LESSONS AND CONCLUSIONS

To. CHARUMANI

(Thailand)

Post-graduate student of Saint Petersburg State University

Keywords: integration, Asia-Pacific region, free trade area, economic cooperation, South-East Asia, open regionalism, "soft" law

International economic integration can be considered a phenomenon against the background of a variety of forms and methods of integration. Thus, the theories of federalism and the interstate approach mainly study the political aspects and functionalism of integration. Communication theory and neo-functionalism assign a central role to socio-economic aspects in integration, while institutionalism analyzes the activities of supranational institutions in the integration process. A special place is occupied by economic integration theories that study the interaction of markets and economic operators.

When analyzing integration processes, it is necessary to take into account the interdependence and interdependence of all spheres of interaction of political actors (from individuals to states and supranational organizations). After all, political processes cannot be separated from economic development, and vice versa, the processes occurring in the economies of states directly determine their policies.

INTEGRATION FORMS AND MODELS

Based on this, at the present stage, we can talk about the presence of various forms and models of integration, depending on the sphere in which it occurs. Forms of integration interactions in the economic sphere have their own specifics. There is a fairly consistent step-by-step classification of these forms:

- Free Trade Area (FTA);

- Customs Union;

- Common market;

- Economic Union;

- Full economic integration.

This scheme is most consistent with the stages of development of European economic integration; however, in the modern world, not all integration associations are developing according to this scenario. The most popular of these forms in the Asia-Pacific region (APR) is the free trade zone. This form is popular and widespread here because the countries of a given region have different levels of economic development, and therefore, on the one hand, the most developed countries are interested in marketing their products and technologies, and on the other hand, the least developed countries are interested in obtaining products and marketing their raw material potential.

Real economic integration, i.e. effective interaction of economies, which increases labor productivity, increases the scale of production, and increases the volume of domestic and foreign trade, takes place primarily where there is an objective interest of economic operators and producers in the development of such processes. Otherwise, i.e., in the absence of such an interest, integration associations remain formal organizations that have neither political weight in the international arena, nor mechanisms of influence on their members. This situation is typical, in particular, for integration groups of developing countries, whose economic actors ' interests are formed under the influence of the centers of the world economy.

Due to the existence of numerous examples of formal integration associations in the world, not all experts agree with the criteria that usually classify forms of economic integration (from free trade zones to economic and monetary unions). Thus, the Russian researcher E. V. Skurko believes that the classification should be carried out according to the regulatory methods used by states in their foreign economic relations.

In particular, Skurko believes that "... due to the fact that most modern states mainly use two methods of regulating foreign trade activities, namely: the method of customs and tariff regulation and non-tariff regulation"¹.

In the case of customs and tariff regulation - a free trade zone; a customs union.

Under non-tariff regulation - the emergence of a common market as the goal of an integration association ².

It is known that within the framework of the common market, non-tariff barriers to the movement of goods are eliminated and a single market for services and labor is created, and with the integration of financial systems, a market for capital and financial movement is created. The above classification transforms the generally accepted classification of forms of economic integration according to other criteria. Although, in general, this approach is partly legitimate - after all, all types of generally recognized classification can only be seen in the example of the EU, and even then not in its pure form. In addition, European integration stands apart from other regional examples: political integration processes are much more complex here, the intertwining of economies is deeper, and the potential for further economic integration created by supranational organizations is much greater than in other regions of the world.

We are also interested in examples of non-European trade and economic integration, because it is outside of Europe that new organizational forms and models of integration interactions in the economic and political spheres may appear in our time.

WHY THE ASIA-Pacific REGION?

The Asia-Pacific region is unique because, on the one hand, the main participants in modern world political and economic relations are concentrated here, and on the other hand, the level of development of the states of the region is very different from each other.

In the Asia-Pacific region, integration processes at the regional level are of key importance for the global economic system, and, consequently, for the entire system of international relations, due to the fact that there is a huge potential for development both in the economy and in the political sphere, as well as in the field of security. As noted by the Russian researcher Ya. V. Leksyutina,"...The Asia-Pacific region is becoming not only the center of development of the global economy, world trade and politics, but also the forefront of strategic rivalry between great powers. " ³

Economic integration processes in the Asia-Pacific region reached a region-wide level in the late 1980s. The impetus for this was the desire of the countries of the Asia-Pacific region to cooperate in their economic development in the face of overt protectionism and discriminatory foreign economic policies of the EU and the United States in relation to their partners in the Asia-Pacific region, as well as their desire to integrate more fully into world economic relations ⁴.

Trends in the development of integration processes in the Asia-Pacific region are determined by two factors. First, this region is an arena for interaction between all key players in world politics. And, secondly, the Asia-Pacific region, like no other region, is characterized by huge differences in the levels of development and the degree of influence of actors.

