2010, ISBN: 9783656215554

Seminar paper from the year 2010 in the subject Politics - International Politics - Topic: International Organisations, grade: 1,0, Arizona State University (School Of Politics And Global… Plus…

Seminar paper from the year 2010 in the subject Politics - International Politics - Topic: International Organisations, grade: 1,0, Arizona State University (School Of Politics And Global Studies), course: International Relations of Asia, language: English, abstract: In 2007, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) had its 40th anniversary and ratified in the same year its first annual charter which adjusted the organization's principles towards a more rule-based regional community (i.e. in the fields of political/security, economy and social-culture) with increased institutional instruments such as dispute settlements and international law discretionary (see below). Coincidently in the same year, one of the newest members of ASEAN, Myanmar, caused world-wide attention with its brutal crack down of a peaceful monk-led demonstration against the ruling military junta. While these two events happen to happen coincidently, it indicates the huge contradiction and paradoxical circumstances within ASEAN. Especially, since it was not the first time that Myanmar was the reason for internal disputes and anger over the behaviour of one of the organizations members. Moreover, the organisation embarrassed itself due to its inability to deal properly with the problem (see Haacke 2008 and McCarthy 2008). While many authors believe that ASEAN lacks institutional instruments to handle misbehaviour and international law violation by a member state (see Haacke 2003, Tay 1997 or Simon 2008), other author's see the member state's perception and own commitment to the organisation as lacking and thus unable to unify in order to establish a common consensus on the issue (see Haacke 2008, McCarthy 2008 or Wah 2007). While the underlying reason for an ASEAN analysis as a potential regional intergovernmental organization is manifested in the fact that ASEAN comprise a variety of regime types (from democracies to autocratic regimes) and cultures (Muslim, Protestant, Hindu) which dedicated themselves to a set of norms and rules (highly condensed compare to the UN), the problem of the organisation's range and institutional accoutrement remains a riddle for scholars. How can we analyse ASEAN from a theoretical perspective? Which IR theory offers the most conceiving arguments for the organisation's evolution and institutional setting? How does the Burma case challenge these institutional and norm settings within ASEAN? Is the organisation doomed to fail or can the Burma case expose positive assumptions about ASEAN's future? In the end, what can we theoretically conclude about ASEAN as an intergovernmental organisation? What can we predict for the ASEAN internal reforms which have been initiated? eBooks > Fremdsprachige eBooks > Englische eBooks > Sach- & Fachthemen > Wirtschaft , GRIN, Ferdinand Frisch, GRIN, and<

2012, ISBN: 9783656215554

Seminar paper from the year 2010 in the subject Politics - International Politics - Topic: International Organisations, grade: 1,0, Arizona State University (School Of Politics And Global… Plus…

Seminar paper from the year 2010 in the subject Politics - International Politics - Topic: International Organisations, grade: 1,0, Arizona State University (School Of Politics And Global Studies), course: International Relations of Asia, language: English, abstract: In 2007, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) had its 40th anniversary and ratified in the same year its first annual charter which adjusted the organization's principles towards a more rule-based regional community (i.e. in the fields of political/security, economy and social-culture) with increased institutional instruments such as dispute settlements and international law discretionary (see below). Coincidently in the same year, one of the newest members of ASEAN, Myanmar, caused world-wide attention with its brutal crack down of a peaceful monk-led demonstration against the ruling military junta. While these two events happen to happen coincidently, it indicates the huge contradiction and paradoxical circumstances within ASEAN. Especially, since it was not the first time that Myanmar was the reason for internal disputes and anger over the behaviour of one of the organizations members. Moreover, the organisation embarrassed itself due to its inability to deal properly with the problem (see Haacke 2008 and McCarthy 2008). While many authors believe that ASEAN lacks institutional instruments to handle misbehaviour and international law violation by a member state (see Haacke 2003, Tay 1997 or Simon 2008), other author's see the member state's perception and own commitment to the organisation as lacking and thus unable to unify in order to establish a common consensus on the issue (see Haacke 2008, McCarthy 2008 or Wah 2007). While the underlying reason for an ASEAN analysis as a potential regional intergovernmental organization is manifested in the fact that ASEAN comprise a variety of regime types (from democracies to autocratic regimes) and cultures (Muslim, Protestant, Hindu) which dedicated themselves to a set of norms and rules (highly condensed compare to the UN), the problem of the organisation's range and institutional accoutrement remains a riddle for scholars. How can we analyse ASEAN from a theoretical perspective? Which IR theory offers the most conceiving arguments for the organisation's evolution and institutional setting? How does the Burma case challenge these institutional and norm settings within ASEAN? Is the organisation doomed to fail or can the Burma case expose positive assumptions about ASEAN's future? In the end, what can we theoretically conclude about ASEAN as an intergovernmental organisation? What can we predict for the ASEAN internal reforms which have been initiated? eBook Ferdinand Frisch PDF, GRIN, 13.06.2012, GRIN, 2012<

