The thesis aims to assess the relations between China and ASEAN and their influence on regional stability and prosperity of ASEAN. The main focus of this thesis is the dynamics of trade relations, including the countries involvement in global value chains. The thesis covers trade in goods, services, cooperation in strategic areas and foreign direct investment.

京都大学 / 0048 / 新制・課程博士 / 博士(地域研究) / 甲第21904号 / 地博第250号 / 新制||地||92(附属図書館) / 京都大学大学院アジア・アフリカ地域研究研究科グローバル地域研究専攻 / (主査)教授 河野 泰之, 教授 藤倉 達郎, 教授 藤田 幸一, 教授 竹田 晋也 / 学位規則第4条第1項該当 / Doctor of Area Studies / Kyoto University / DGAM

As transnational crime has no regard to borders, competent authorities need to overcome the barriers the barriers of national jurisdictions and cooperate together. The UN and regional organisations, including the EU and ASEAN, have required States to criminalise transnational crime, including terrorism, and to implement effective measures to prevent, investigate, detect, prosecute and punish these offences. They have also required States to cooperate; cooperation being one of the key measures to ensure the effectiveness of States’ action.The regional level is considered to be the most effective to harmonise legislation as well as to adopt and implement mechanisms of cooperation for security purposes. However, the nature and level of cooperation vary a lot depending on the regional framework considered. In the EU, this cooperation has been legally framed and institutionalised as well as associated with harmonisation of Member States’ legislation. By contrast, cooperation remains much more informal in ASEAN and is not associated with harmonization of legislation. Despite its low level of integration, ASEAN plays an increasing role in the region by leading efforts to create a regional legal architecture. ASEAN is the most successful regional grouping in the “developing world” and has a particular approach vis-à-vis terrorism. Both regions have therefore a legitimate ground and purpose in learning from each other (comparative regionalism) and in working together (interregionalism) in order to ensure – up to the capacities of each regions – the best response to terrorism.The differences between the two regions are due to various factors, among which the unalike degree of trust between their respective Member States and their capacity to cooperate. Despite its absence in the constitutional treaties, “mutual trust” is a concept constantly used in the AFSJ, especially when police and judicial cooperation is at stake. Whereas its precise status, nature and consequences is still debated, mutual trust seems to have reached an institutional level and to have been transformed into legal expectations in the EU. By contrast, although trust is repeated in ASEAN declarations and objectives, it is less visible in practice between ASEAN Member States. Mutual trust is a fundamental yardstick in developing cooperation mechanisms. The highest the confidence in each other’s systems is, the more efficient the cooperation. Mutual trust serves to build bridges between national jurisdictions. In the EU, such mutual trust is based on common values and norms and implies the development of common minimum standards in the field including human rights norms. It rests of course also on other factors such as mutual understanding of the threat and each other’s particular legislation.The compared regional analysis will highlight notable discrepancies in each region’s approach. The EU has gone through a tremendous institutional evolution by communitarising the AFSJ. The EU has adopted norms to facilitate cooperation based on common standards and mutual trust. With the numerous types of cooperation mechanisms, the EU adopted a two-fold objective, namely facilitating the cross-border cooperation and harmonising the HR standards. By contrast, ASEAN is still governed by the so-called ‘ASEAN Way’ based on consultation and consensus rather than on bargaining and give-and-take leading to deals enforceable in a court of law; on non-institutionalised processes; and on practice-based rules. These differences involve a clear lack of trust between Member States. This method is slowly and partially shifting towards a more institutional and rules-based approach. This comparative analysis will allow to conclude on the convergences and differences in the conditions and level of trust in each of the two regions in the field of terrorism and on their impact on the level of cooperation.Based on this comparison, interregional challenges and prospects will be focused on. The EU has adopted a comprehensive approach combining human rights and security measures. Preserving such a balance when interacting with external actors is a serious challenge, especially when States tend to privilege security measures. The EU must adapt its objectives, priorities and means to the particularities of ASEAN while respecting its own standards. In this regard, mutual trust is an important factor in developing interregional collaboration. Since 1972, the EU developed economic ties with different ASEAN Member States and with the ASEAN Secretariat itself. Both regions have increasingly engaged in an interregional dialogue on different issues of interest, including terrorism. Here again, the criteria/conditions and the level of mutual trust developed between the two regions will be examined. / Doctorat en Sciences juridiques / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

