The thesis analyzes trade relations between the European Union and Asian countries. The work includes the characteristics of trade in goods and briefly deals also with foreign direct investments and trade in services. The thesis describes the contractual basis for the mutual relations and estimate their future development.

The main objective of our doctoral thesis is to evaluate the role of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) and its political, economic and socio-cultural pillars as a political process in interregional (multilevel) governance in Eurasian relations. We have conducted a unique case study that is based on a holistic qualitative interpretation by means of a postpositivist perspective and discourse analysis. Given the transitional and multidimensional nature of interregionalism as a political process, we are applying the (neo)realist balancing with elements of (neo)liberal multilateralism and social constructivism as the basic theoretical approach. Based on this structure, we have come to the conclusion that (1) ASEM as an interregional policy framework is too flexible (in terms of its scope and agenda-setting) and too inclusive (in terms of its enlargement). (2) Given the inability of ASEM to actively respond to various challenges and to implement properly its policies through its currently available instruments, this Eurasian interregional process cannot be regarded as a fully-fledged contribution the global (multilevel) governance. (3) Therefore interregionalism as part of the ASEM process will not lead to a creation of an "Eurasian Century", despite the undeniable need to identify corresponding supranational political regimes that will efficiently promote a balance of power between Europe, Asia and America. (4) Interregionalism as a political approach cannot be demoted to a loose and informal interaction of nation states or regions only because the current challenges in international relations require an organized and results-oriented framework for cooperation. (5) Additionally, the existing bilateral relations between individual countries in Asia and Europe will continue to be the key and most efficient form of solving various issues and challenges between the states.

Ústředním tématem diplomové práce je analýza role Austrálie a Nového Zélandu v rozvoji vztahů mezi regionem asijského Tichomoří a Evropskou unií. Výsledkem zkoumání dosavadního vývoje a rozvoje vztahů mezi Austrálií, Novým Zélandem a EU je posouzení možnosti využití těchto vztahů pro posílení pozice Evropské unie v asijském Tichomoří. Diplomová práce se dále zabývá integračními seskupeními regionu asijského Tichomoří (ASEAN, APEC, ASEM) a na pozici Austrálie, Nového Zélandu a EU v těchto uskupeních. Austrálie a Nový Zéland lze považovat za budoucí most spojující EU a asijské Tichomoří pouze v případě, že spolupráce mezi Austřálií, Novým Zélandem a EU bude posílena a bude pro ní stanoven hmotnější rámec. Pro toto posílení je nezbytná reforma společné zemědělské politiky EU, jelikož obchod zemědělskými produkty je podstatným tématem téměř všech jednání mezi EU a těmito zeměmi.

Writing a thesis is like writing a story book, this book is a story of the 17-year-old Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM). It serves as a case-study of inter-regionalism, one of the newest cooperative mechanism in today’s international arena. Among a variety of cooperative frameworks, namely, multilateral global governance, effective multilateralism, regionalism, regionalisation, inter-regionalism is much less explored. This research determines how the rise of inter-regionalism influences the actors in the international arena and vice-versa. The key actors in inter-regionalism and their interaction are explored. Existing studies in the field of inter-regionalism in general and on the ASEM process in particular have been theory-led. There is a significant deficit of empirically-driven research in the field. In order to comprehensively understand inter-regionalism and the ASEM process, this research incorporates a substantial empirical focus. An unprecedented array of primary data is used. A variety of quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis methods are employed to generate this unique and comprehensive empirical analysis of ASEM. Ultimately, this thesis demonstrates the persistent state-centrism and lack of actorness of regions and regional organisations as independent actors in the ASEM process. Nation-state remains the primary actor in inter-regionalism; yet, they turn to bilateralism when more concrete cooperation or affairs have to be handled. The proliferation of sideline meetings, although as by-product, becomes one of ASEM’s key added-value to international relations. The empirical analysis also finds that inter-regional fora like ASEM offer participants regular information and views updates and promote socialisation among government officials in the official track and among the involved individual from civil society in the unofficial track.