2012, ISBN: 9783656215554

Seminar paper from the year 2010 in the subject Politics - International Politics - Topic: International Organisations, grade: 1,0, Arizona State University (School Of Politics And Global… Plus…

Seminar paper from the year 2010 in the subject Politics - International Politics - Topic: International Organisations, grade: 1,0, Arizona State University (School Of Politics And Global Studies), course: International Relations of Asia, language: English, abstract: In 2007, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) had its 40th anniversary and ratified in the same year its first annual charter which adjusted the organization's principles towards a more rule-based regional community (i.e. in the fields of political/security, economy and social-culture) with increased institutional instruments such as dispute settlements and international law discretionary (see below). Coincidently in the same year, one of the newest members of ASEAN, Myanmar, caused world-wide attention with its brutal crack down of a peaceful monk-led demonstration against the ruling military junta. While these two events happen to happen coincidently, it indicates the huge contradiction and paradoxical circumstances within ASEAN. Especially, since it was not the first time that Myanmar was the reason for internal disputes and anger over the behaviour of one of the organizations members. Moreover, the organisation embarrassed itself due to its inability to deal properly with the problem (see Haacke 2008 and McCarthy 2008). While many authors believe that ASEAN lacks institutional instruments to handle misbehaviour and international law violation by a member state (see Haacke 2003, Tay 1997 or Simon 2008), other author's see the member state's perception and own commitment to the organisation as lacking and thus unable to unify in order to establish a common consensus on the issue (see Haacke 2008, McCarthy 2008 or Wah 2007). While the underlying reason for an ASEAN analysis as a potential regional intergovernmental organization is manifested in the fact that ASEAN comprise a variety of regime types (from democracies to autocratic regimes) and cultures (Muslim, Protestant, Hindu) which dedicated themselves to a set of norms and rules (highly condensed compare to the UN), the problem of the organisation's range and institutional accoutrement remains a riddle for scholars. How can we analyse ASEAN from a theoretical perspective? Which IR theory offers the most conceiving arguments for the organisation's evolution and institutional setting? How does the Burma case challenge these institutional and norm settings within ASEAN? Is the organisation doomed to fail or can the Burma case expose positive assumptions about ASEAN's future? In the end, what can we theoretically conclude about ASEAN as an intergovernmental organisation? What can we predict for the ASEAN internal reforms which have been initiated? eBook Ferdinand Frisch PDF, GRIN, 01.06.2012, GRIN, 2012<

2012, ISBN: 9783656215554

Seminar paper from the year 2010 in the subject Politics - International Politics - Topic: International Organisations, grade: 1,0, Arizona State University (School Of Politics And Global… Plus…

