At the core of this study there lays a paradigm that existing explanation of regionalism and inter-regionalism process neglect the essential, and arguably the most advanced level of it – the cognitive level of regionalism. The theoretical contribution of this study is the concept of “cognitive”/ conscious regionalism”. This dissertation argues that without that element, regional and inter-regional cooperation cannot be advanced and they remain shallow processes. This study argues that the gap between Asia and Europe is a cognitive one, rather than physical. The Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) has been facing severe criticism because of the low effectiveness of its governance. This dissertation explains the reason behind the limits of ASEM in looking into the deeper levels that determine the inter-regional cooperation: level of cognition of the actors involved. The research not only explains the limits but also identifies the contributions of the ASEM as a bridge between the regions and their peoples’. Creating the venue for interaction contributes to the realization and awakening of the perception of what is “Asia” and what is “Europe” in Asia-Europe Meeting. Incorporating cultural and intellectual agenda of cooperation and including the civil society into the process not only creates the mutual understanding and acquisition of exchanged knowledge but also to pluralization of actors involved in the inter-regional process. Both in terms of actors and of cultural factors of cooperation, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) plays the pivotal role in the ASEM process. The process of sustainable interaction shows institutional learning happening between ASEAN and ASEM that proves the idea of acquisition cognition through interaction also between institutions. This dissertation’s theoretical contribution is offering the concept of ‘cognitive regionalism’. Cognitive regionalism is explained and analyzed through ideas of awakening, acquisition and affiliation. The analysis is done on four levels of inter-regional, sub-regional, member government and civil society. The aspects included in these levels are: regional identity formation, institutional representation, member government’s commitment to ASEM process and civil society inclusiveness in “bottom-up” inter-regionalism. The empirical contribution of this research is in the richness of extensive interviews with various stakeholders including Track 1, 1½, 2 and 3 representatives from both across Asia and Europe. Methodology is a combination of interpretative, policy-tracing of official documents, official press releases and an essential participatory observation and field work. The originality of this study is twofold: (1) the comprehensive explanation of the role of culture, and norms in the inter-regional cooperation focusing on the third pillar of ASEM particularly and (2) taking the ASEAN’s perspective in analysis.

現階段國內對於澳洲與南太島國關係之研究較少，澳洲研究多著重在與美日及東南亞等國之關係，本論文目的即在透過新區域主義之觀點，探討澳洲的南太政策及其對該區域整合之影響。 在論述過程中，本論文廣泛從澳洲與南太島國在各領域之互動，如高層互訪、經貿交流、援外政策、國防合作以及在區域組織之互動來觀察南太地區共享價值與區域認同的形成，以分析並預測南太地區形成新區域主義的前景。 透過本論文之分析與論述，筆者認為，以澳洲積極參與南太區域組織及全力協助解決島國所遭遇之不同難題觀之（太平洋島國論壇、索羅門群島危機…等），澳洲對南太地區事務之介入日深，這當然也是基於澳洲自身的國家利益，然而在積極參與南太事務的同時，澳洲必需妥甚處理其與南太島國的關係，避免被貼上區域霸權或過度干預的標籤。 / Currently, most Australian studies in Taiwan are focused on Australian relations with the US, Japan and ASEAN instead of South Pacific countries. The purpose of this thesis is to analyze Australia’s South Pacific policies and their impacts on the regional integration through the viewpoint of neo-regionalism. This thesis looks at Australia’s relations with the Pacific countries in various fields such as high-level official visits, trade and business, foreign aid, defense cooperation and activities in the Pacific regional regimes to observe the formation of share values and regional identification in the region in order to analyze and predict the prospects of neo-regionalism in the South Pacific. This thesis finds that Australia is deeply involved in the South Pacific affairs by participating regional activities and helping to solve different problems in those island countries (PIF, Solomon Island Crisis…). Of course, national interest is Australia’s main concern. However, Australia has to deal with its relations with island countries very carefully while it’s involving in different regional affairs in order not to be considered as regional hegemon or over intervention.