These factors, together, affect the nature and forms of integration in the Asia-Pacific region. In our opinion, they determine the existence in the region of organizations as diverse in their structure as, for example, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum (APEC) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum (APEC) was established in 1989 and includes 21 countries (Australia, Brunei, Vietnam, Hong Kong (Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China), Canada, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea Chile, the Philippines, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Peru, the Russian Federation, Thailand, Taiwan, and the United States) is an intergovernmental consultative organization. One researcher evaluates the Forum as follows:"This organization could link together the disparate economic and political interests of various actors in the region."⁵. Today it is a platform for dialogue between all participants in international relations in the Asia-Pacific region.

The goals of APEC were officially defined in the Seoul Declaration adopted at the APEC Summit held in Seoul in the fall of 1991. These include: maintaining the economic growth of the region's countries, expanding mutual trade, and eliminating restrictions on the movement of goods, services, and capital between countries in accordance with WTO norms6. APEC has developed the following mechanisms for cooperation between its member countries and the implementation of its goals.

FIVE MAIN RULES

1. Cooperation only in the economic sphere: from the very beginning, APEC saw itself not as a politically cohesive grouping of countries, but as a free set of economies.

2. Almost complete absence of a special administrative apparatus: APEC is formed as a free consultative forum without any rigid organizational structure or large bureaucratic apparatus. The APEC Secretariat, located in Singapore, includes only 23 diplomats representing APEC member countries, as well as 20 locally hired employees. The main form of organizational activity of the Forum since 1993 has been the annual APEC Leaders ' summits, during which declarations are adopted summarizing the overall results of the Forum's activities for the year and determining the results of its activities.-

developing prospects for further activities.

3. Non-coercive, voluntary activities: APEC operates only through consultation and consensus-building. The main driving force is the positive examples of "neighbors" and the desire to follow them. APEC countries officially demonstrate their commitment to the principle of open regionalism, which is usually interpreted as the freedom of APEC members to choose specific mechanisms for trade liberalization.

4. Priority attention to information exchange: the main element of the APEC member countries ' interaction process is open information exchange. We can say that the immediate goal of this economic association is not so much a single economic space, but a single information space.

5. Abandoning rigid planning of the Forum's evolution prospects: the issue of creating the Asia-Pacific Economic Community as a free trade and investment zone was repeatedly raised at APEC conferences. However, the huge heterogeneity of the participating countries hinders the implementation of these plans. Therefore, at this stage, APEC is rather a discussion forum that has some features of an integration association.

According to the 1993 Blake Island Declaration, the main task of APEC is to develop common rules for trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific region, as well as: to promote the economic development of the region's states; to strengthen the multilateral trading system in the region; to remove obstacles to the free movement of goods, capital, services and labor in the region in accordance with WTO rules and regulations^..

The rules of trade and foreign economic relations created within the APEC framework provide a unique framework for the development of trade and economic integration in the region. In addition, the APEC Forum, despite its consultative nature, has a rather extensive structure, headed by the Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Forum's member countries.

A dialogue on specific forms and areas of cooperation is being conducted within the various bodies of the Forum, which also serve as a consultative platform. The Bogor Declaration adopted at the 2nd APEC Summit is a striking example of the APEC Forum's specific features.

Among all the provisions of this Declaration, the most significant is the provision on the expediency and readiness of the Forum member States to start working on the formation of a free trade zone. ⁸ This is direct evidence that the APEC Forum does not make binding or contractual decisions on economic convergence, but rather develops recommendations on the most effective methods for developing integration processes in the economy and in the socio-cultural sphere.

WHAT IS UNIQUE ABOUT THE FORUM?

If we consider the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum in the context of global integration processes, it is a unique phenomenon in the modern world economy and politics. Its uniqueness lies primarily in its unusual geographical location in the Pacific Ocean basin-after all, the Forum includes States located on four different continents. The second important factor that makes the forum unique is that APEC, along with others, includes countries that claim key roles in the global governance process - the United States, Russia, China, Japan, and some others.

Naturally, the coordination of their interests is not an easy task; therefore, at first glance, the modest goals proclaimed as priorities for the development of the organization are actually quite large-scale ⁹.

There are at least four such goals: creation of an open multilateral trading system; activation of liberalization trends in the Asia-Pacific region; intensification of interstate cooperation; as a result, a regional free trade and investment zone should be created no later than 2020.

According to Russian researchers N. A. Vasilyeva and M. L. Lagutina, the question is how the process of implementing these goals will proceed due to the main feature of APEC - the lack of specific mechanisms for implementing the decisions made. On the one hand, this format is very convenient, since it allows you to vary the activities within the organization depending on specific situations. But, on the other hand, the fact that the implementation of practical actions is within the competence of national state structures is a potential basis for changing the dynamics of development, which happened during the 2008 - 2009 economic crisis. ¹⁰

During this period, at first, trade tariffs between APEC member states significantly decreased. But then the transformation of national economic strategies began, which negatively affected the consistency of tariffs.

In this case, the weakness of APEC's governance mechanisms was reflected, which did not have any levers of pressure on states. That is why some researchers negatively assess the structure of APEC, noting that it " ... simply does not have certain functions. This state of affairs has disastrous consequences. The existence of this organization creates the illusion that something is being done, but in fact efforts to reach effective agreements are being "nullified" ... " ¹¹.

