Regional management of the Bay of Bengal water area. The challenges of maritime security

The Bay of Bengal is the largest bay in the world that forms the northeastern part of the Indian Ocean, bordered mostly by the Eastern Coast of India, southern coast of Bangladesh and Sri Lanka to the west and Myanmar and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (part of India) to the east. The regional management of the Bay of Bengal water area is performed by regional organisations such as ASEAN, SAARC, BIMSTEC and IORA unifying Bay’s coastal states. Nevertheless, differences in political and economic interests of the states, separate conflicts between states and consequences of the pandemic not only challenged the integrity of the regional management but also led to rising insecurity of the Bay of Bengal and fears to navigate in that area. In this article, the authors, in a more detailed way, will disclose existing regional management systems, concerns related to maritime security and give recommendations on how to increase efficiency in collective management of maritime security issues and how the concept of due diligence may play the vital role in the regulation of not only maritime security aspects but also aspects of environmental protection and potential transition to the blue economy.

Resilience to crisis and resistance to change: a comparative analysis of the determinants of crisis outcomes in Latin American regional organisations

Latin American regionalism displays a long history of crises, which have affected almost all regional organisations (ROs) across different waves of regionalism. The article conducts the first comparative analysis of the outcomes of crises in Latin American ROs across time, tackling the following questions: What have been the outcomes of the crises faced by Latin American ROs? Under what conditions does a crisis result in the survival or breakdown of the affected RO in Latin America? We adopt a multi-method approach that combines QCA with process tracing to identify the causal pathways to the survival or breakdown of ROs across a universe of eight crises. The findings show that Latin American ROs have been resilient to crises, which resulted in RO survival in seven cases out of eight. The QCA reveals how the distributive nature of interstate conflicts and the availability of majority voting are both sufficient conditions for Latin American ROs to survive a crisis. Analysis of the outlier case of UNASUR shows that normative conflicts that take place in the absence of majority voting constitute a ‘perfect storm’ configuration that can lead to RO breakdown. The findings also show that Latin America ROs’ tendency to survive crises is associated with the preservation of the status quo in terms of institutional design, which in some cases is achieved through the temporary flexibilisation of existing rules. Differently from the case of the EU, then, the crises of Latin American ROs have not led to the deepening of regional integration, but rather to institutional inertia.

Pre-Eminent or Subordinate? An Organisational Environment Perspective on the EU’s Security Cooperation with asean and ecowas

Security cooperation with other regional organisations (ros) has long been a facet of EU foreign policy. The EU’s relationships with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (asean) and the Economic Community of West African States (ecowas) illustrate the variety of the EU’s engagement. In West Africa, the EU is a pre-eminent actor, occasionally dictating an agenda and marginalising ecowas. In Southeast Asia, the EU remains subordinate, facing an uphill battle for relevance in the security sphere and a closer relationship to asean. Prevailing explanations focus on the EU’s internal characteristics or bilateral cooperation dynamics, but fail to fully explain this discrepancy. Based on new interview information, this article argues that the organisational environment also affects the EU’s security cooperation with asean and ecowas. The presence of competitive environments limits the EU’s role in security cooperation and relegates it to a subordinate role. In the absence of competition, the EU is allowed to become pre-eminent.

Pacific Regionalism: Historical Anachronism, or Pathway to Future Development?

<p>This study looks at the relevance of regional organisations in the Pacific Island region. It analyses the history of the key regional organisations: the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) and the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS). Since their establishment, there has been extensive criticism of the work of these organisations. This study tests and analyses the issue of legitimacy within supra-national organisations, and questions whether regionalism in the Pacific is an anachronism of the past. In the Pacific, regionalism puts out a compelling argument for its existence. Throughout the region, small island developing states are spread across the world’s largest ocean. Pacific Island states face many challenges, including: small economies, geographical disadvantages, vulnerability to climate change, varying availability to resources and a diverse range of cultures and languages. Regionalism provides a chance for these island states to influence world policy, build capacity in the region, promote good governance, maintain peaceful neighbourly relations, and create positive development outcomes. The methodology uses qualitative research of document analysis and semi-structured interviews with key informants. The research claims a social constructivist epistemology and uses an inductive conceptual framework in order to find solutions to the complex challenges of Pacific regionalism. It was found that regional organisations need to increase their transparency in order to enhance their legitimacy. They need provide a clearer evidence base, where all Pacific people can recognise and understand the benefit of regional organisations. The organisations need to work strategically to be nimble and reactive to upcoming critical junctures and issues. Council of Regional Organisations in the Pacific (CROP) agencies need to coordinate better amongst themselves, open up communication with all stakeholders and create clearer mandates. In order to promote positive development, all stakeholders and Pacific people need to take ownership of these organisations, and support the Framework for Pacific Regionalism process. This study argues that there is great potential for regionalism in the Pacific, but this will only be possible if the region works collectively to enhance the legitimacy of these organisations.</p>