Seminar paper from the year 2010 in the subject Politics - International Politics - Topic: International Organisations, grade: 1,0, Arizona State University (School Of Politics And Global Studies), course: International Relations of Asia, language: English, abstract: In 2007, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) had its 40th anniversary and ratified in the same year its first annual charter which adjusted the organization's principles towards a more rule-based regional community (i.e. in the fields of political/security, economy and social-culture) with increased institutional instruments such as dispute settlements and international law discretionary (see below). Coincidently in the same year, one of the newest members of ASEAN, Myanmar, caused world-wide attention with its brutal crack down of a peaceful monk-led demonstration against the ruling military junta. While these two events happen to happen coincidently, it indicates the huge contradiction and paradoxical circumstances within ASEAN. Especially, since it was not the first time that Myanmar was the reason for internal disputes and anger over the behaviour of one of the organizations members. Moreover, the organisation embarrassed itself due to its inability to deal properly with the problem (see Haacke 2008 and McCarthy 2008). While many authors believe that ASEAN lacks institutional instruments to handle misbehaviour and international law violation by a member state (see Haacke 2003, Tay 1997 or Simon 2008), other author's see the member state's perception and own commitment to the organisation as lacking and thus unable to unify in order to establish a common consensus on the issue (see Haacke 2008, McCarthy 2008 or Wah 2007). While the underlying reason for an ASEAN analysis as a potential regional intergovernmental organization is manifested in the fact that ASEAN comprise a variety of regime types (from democracies to autocratic regimes) and cultures (Muslim, Protestant, Hindu) which dedicated themselves to a set of norms and rules (highly condensed compare to the UN), the problem of the organisation's range and institutional accoutrement remains a riddle for scholars. How can we analyse ASEAN from a theoretical perspective? Which IR theory offers the most conceiving arguments for the organisation's evolution and institutional setting? How does the Burma case challenge these institutional and norm settings within ASEAN? Is the organisation doomed to fail or can the Burma case expose positive assumptions about ASEAN's future? In the end, what can we theoretically conclude about ASEAN as an intergovernmental organisation? What can we predict for the ASEAN internal reforms which have been initiated? eBook PDF, GRIN, 01.06.2012, GRIN, 2012<

2012, ISBN: 9783656215554

Seminar paper from the year 2010 in the subject Politics - International Politics - Topic: International Organisations, grade: 1,0, Arizona State University (School Of Politics And Global… Plus…

Seminar paper from the year 2010 in the subject Politics - International Politics - Topic: International Organisations, grade: 1,0, Arizona State University (School Of Politics And Global Studies), course: International Relations of Asia, language: English, abstract: In 2007, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) had its 40th anniversary and ratified in the same year its first annual charter which adjusted the organization's principles towards a more rule-based regional community (i.e. in the fields of political/security, economy and social-culture) with increased institutional instruments such as dispute settlements and international law discretionary (see below). Coincidently in the same year, one of the newest members of ASEAN, Myanmar, caused world-wide attention with its brutal crack down of a peaceful monk-led demonstration against the ruling military junta. While these two events happen to happen coincidently, it indicates the huge contradiction and paradoxical circumstances within ASEAN. Especially, since it was not the first time that Myanmar was the reason for internal disputes and anger over the behaviour of one of the organizations members. Moreover, the organisation embarrassed itself due to its inability to deal properly with the problem (see Haacke 2008 and McCarthy 2008). While many authors believe that ASEAN lacks institutional instruments to handle misbehaviour and international law violation by a member state (see Haacke 2003, Tay 1997 or Simon 2008), other author's see the member state's perception and own commitment to the organisation as lacking and thus unable to unify in order to establish a common consensus on the issue (see Haacke 2008, McCarthy 2008 or Wah 2007). While the underlying reason for an ASEAN analysis as a potential regional intergovernmental organization is manifested in the fact that ASEAN comprise a variety of regime types (from democracies to autocratic regimes) and cultures (Muslim, Protestant, Hindu) which dedicated themselves to a set of norms and rules (highly condensed compare to the UN), the problem of the organisation's range and institutional accoutrement remains a riddle for scholars. How can we analyse ASEAN from a theoretical perspective? Which IR theory offers the most conceiving arguments for the organisation's evolution and institutional setting? How does the Burma case challenge these institutional and norm settings within ASEAN? Is the organisation doomed to fail or can the Burma case expose positive assumptions about ASEAN's future? In the end, what can we theoretically conclude about ASEAN as an intergovernmental organisation? What can we predict for the ASEAN internal reforms which have been initiated? eBook 01.06.2012, GRIN, GRIN<