十個東南亞國家得以克服彼此的猜疑,擱置了潛在的敵對行動。

ASEAN in its inception established a means of non-intervention and non-binding agreement, the inability to impose disciplines on any of its members. The approach to the ASEAN model is under the foundation of consultation and consensus which allows for a decision based on the majority before implementation. In attesting the ASEAN model, the process and approach to solving issues relies on the ‘ASEAN Way’ that reflects and respects cultural norms in Southeast Asia,

東盟在成立之初就確立了一種不干預和不具約束力的協議,即不能對其任何成員國施加紀律。東盟模式的做法是在協商和共識的基礎上進行的,協商和共識允許在實施之前根據多數作出決定。在證明東盟模式時,解決問題的過程和方法依賴于反映和尊重東南亞文化規范的“東盟方式”,

“A working process or style that is informal and personal. Policymakers constantly utilize compromise consensus, and consultation in the informal decision-making process. Quiet diplomacy allows ASEAN leaders to communicate without bringing the discussions into the public view.” (Masilamni and Peterson)

“一種非正式和個人的工作過程或風格。決策者在非正式決策過程中不斷利用妥協共識和協商。安靜的外交使東盟領導人能夠在不將討論帶入公眾視野的情況下進行溝通?!?/p>

ASEAN did indeed progress but without flaws and missteps of their own, this Asian collective failed to resemble the progress of the EU with historical pasts unreconciled and still damaging relationships between Southeast Asian members. For example, the dispute of the Preah Vihear Temple located in Cambodia standing as a World Heritage site, struggled to resolve with Thailand. The historical site stands on Cambodian sovereignty but was under Thai occupation until Cambodia’s independence in 1954. The UN has granted that Thailand remove military personnel as the site rightfully belongs to Cambodia, this territorial dispute has sparks major clashes between the border of the neighboring Southeast Asian countries. One settled by the United Nations through the International Court of Justice but stands as contention between Cambodia and Thailand. Reconciliation hasn’t been an agenda between the two over a 900-year-old Hindu temple.

東盟確實取得了進步,但沒有自身的缺陷和失誤,這一亞洲集體未能與歐盟的進步相提并論,歷史的過去無法調和,東南亞成員國之間的關系仍然受到破壞。例如,位于柬埔寨的柏威夏寺(Preah Vihear Temple)被列為世界遺產,與泰國之間的爭端難以解決。這座歷史遺址是柬埔寨的主權所在,但在1954年柬埔寨獨立之前一直處于泰國的占領之下。聯合國已批準泰國撤走軍事人員,因為這座遺址理應屬于柬埔寨,這場領土爭端引發了鄰國東南亞國家之間的重大沖突。聯合國通過國際法院解決了一個爭端,但這是柬埔寨和泰國之間的爭端。和解并不是兩人在一座900多年歷史的印度教寺廟中的議程。

Although there are territorial disputes, and misalignment in political institutions, ASEAN is by far the most advanced of cooperatives amongst the efforts to regional groupings, taking the EU not by emulation but by examples. The ability for ASEAN to adapt progress of the integration model of the EU into ASEAN applicable means plays homage to the ‘ASEAN way’ of doing things that are sometimes unorthodox and against the grain. An example of using the EU as an exemplar inspiration and not by example is regularly sending delegates to Brussels to seek ideas from the EU experience. In this admiration of inspiration of the ASEAN of the progress of the EU, displays elements that differ from the Asian Association to that of the European Union and how the Western model isn’t necessary applicable to befit the Asian. ASEAN establishes a strictly inter-governmental body, with no interest in or indication of relinquishing means to share sovereignty between the nation members, and additionally, for ASEAN to emulate the EU model would require the ASEAN members to prerequisite a certain set of requirements to progress into integration based the EU model. Requirements that predetermine that integration breeds mutual political will and shared beliefs in the success of the long-term goal of the high level of integration is historical reconciliation for ASEAN members. Reconciliation did not take place as the nations differed on many aspects for example…