In August 2017, the Myanmar military initiated what the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights called a text-book example of ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya ethnic minority. In 2020, Myanmar is called to the International Court of Justice to answer to allegations of committed genocide. As the UN has failed to invoke the responsibility to protect, the world has turned to regional organizations as a prevention mechanism in mass atrocity prevention. The research objective of this study is to examine how Myanmar’s regional organization ASEAN has responded to the oppression of the Rohingya minority, as to explain why the atrocities targeting the Rohingya in Myanmar could not be prevented regionally and add to the research on mass atrocity prevention. This thesis is an abductive text analysis with an analytical framework based on Regional Security Complex Theory, which is used to investigate power relations within the region. This thesis argues that the reason the crisis could not be prevented by ASEAN was due to problems on the national, regional, and international levels. Myanmar’s disinterest in human rights, ASEAN’s norm of non-interference, and the international community’s interest in Myanmar’s rich resources all became obstacles in preventing the atrocity from happening. Since genocide prevention has failed several times since the UN’s genocide convention was adopted and entered into force, it is important to add more research to previous work to understand why mass atrocities continue to happen and how we could prevent these atrocities from happening again. The research looks at the Rohingya crisis to draw learnings that can be added to the research on mass atrocity prevention.

The area of ASEAN countries and the subsequent role of regionalisation were being analysed in this thesis whilst employing the HDI, mortality rate up to 5 years, life expectancy at birth, GDP per capita, unemployment rate, and FDI as the crucial indicators. The study aims to examine the ASEAN countries and its aggregation within both the economic and social spheres. A 10-year period (2006-2016) had been inquired so that the development of each indicator may be examined. And therefore, results of beta convergence could be displayed in a correlation diagrams. The convergence trend has mirrored in five indicators. The only indicator, however, to be diverging has been represented by the unemployment rate. The findings of beta convergence suggest that, in comparison with economic indicators, social indicators tend to converge in a more significant manner in the ASEAN countries.

京都大学 / 0048 / 新制・課程博士 / 博士(農学) / 甲第20771号 / 農博第2254号 / 新制||農||1055(附属図書館) / 学位論文||H29||N5091(農学部図書室) / 京都大学大学院農学研究科生物資源経済学専攻 / (主査)教授 梅津 千恵子, 教授 伊藤 順一, 准教授 浅見 淳之 / 学位規則第4条第1項該当 / Doctor of Agricultural Science / Kyoto University / DGAM

京都大学 / 新制・論文博士 / 博士(経済学) / 乙第13477号 / 論経博第409号 / 新制||経||301(附属図書館) / 一橋大学経済学研究科比較経済・地域開発専攻 / (主査)教授 神事 直人, 教授 宇南山 卓, 教授 西山 慶彦 / 学位規則第4条第2項該当 / Doctor of Economics / Kyoto University / DGAM

This thesis set out to ascertain the position of recent Australian Governments on the latest instalments of Asian regionalism in the context of an assessment of whether there has been a redefinition of Asia and thus a redefinition of Australia???s engagement with Asia. It will concentrate on the broad themes of politico-strategic and economic engagement. Whilst there has been extensive research and documentation on the Asian economic crisis there has been less work on the issue of a new Asian regionalism and the implications for Australia???s complex and variable engagement with the region. This is the basis for the claim to originality of this thesis, a claim supported by its focus on the practical and policy implications of Australia???s engagement, or lack of it, with regional institutions. The process of regional integration has been extremely slow, thus supporting the conclusion that there is no evidence of a major redefinition of Asia. Efforts at Asian regionalism are meeting obstacles that pose immense challenges. Asian regionalism remains nascent and poorly defined. This reflects the diversity and enormous disparities in cultures, political systems and the levels of economic development and differences over economic philosophies within East Asia. What is discernible is that the regionalism is proceeding more rapidly on financial issues than on trade, and in the security area it is conspicuously absent. This research highlights the fact that the question of Asian engagement remains a sensitive issue in Australia and continues to grow more complex. Australia???s engagement with Asia since 1996 has been variable because of the Howard Government???s broader balance of priorities between global and regional issues, and because of the changing nature of the Asian region. The perception gleaned from sources is that, for the Australian Government, regionalism initiatives are characterised by much discussion but lack substance. Consequently, this appears to have led the Government to the position that exclusion from some manifestations of regionalism is not so important. Australia is excluded from some of the regional architectures being constructed. In its efforts to seek inclusion in ASEAN + 3 and ASEM, Australia is facing the same barriers that have stood in the way of an AFTA-CER agreement. Exclusion would be important if the performance of regional groupings was not so indifferent. Exclusion from ASEAN + 3 and ASEM, however, does not equate to Australia???s exclusion from the region.