Pacific Regionalism: Historical Anachronism, or Pathway to Future Development?

<p>This study looks at the relevance of regional organisations in the Pacific Island region. It analyses the history of the key regional organisations: the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) and the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS). Since their establishment, there has been extensive criticism of the work of these organisations. This study tests and analyses the issue of legitimacy within supra-national organisations, and questions whether regionalism in the Pacific is an anachronism of the past. In the Pacific, regionalism puts out a compelling argument for its existence. Throughout the region, small island developing states are spread across the world’s largest ocean. Pacific Island states face many challenges, including: small economies, geographical disadvantages, vulnerability to climate change, varying availability to resources and a diverse range of cultures and languages. Regionalism provides a chance for these island states to influence world policy, build capacity in the region, promote good governance, maintain peaceful neighbourly relations, and create positive development outcomes. The methodology uses qualitative research of document analysis and semi-structured interviews with key informants. The research claims a social constructivist epistemology and uses an inductive conceptual framework in order to find solutions to the complex challenges of Pacific regionalism. It was found that regional organisations need to increase their transparency in order to enhance their legitimacy. They need provide a clearer evidence base, where all Pacific people can recognise and understand the benefit of regional organisations. The organisations need to work strategically to be nimble and reactive to upcoming critical junctures and issues. Council of Regional Organisations in the Pacific (CROP) agencies need to coordinate better amongst themselves, open up communication with all stakeholders and create clearer mandates. In order to promote positive development, all stakeholders and Pacific people need to take ownership of these organisations, and support the Framework for Pacific Regionalism process. This study argues that there is great potential for regionalism in the Pacific, but this will only be possible if the region works collectively to enhance the legitimacy of these organisations.</p>

Marine protected areas in the north east Atlantic Ocean and Southern Ocean : the role of regional organisations in areas beyond national jurisdiction

<p>The international community has recognised Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) as an important tool for area-based management of ecosystems. Regional organisations have taken the lead in areas beyond national jurisdiction to create MPAs. This paper will compare the issues facing the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) and the relevant Antarctic Treaty bodies in the Southern Ocean, to the North-East Atlantic Ocean where the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) and the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) are the lead bodies. Many of the issues that face each region in designating MPAs differ due to geopolitical differences; resulting in the North-East Atlantic producing more success in designating a network of MPAs. The North-East Atlantic organisations, however, face more difficulties to ensure the comprehensive management of MPAs. As CCAMLR and the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty sit within the Antarctic Treaty System, the potential exists for a better integrated management framework in the Southern Ocean. The themes from both regions will then be put into a wider global context to provide some guidance and identify issues for other regional organisations seeking to establish MPAs in ABNJ.</p>

Marine protected areas in the north east Atlantic Ocean and Southern Ocean : the role of regional organisations in areas beyond national jurisdiction

<p>The international community has recognised Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) as an important tool for area-based management of ecosystems. Regional organisations have taken the lead in areas beyond national jurisdiction to create MPAs. This paper will compare the issues facing the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) and the relevant Antarctic Treaty bodies in the Southern Ocean, to the North-East Atlantic Ocean where the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) and the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) are the lead bodies. Many of the issues that face each region in designating MPAs differ due to geopolitical differences; resulting in the North-East Atlantic producing more success in designating a network of MPAs. The North-East Atlantic organisations, however, face more difficulties to ensure the comprehensive management of MPAs. As CCAMLR and the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty sit within the Antarctic Treaty System, the potential exists for a better integrated management framework in the Southern Ocean. The themes from both regions will then be put into a wider global context to provide some guidance and identify issues for other regional organisations seeking to establish MPAs in ABNJ.</p>