盡管存在領土爭端和政治機構的錯位,但東盟是迄今為止區域集團努力中最先進的合作組織,以歐盟為榜樣而不是效仿。東盟能夠將歐盟一體化模式的進展納入東盟適用的手段,這是對“東盟方式”的致敬,這種方式有時是不正統的,而且是違反規則的。利用歐盟作為榜樣而不是以身作則的一個例子是定期派遣代表前往布魯塞爾,從歐盟的經驗中尋求想法。在這種對東盟對歐盟進步的鼓舞的欽佩中,展示了不同于亞洲聯盟和歐盟的元素,以及西方模式如何不必適用于亞洲人。東盟建立了一個嚴格的政府間機構,沒有興趣或跡象表明放棄在國家成員之間分享主權的手段,此外,為了東盟效仿歐盟模式,東盟成員國必須先滿足一定的要求,以推進基于歐盟模式的一體化。要求東盟成員國實現歷史和解,這一要求預先確定了一體化將孕育相互政治意愿和共同信念,以實現高度一體化的長期目標。和解沒有發生,因為各國在許多方面存在分歧,例如…

Without such reconciliation, the necessary political will and shared belief towards a long-standing goal of integration on the merits of shared sovereignty diminished which led to the operations and leader of ASEAN to be one of inter-governmental rather than through a common institution. Although ASEAN has made innumerable declarations to emulate the European Union integration model, their words of rhetoric reflected in their actions as unmatched with their words.

如果沒有這種和解,在共同主權的基礎上實現一體化這一長期目標的必要政治意愿和共同信念就會減弱,這導致東盟的運作和領導人成為一個政府間機構,而不是通過一個共同機構。盡管東盟已經發表了無數的宣言來效仿歐盟一體化模式,但他們的言辭在行動中體現得與他們的言詞不符。

The present ASEAN development process poses a challenge to the traditional Anglo-Saxon capitalist models as it contested the reformed rules-based system of global governance. The pressure that the EU and the EU places on ASEAN members regarding labor, social environment, and human rights if seen through as a success in pressure assimilation, actually presents itself as a disadvantaging stage in the development of the Asian model if implemented as the model itself is far beyond Western pressures to curb issues. The ideology of ASEAN itself embodied the ‘ASEAN Way’, a means of consultation and consensus, similar to that of the EU model but in the Eastern agenda, practiced non-interference with non-binding agreements to accompany decisions made and policies to follow. The problem with an open-ended agreement meant no enforcement to curb behaviors and the inability to impose disciplines, essentially heavy-hearted words with empty actions to fulfill promises.

當前的東盟發展進程對傳統的盎格魯撒克遜資本主義模式提出了挑戰,因為它對改革后的基于規則的全球治理體系提出了挑戰。歐盟和歐盟在勞工、社會環境和人權方面對東盟成員國施加的壓力,如果被視為壓力同化的成功,那么實際上,如果將其作為模式本身來實施,則會成為亞洲模式發展的不利階段,這遠超西方遏制問題的壓力。東盟本身的意識形態體現了“東盟之路”,這是一種協商和共識的手段,類似于歐盟模式,但在東方議程中,實踐了不干涉,并簽訂了不具約束力的協議,以伴隨所做的決定和所遵循的政策。開放式協議的問題意味著沒有強制措施來遏制行為,也意味著沒有能力實施紀律,基本上是言辭沉重,行動空洞,無法兌現承諾。

ASEAN’s point of enlargement on taking new members in 1997 introduced members of Myanmar and Laos with the expectation to solve and contain regional problems with Myanmar at the time housed a closed economy with a military regime as leadership, economic crisis and cross-border pollution. The trifecta of expectations created the illusion of integration with the confidence between members but instead exhibited loose inter-governmental cooperation. Myanmar’s triple threat posed a threat to an initiating cooperative of its region members but ASEAN overlooked this threat and extended the membership regardless.

1997年,東盟關于接納新成員國的擴大觀點引入了緬甸和老撾成員國,希望解決和遏制緬甸的地區問題,當時緬甸經濟處于封閉狀態,以軍事政權為主導,經濟危機和跨界污染。三種期望造成了成員之間相互信任的融合錯覺,但反而表現出松散的政府間合作。緬甸的三重威脅對其區域成員國發起的合作構成了威脅,但東盟忽視了這一威脅,不顧一切地延長了成員國資格。

“The incorporation of countries like Myanmar with its military regime and closed economy represented a new extreme in ASEAN’s diversity. This in itself would have tested the Association’s claim to deeper integration as ASEAN has not found a way to reconcile its breadth with its attempts to achieve a greater depth of integration” (Henderson 1999, 74-76).