This thesis set out to ascertain the position of recent Australian Governments on the latest instalments of Asian regionalism in the context of an assessment of whether there has been a redefinition of Asia and thus a redefinition of Australia???s engagement with Asia. It will concentrate on the broad themes of politico-strategic and economic engagement. Whilst there has been extensive research and documentation on the Asian economic crisis there has been less work on the issue of a new Asian regionalism and the implications for Australia???s complex and variable engagement with the region. This is the basis for the claim to originality of this thesis, a claim supported by its focus on the practical and policy implications of Australia???s engagement, or lack of it, with regional institutions. The process of regional integration has been extremely slow, thus supporting the conclusion that there is no evidence of a major redefinition of Asia. Efforts at Asian regionalism are meeting obstacles that pose immense challenges. Asian regionalism remains nascent and poorly defined. This reflects the diversity and enormous disparities in cultures, political systems and the levels of economic development and differences over economic philosophies within East Asia. What is discernible is that the regionalism is proceeding more rapidly on financial issues than on trade, and in the security area it is conspicuously absent. This research highlights the fact that the question of Asian engagement remains a sensitive issue in Australia and continues to grow more complex. Australia???s engagement with Asia since 1996 has been variable because of the Howard Government???s broader balance of priorities between global and regional issues, and because of the changing nature of the Asian region. The perception gleaned from sources is that, for the Australian Government, regionalism initiatives are characterised by much discussion but lack substance. Consequently, this appears to have led the Government to the position that exclusion from some manifestations of regionalism is not so important. Australia is excluded from some of the regional architectures being constructed. In its efforts to seek inclusion in ASEAN + 3 and ASEM, Australia is facing the same barriers that have stood in the way of an AFTA-CER agreement. Exclusion would be important if the performance of regional groupings was not so indifferent. Exclusion from ASEAN + 3 and ASEM, however, does not equate to Australia???s exclusion from the region.

摘要 近十年來，北京已轉變它在東南亞區域的外交政策，希望與東盟成員國家能維持一定的良好關係，並發展出一個和平又互利的戰略夥伴關係。1997年到2012年之間，中國與東盟從建立對話機制開始，雙方實質上的經貿投資與聯合計畫都快速增長。從多方面顯示：不僅在政治、經濟與維持區域安全等方面，中國與東盟成員都已共享務實的合作成果，近來更大力拓展雙方的互連互通與交通基礎建設，期使共同邁向實質的中國－東盟戰略夥伴關係。 南中國海周邊各國的利害與衝突不一，是個複雜的區域；而中國與東盟成員之間的對話機制與合作關係的基礎上，有助於減緩此一緊張情勢。本報將採用文獻分析的定性研究方法告指出（實際上）（1）北京的東南亞外交政策正面臨的主要挑戰是有東盟以外國家新勢力的強力介入或是舊有勢力的急速恢復，進而互相抗衡。（2）中國被稱為有過分自信的政策規劃期間，北京在推動與東盟戰略夥伴關係，實際上中國與東盟成員關系都已共享務實的合作成果。 / Abstract China-ASEAN relations have been transformed over the last decade by Beijing’s aim to create a stable neighboring environment as outlined in its state policy of peaceful development. This relationship has been embodied in a series of joint plans and statements with ASEAN between 1997 and 2012. In the three areas of politics and security, economy, and connectivity and infrastructure, the paper will show the relationship has followed a similar pattern, that is cooperation has been deepened according to China’s aims for its relationship with Southeast Asia. While relations have continued to develop in these areas, constant focus on the issues of assertiveness and territorial disputes, particularly over the last 3 years, means that progress and development in the relationship often receives little attention. The South China Sea is a complex issue, however security-related dialogue between China and ASEAN member states will be shown to have mitigated this problem to a certain extent. The paper will show that the challenges to Beijing’s policy lies with countries from outside the sub-region and their return, or growing role in Southeast Asian affairs, and that in fact during the period when China has been labeled more ‘assertive’ its relationship with ASEAN has deepened and developed as planned. In its use of materials the paper will employ the qualitative research method of document analysis.