Structuring accountability: non-governmental participation in the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM)
Gilson, Julie (2007) Structuring accountability: non-governmental participation in the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM). Working Paper. University of Warwick. Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation, Coventry.
WRAP_Gilson_wp23307.pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Official URL: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/csgr/research/wo...
This paper issues from a conference on ‘Civil Society and Accountable Global Governance’, organised by Jan Aart Scholte in May 2007. It examines the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) and the role of parallel summitry that has established itself on the margins of the official biennial gathering. Now comprising thirty five ‘cooperation partners’ from the regions of Europe and East Asia, ASEM summits, and the many other meetings in its name, focus on a host of issue areas for cooperation, from the further development of ICT to climate change and anti-terrorism. However, while business groups and trade unions are accommodated within the formal structures of ASEM, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are not. Nevertheless, the Asia-Europe People’s Forum (AEPF) has established itself alongside the summitry process, and the ways in which it has been able to influence government actions within ASEM to date have been contingent upon the particular structural conditions in which they have had to function. In demonstrating the tensions and opportunities inherent in the interregional space created by ASEM, this paper claims that accountability, itself a contested concept, is shaped by the structural frames of reference of agents, by their (power) relationships with one another and by both the internal and external mechanisms available to them to ensure accountability. As ASEM has yet to allow the formal inclusion of NGOs within its framework, claims and consultation to date have been conducted on the edges of the official track. In addition, the multitude of NGO types within the AEPF make it difficult to reach consensus and to organise difference. This difference also implicates and reinforces different levels of influence by NGO participants and highlights the fact that different NGOs may approach their remit quite differently. In addition, the ASEM process embeds an Asian versus European participation that is mirrored within AEPF, with the result that at times in the civil society realm, too, there is evidence to suggest that the structure can bring into conflict Asian versus European ways of doing business. Can accountability be ensured within structures whose modes may not be conducive to transparency and scrutiny? And what claims can the NGO community make for its own accountability? The conclusion examines whether the existing paradigm of civic engagement sets up an impossible hurdle for the establishment of open and accountable policy making behaviour within ASEM.
|Item Type:||Working or Discussion Paper (Working Paper)|
|Subjects:||J Political Science > JZ International relations|
|Divisions:||Faculty of Social Sciences > Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation|
|Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):||Asia-Europe Meeting, Non-governmental organizations, International cooperation, Interregionalism, Liability (Law)|
|Series Name:||Working papers (University of Warwick. Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation)|
|Publisher:||University of Warwick. Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation|
|Place of Publication:||Coventry|
|Number of Pages:||26|
|Status:||Not Peer Reviewed|
|Access rights to Published version:||Open Access|
|References:||Acharya, Amitav (2003)‘Democratisation and the prospects for participatory regionalism in Southeast Asia’, Third World Quarterly 24(2): 375–390. Bello, Walden (2000), ‘From Seattle to Seoul: The Struggle for a Deglobalized World’, ASEM 2000 People’s Forum Conference People’s Action and Solidarity Challenging Cohen, R. and Rai, S. M. (2000) ‘Global Social Movements. Towards a Cosmopolitan Politics’ in Cohen R. and Rai S. M. (ed.) Global Social Movements. New Jersey: The Athlone Press, pp. 1-17. Ebrahim, A. and E. Weisband, eds. 2007. Forging Global Accountabilities: Participation, Pluralism and Public Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Globalisation Seoul, Korea, 17-21 October. Edwards, M. and D. Hulme (1996) ‘Too Close for Comfort? The Impact of Official Aid on Non-Governmental Organizations’, World Development 24: 961-74. Farrington, J. and A. Bebbington (1993) Reluctant partners?: non-governmental organizations, the state and sustainable agricultural development London: Routledge. Fox, Jonathan ‘Civil Society and Political Accountability: Propositions for Discussion’, paper presented at: “Institutions, Accountability and Democratic Governance in Latin America” The Helen Kellogg Institute for International Studies University of Notre Dame May 8-9, 2000. Fisher, E. 2004. ‘The European Union in an Age of Accountability’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 24. Godsäter, Andréas (2006) ‘Civil society and SADC – Regional responses’, Paper delivered at the conference “Civil society and African regional integration: a Nordic research conference”, Centre for Comparative Integration Studies, Aalborg University, Denmark, 6-7 November. Grant, Ruth W. and Robert O. Keohane (2005) ‘Accountability and Abuses of Power in World Politics’, American Political Science Review 99(1). Grugel, Jean (2006) ‘Regionalist Governance and Transnational Collective Action in Latin America’, Economy and Society 35(2): 209-/231. Kaldor, Mary (2003) ‘Civil Society and Accountability’, Journal of Human Development 4(1): 5-23. Keck, M. and Sikkink, K. (1998) Activists beyond Borders , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Keohane, Robert O. (2002) ‘Global Governance and Democratic Accountability. Lecture, Miliband lecture, London School of Economics, Spring. Khagram, Sanjeev, James V. Riker, and Kathryn Sikkink, eds. 2002. Restructuring World Politics: Transnational Social Movements, Networks, and Norms. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Kim, Junki. ‘Accountability, Governance, and Non-Governmental Organizations: A Comparative Study of Twelve Asia-Pacific Nations’. The International Society for Third-Sector Research (ISTR) "Contesting Citizenship and Civil Society in a Divided World" Ryerson University and York University, Toronto, Canada July 11-14, 2004 http://www.istr.org/conferences/toronto/workingpapers/kim.junki.pdf. Lizee, PP (2000) Civil society and regional security: tensions and potentials in post-crisis Southeast Asia, Contemporary Southeast Asia, 22 (3), pp 551–570. Meyer, D. S. and Tarrow, S. (1998) ‘A Movement Society: Contentious Politics for a New Century’, in Meyer, D. and Tarrow, S. (ed.) The Social Movement Society, Maryland, USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Mittelman, James H. 2000. The Globalisation Syndrome: Transformation and Resistance. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Nye, J. S. (2001) "Globalization's Democratic Deficit: How to Make International Institutions More Accountable", Foreign Affairs 80(4 (July/August)), 2-6. O’Donnell, G. (1999) ‘Horizontal Accountability in New Democracies’, in Schedler, A. et al, The Self-Restraining State: Power and Accountability in New Democracies, Lynne Rienner, London. Riker, J. V. and Sikkink, K. (eds) (2002) Restructuring World Politics, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Rumford, Chris (2003) ‘European Civil Society or Transnational Social Space?: Conceptions of Society in Discourses of EU Citizenship, Governance and the Democratic Deficit’ European Journal of Social Theory 6(25): 25-43. Saguier, Marcelo I. (2004) “Convergence in the Making: Transnational Civil Society and the Free Trade Area of the Americas” CSGR Working Paper No. 137/04, June. Scholte, Jan Aart (2000) Globalization: A Critical Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Wapner, Paul (1995) ‘Politics Beyond the State, Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics.’ World Politics 47: 311-40.|
Actions (login required)