“像緬甸這樣的國家與其軍事政權和封閉經濟的融合代表了東盟多樣性的一個新的極端。這本身將考驗東盟對更深層次一體化的主張,因為東盟尚未找到一種方法來調和其廣度與實現更大深度一體化的努力”。

The ‘ASEAN Way’ became a means to avoid rather than solve issues and conflict, the complementing of informal operations and non-binding agreements imposed no tangible means of success and integration. The ASEAN Way in this examination doesn’t pose as a threat to the integration of its members but rather examined through a behavioral lens of informality in actions that isn’t present in the European Union attributes, the lack of formal operations and behaviors may ill-fit the EU model.

“東盟之路”成為一種避免而不是解決問題和沖突的手段,對非正式行動和非約束性協議的補充并沒有強加任何成功和融合的具體手段。本次審查中的東盟方式并沒有對其成員國的一體化構成威脅,而是通過歐盟屬性中不存在的非正式行為的行為視角進行審查,缺乏正式運作和行為可能不符合歐盟模式。

The inceptions of the European Union juxtaposed with the later formation of ASEAN provides a historical overview on the ability in identifying commonalities and interests for the two groups of nations coming together as a collective. In their respective collectives, ASEAN and the EU share numerous elements that prove their successful integration, but having the EU being the ‘superior’ model lends the thought of the possibility to befit the Western model with the Eastern. With the two models explained and deciphered, we resume the suitability in befitting the EU model within the fixtures of the ASEAN structure. The two are known and documented as both eliciting economic integration and community building to both foster and maintain security as well as further economic development. The best description of ASEAN’s use of the existing EU model without imposition from the Union to befit guidelines would be “admiration, not emulation”, this pronounces volumes on the actions ASEAN have already undertaken from both the successes and failures of the European Union. The admiration and not emulation can be attributed to skepticisms especially with Brexit and the consequences of the post-event in addition to EU-style regional integration increases doubt on the validity of not the EU model but its emulated nature on ASEAN’s. ASEAN’s inability and latent behavior to reconcile historical past illustrates the initial step of ASEAN’s incapability in emulating the EU model. ASEAN has never been more unanimous on the need for greater integration, but the capacity to make the necessary domestic political and economic adjustments to implement the reforms that are necessary to achieve the goals and objectives of integration in uneven amongst the different ASEAN member states. The late former secretariat to ASEAN, Dr. Surin Pitsuwan, elaborated that the EU served as an inspiration for ASEAN but never a model. An inspiration to guide ASEAN rather than an imposed steer of how-to suggests a road heading to demise.

歐洲聯盟的理念與后來的東盟的形成相結合,提供了一個歷史概覽,說明了兩個國家集團作為一個集體在確定共同點和利益方面的能力。在各自的集體中,東盟和歐盟有許多共同的要素,證明了它們的成功融合,但歐盟是“優越”的模式,這就有可能使西方模式與東方模式相適應。通過對這兩個模型的解釋和破譯,我們恢復了在東盟結構固定框架內適合歐盟模式的適用性。眾所周知,這兩種做法都引發了經濟一體化和社區建設,以促進和維護安全以及進一步的經濟發展。東盟使用現有的歐盟模式,而不強加歐盟的指導方針,最好的描述是“欽佩,而不是效仿”,這表明東盟已經從歐盟的成功和失敗中采取了大量行動。欽佩而不是效仿可以歸因于懷疑,尤其是在英國脫歐的情況下,以及歐盟式的區域一體化所帶來的后果,增加了人們對歐盟模式有效性的懷疑,而不是對歐盟模式的效仿,而是對東盟的效仿。東盟在調和歷史過去方面的無能和潛在行為說明了東盟在模仿歐盟模式方面無能為力的最初一步。東盟從未像現在這樣一致認為需要更大的一體化,但有能力進行必要的國內政治和經濟調整,以實施必要的改革,從而在不同的東盟成員國之間實現一體化的目標和目的。已故的前東盟秘書處蘇林·皮蘇萬博士(Dr.Surin Pitsuwan)詳細闡述了歐盟對東盟的激勵作用,但從未成為典范。指導東盟的靈感,而不是強加的指導方針,意味著一條走向滅亡的道路。