The presented study is an analysis of the regional integration process of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations ASEAN utilizing theories of international relations and integration. The dissertation studies the factors which contributed to its formation, evolution and transformation and the perspectives of its further development. ASEAN was established by virtue of Bangkok Declaration signed on August 8, 1967 among Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. Subsequently Brunei joined the Association in 1984, Vietnam 1995, Laos and Myanmar 1997 and Cambodia 1999. ASEAN's formation falls within the process of creating of regional organizations after World War II, a period of the biggest development of the institutionalization of the international cooperation. Association was based on relatively free and voluntary cooperation and political declarations. With the end of Cold War and bipolarity, with the defeat of communism and the advent of political and economic reforms in the former socialist bloc ASEAN institutionally strengthened and transformed itself, expanded its membership and the decision to form ASEAN Free Trade Area AFTA in 1992 and the Treaty on the Common Effective Preferential Tariffs shifted Association from the stage of cooperation to integration. ASEAN becomes an international organization (based on international legal agreement with the objectives, principles, internal structure etc.) through the adoption of the Charter in 2008. The Charter is the symbol of the transition process from voluntary cooperation based on political declarations to creation of an intergovernmental organization with international legal personality and legal contractual basis for community building, to strengthen the norms and principles. ASEAN has functioned over 40 years based on personal, very frequent and regular contacts between the key elites (who have significantly contributed to its creation and development), as a grouping of common practice and an emerging common identity. It is a form of intergovernmental cooperation, where member states have exclusive position in the decision process; there are no supranational institutions that would have exclusive powers. ASEAN is the initiator of the development of regionalism in Asia, a considerable number of international structures, inter-and trans-regional contacts, forums and programs. Its activities after the Cold War fall into the framework of the new regionalism The thesis tries to point out possible perspectives for its future path, especially in connection to recently born special cooperation ASEAN+3 (China, Republic of Korea, Japan) and plans for building of East Asian Community (ASEAN+3, Australia, New Zealand, India) and its Free Trade Area. Basic characteristics of ASEAN integration process: it takes place in Southeast Asia, it is a process and a state, it consists of economic, political, security, social and cultural part, the emphasis is on economic affairs, its origin is in the postwar period, the main actors are the states and their elites (from the 90's NGO's, think-tanks and civil society become active creating a broad network of socio-cultural relations and interactions), integration expands by the process of ASEAN +3 and EAS, there is a spillover effect within and outside ASEAN, integration process is gradually evolving from a lower to a higher level. Carried out research has its limitations, since it is impossible to generalize the results and formulate a clear assessment of the large international complex, the information is always limited and the social process is miscellaneous. Well-known is the fact that political elites do not act according to the theories, which they often do not know, but based on their own understanding of reality and interests of individual states, eventually groups of countries. No theory is able to explain fully the evolution of ASEAN, failing to capture reality in its full extent, and thus the prospects for the future are some speculations. From the theoretical examination of ASEAN I elect neofuncionalism, since ASEAN represents a process of empowerment, where elites play a crucial role; they share many values and objectives and contribute to the integration process. The rise of transactions in the regional grouping (trade, communication, exchange of ideas), gradually creates a sense of common identity, elites have closer contacts and their values are complementary. Southeast Asia should occupy an important place in the Czech Republic's foreign policy, taking advantage of traditional contacts with the region. Priority should be given to economic ties and active political involvement in the multilateral framework of ASEM, an important part of political dialogue should be question of human rights.

東南亞國家自十五世紀以來即置於歐洲列強統治之下。第二次世界大戰結束，同時對東南亞與歐洲之發展造成影響。東南亞各國於二次大戰期間，逐漸經由民族自覺形成區域主義，終於在一九六七年建立「東南亞國家協會」（ASEAN，以下簡稱東協）；歐洲各國則基於經濟合作之考量而逐步建立「歐洲共同體」（EC，以下簡稱歐體）。 經由東方歷史薰陶與村莊文化，尤其是馬來文化中協商討論與共識的影響，形成東協於國際組織中特殊之共識決外交政策，並以一致之立場反映於國際間。歐體發展較早且組織亦較東協成熟，惟各國基於本身利益之考量，對於國際議題往往意見相左，使歐體於國際間之團結程度反而不若東協。 一九七二年開始，東協與歐體雙方展開接觸，東協需要來自歐體之經貿優惠、技術轉讓、合作開發與政治支持，歐體則需要來自東協提供之原料與市場，雙方基於實際利益考量而進行合作是相當自然的，彼此於一九七八年正式展開部長級會議並於一九八零年簽訂合作協定。此後，雙方將合作範疇逐步擴大，並針對多項國際議題進行具體合作。 冷戰結束後，國際局勢有新的發展，東協與歐體皆有擴增，歐體進一步發展成「歐洲聯盟」（EU，以下簡稱歐盟），東協亦朝向十國組織邁進，彼此合作更為密切，亦促成兩次「亞歐高峰會」（ASEM）之召開。但雙方亦因緬甸之加入東協與東帝汶等人權議題產生歧見。 整體而言，東協對歐盟之政策係以彼此共識為基礎，以整體立場對歐盟尋求最大利益。展望未來，東協與歐盟之合作關係，將於現今基礎上繼續擴展其他包括安全面向之合作。 / Southeast Asia had been dominated by European Powers since 15thcntury until the second world war. After the second world war, thenewly independent states emerge in the southeast asia region, andASEAN was founded in 1967. ASEAN is famous of its decision-making process, well known as"common decision", every member's opinion must be heared by theothers, and "feelers technique" do help each other on understandingmutually. According to common interests, ASEAN and EC begin dialoguessince 1978, and signed an agreement on cooperation in 1980. As the Cold War ended in 1990s, ASEAN and EC both expandedthemselves, and under the urges of both sides, the ASEM was held inBangkok and London 1996 and 1998, to get mutual understandings andto promote the common interests for bothsides. The most difference between ASEAN and EC is the human rights issue,especially on Burma and East Timor. Fortunately, ASEAN and EC will intense their cooperativerelationship in the foreseenable future.

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.