Models in their generality suggest emulation but downplays learning, without learning it inhibits growth, change and innovation, emulation doesn’t produce lessons learned and nor does it generate dynamic innovators but rather passive mimics. ASEAN can adopt many aspects and successes of the European Union but merely as an inspiring element and not a full-fledged guide as the two entities differ in mannerisms, operations and behaviors in their procedures that hinder such transfer of mimicking. The ASEAN Way of operations is the mannerisms that prohibits such transfer of guidelines and procedural operations housed by the European Union, the Qualified Majority Vote suggests a similarity in the consensus approach but the backroom conferences secluded from the public by ASEAN members suggests differently.

一般來說,模型建議模仿,但輕視學習,如果沒有學習,它會抑制增長、變革和創新,模仿不會產生經驗教訓,也不會產生動態創新者,而是被動模仿。東盟可以采納歐盟的許多方面和成功經驗,但這僅僅是一個鼓舞人心的元素,而不是一個完整的指南,因為這兩個實體在行為舉止、操作和程序行為方面存在差異,阻礙了模仿的轉移。東盟的運作方式是禁止歐盟轉移指導方針和程序運作的方式,合格多數投票表明了共識方法的相似性,但東盟成員國與公眾隔絕的幕后會議表明了不同的觀點。

Emulation creates subjective benchmarks which allows for no feasible alternatives to the dominant model, in the case ASEAN and EU, the imposition of EU onto ASEAN breeds a form of Eurocentrism. The imposition by the EU regardless of validity of model strikes a force by the West onto Asia which romances dominance, although the European Union exhibits soft power with inclinations on intrinsic values, there are other means of assertion rather than projected imposition. The imposed force from the West, although in good intent to improve and expand markets in the East, presents itself as a dominant force by the West to ‘handle’ the East. This imposition and emulation of the EU model would have viewed as the West to overtake the East, and with the current rise of China, Asian nation states wish not to look beyond the Pacific for inspiration let alone a steer from elsewhere.

模仿創造了主觀基準,這使得主導模式沒有可行的替代方案,在東盟和歐盟的情況下,將歐盟強加給東盟滋生了一種歐洲中心主義。歐盟不顧模式的有效性強加給了亞洲一股西方的力量,這股力量象征著主導地位,盡管歐盟表現出了傾向于內在價值觀的軟實力,但也有其他的主張手段,而不是預測的強加。來自西方的強加力量,雖然出于改善和擴大東方市場的良好意圖,但卻表現為西方“處理”東方的主導力量。這種對歐盟模式的強加和效仿將被視為西方超越東方,而隨著中國目前的崛起,亞洲國家不希望將目光投向太平洋以外的地區,更不希望從其他地方獲得靈感。

The necessities that ASEAN must take in order to inspiringly succeed like the European Union and not simply emulate it would be to learn from the Union’s failures and adapting it to ASEAN in a manner than preserves inter-governmental operations as well promote unifying political will in attaining a long-term goal of sustained integration. An investment that ASEAN can consider follow in the footsteps of the Union would be placing national government’s interests of achieving long term goal of regional integration by all member states above domestic priorities. The push for integration should be one that synchronizes the public as well as the government that It is in their vital national interest to integrate. These elements ‘borrow’ the attributes that the European Union succeeds on and adapts it to the ASEAN model, this inspiration proves key points for ASEAN to improve in its own integration but suggests that the EU model needs improvement in order to be applied. The learning of the crisis in Europe that threatens the European Union fuels the need for ASEAN to take inspiration from the EU model rather than at total replicating.

東盟必須從歐盟的失敗中吸取教訓,使其適應東盟,以保持政府間運作,并促進政治意愿的統一,以實現持續一體化的長期目標。東盟可以考慮仿效歐盟的做法進行投資,將國家政府實現所有成員國區域一體化長期目標的利益置于國內優先事項之上。推動一體化的努力應該是讓公眾和政府同步認識到一體化符合他們的國家利益。這些要素“借用”了歐盟成功的特點,并使其適應東盟模式,這一靈感證明了東盟在自身一體化方面的關鍵點,但表明歐盟模式需要改進才能應用。對威脅歐盟的歐洲危機的了解促使東盟需要從歐盟模式中汲取靈感,而不是完全復制。

The merits of the European Union serve as inspiration for ASEAN integration and not as a total guideline for the Southeast Asian collective, the missteps and struggles of the EU model provides learning points for ASEAN to improve and implement, the successes of overcome historical differences between regional members provides reflection that differences in Southeast Asia are still prominent. The EU model holistically ill-fits the ASEAN model by the diversifying approach by the two collectives, the evolved formality of operations by each differ considerably and the approach to crisis cements that each deal with struggles in differently. The European Union still stands as the most successful regional collective to integrate upon a common goal, this Union presents itself as an exemplary model of both trials and tribulations of nations integrating, one that ASEAN views admirably and inspired. Success takes many forms and there is no single paved way to achieve it, the European Union represents one road to success and its success speaks volumes that outweigh their struggles that on the world stage provides lessons for inspired regions to integrate. As for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, it is adamant that ASEAN will make its own Way in achieving a high level of integration one that doesn’t mimic the EU model but mirrors in its success.

Coursework范文提出歐盟的優點是對東盟一體化的鼓舞,而不是東南亞集體的總體指導,歐盟模式的失誤和斗爭為東盟提供了改進和實施的學習點,克服區域成員之間歷史差異的成功反映了東南亞的差異仍然突出。歐盟模式與東盟模式完全不符,因為這兩個集體采取了多樣化的方式,每個集體的運作方式都有很大的不同,而應對危機的方法也各不相同。歐洲聯盟仍然是為實現共同目標而一體化的最成功的區域集體,這個聯盟將自己視為各國一體化的考驗和磨難的典范,東盟對此表示欽佩和鼓舞。成功有多種形式,沒有一條平坦的道路可以實現,歐盟代表著一條通往成功的道路,它的成功比他們在世界舞臺上的斗爭更能說明問題,這為受鼓舞的地區提供了整合的經驗教訓。至于東南亞國家聯盟,它堅定不移地認為,東盟將在實現高度一體化方面走自己的路,這一路不會模仿歐盟模式,但會反映其成功。本站提供各國各專業Coursework寫作指導服務,如有需要可咨詢本平臺。


此論文免費


如果您有論文代寫需求,可以通過下面的方式聯系我們
點擊聯系客服
推薦內容
  • Coursework格式-R...

    Coursework格式范文哪里有?本文是一篇留學生Coursework格式范文,關于零售業課程的相關內容分析英國的零售業結構以及發展趨勢等相關問題,是一篇典型......

  • 黃金時代加勒比地區的英國海盜...

    由于加勒比地區復雜的殖民環境,英國在戰爭時期利用大量私掠船海盜,作為殖民地海域的重要武裝力量,彌補皇家海軍在該地區力量的不足。本文分三章討論黃金時代加勒比地區的......

  • 英國倫敦大學courewor...

    現在,我們的科學和技術的發展更是越來越快。而人們如何使用科學技術是關鍵。好的和壞的用戶需要自行決定??茖W和技術發展的利弊也由用戶來決定。...

  • The role of Wo...

    本Coursework主要介紹了中東地區婦女的地位,文中講到了婦女的地位低下,目前部分婦女開始為了她們的權利而進行斗爭。...

  • 墨爾本企業管理coursew...

    文章重點論述如何對公司的人力資源部做招聘及評估,并且從各個角度去進行一些投資數據分析,...

  • 指導Assessment-C...

    Details of Assessment Tasks:The assessment for this module is based on 100% cour......

扒开老师双腿猛进八喷水观看
<th id="njfjl"></th>
<span id="njfjl"><noframes id="njfjl">
<th id="njfjl"></th>
<span id="njfjl"><video id="njfjl"></video></span>
<strike id="njfjl"></strike>
<th id="njfjl"></th><th id="njfjl"></th>
<strike id="njfjl"><noframes id="njfjl"><strike id="njfjl"></strike>
<span id="njfjl"><noframes id="njfjl">