However, APEC is not an international organization in the traditional sense. This is the institute of an alternative form of governance.-

research institutes created by States for the purpose of forecasting global economic processes. This is why APEC members do not refer to themselves as "states", but as "economies"¹².

"SOFT" LAWS ARE ACCEPTABLE TO EVERYONE

One of the APEC governance mechanisms is the practice of adopting so - called "soft" laws, which have a number of advantages over ordinary legislative acts, in other words, "hard" laws. These advantages are as follows.

First, the "soft" law is a more flexible tool for coordinating the interests of APEC participants. It allows us to take into account their sometimes significantly different economic interests and adapt the concluded interstate agreements to changing circumstances.

Second, the practice of APEC's "soft" laws is best suited for cooperation between China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. The parties are not inclined to consider generally accepted rules of relations with partners whose economic sovereignty is not recognized, but may consider non-binding mutually beneficial measures. Thus, unrecognized States can also participate in the coordination and adoption of "soft" laws.

Third, "soft" laws take into account the participation of non-State structures in the governance process, which is only rarely possible in traditional legislative processes, where state bodies develop only mandatory norms of relations between countries.¹³

The APEC integration model development strategy is based on the policy of "open regionalism", which is based on the following four mandatory principles: the possibility of unilateral economic liberalization; reduction of trade barriers based on the most-favored-nation principle in relation to non-Forum member States; extension (on the basis of reciprocity) of regional liberalization to non-Forum member States; recognition of the role of the United States in the Each APEC member has the right to extend the results of regional liberalization to non-member States on the basis of reciprocity or on the basis of the most-favored-nation principle.¹⁴

As the Russian researcher A. A. Breslavets notes, "... the policy of 'open' or 'soft' regionalism is of particular interest for scientific analysis... <...> This definition is closely related to the term glocalization, which in modern political science is understood as the mutual conditioning and complementarity of global factors by regional ones and vice versa. " ¹⁵

Based on this, the features of Asian integration within the APEC model are, first, integration initiatives "from below"; second, "from below"...APEC includes economies of different levels of development, countries of different political systems and ideologies, cultures and civilizations, which allows us to consider this Organization primarily as a political one"; ¹⁶ and, finally, third, APEC unites a huge Pacific area, which-let's be fair - slows down the integration process somewhat.

The Forum's areas of activity are constantly expanding. Thus, if APEC initially began with a modest program of negotiations on the development of mutual trade, then already at the 3rd summit in Osaka (Japan) in November 1995, the countries of the Asia-Pacific trade and Economic Cooperation identified more than 10 priority areas of activity. These include cooperation on trade tariffs, international services, investment, standardization of goods and services, customs procedures, competition policy, dispute mediation, etc. ¹⁷

Further expansion of the organization's activities was demonstrated in October 2001 in Shanghai (China) during the 9th APEC Summit of Heads of State and Government. The main topic of the forum was the fight against international terrorism as a response to the events of September 2001 in the United States. A discussion on globalization processes and the efficient use of human resources was launched in Shanghai.

Today, APEC's field of activity also includes combating crisis phenomena, resolving territorial disputes in the region (for example, between the DPRK and the Republic of Korea), combating piracy, protecting the environment, countering climate change, etc.

NOT A BLOCK, BUT A UNION OF INTERESTED PARTIES

According to the author, the 17th summit in Singapore (2009) was a landmark stage in APEC's development. As a result, two important documents were adopted: the Final Declaration "Towards Sustainable Development and Strengthening regional Ties" ¹⁸ and the Statement "A New Growth Paradigm for a Unified Asia-Pacific Region in the 21st century" ¹⁹.

Based on the analysis of these documents, it can be argued that APEC contributes to the deep and comprehensive consolidation of the countries of the region. The Declaration states the desire of States to continue working together to strengthen the trend towards sustainable and balanced global economic growth and achieve prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region through the formation of a free and open trade system. In the Statement, APEC leaders advocate the creation of a new post-crisis model of economic integration in the Asia-Pacific region.

Operational efficiency

APEC's contribution to the development and consolidation of the Asia-Pacific region is one of the most discussed topics in the global expert community. Many believe that it is simply impossible to create a sustainable integration bloc due to the spread of the level of development of countries in the Asia-Pacific region. But we should not forget that the APEC Forum has never aimed at creating an integration association in the image and likeness of the European Union.

The main purpose of the Forum is to create a business-friendly atmosphere for business and investment as the main factor of economic growth in the region through the exchange of experience, information and recommendations.

The last APEC summit to date, the 25th APEC Summit, was held in Beijing in November 2014.Another summit is scheduled to be held in the Philippines in 2015. The main outcome of the 2014 summit was an agreement to start creating a free trade zone in the Asia-Pacific region. In addition, as stated in the final declaration, the APEC member countries during the meeting in Beijing agreed to curtail "protectionist and other restrictive measures against trade", and decided to support the "Internet economy" ²⁰.

* * *

Thus, summing up the analysis of the current development of integration in the Asia-Pacific region, it is necessary to highlight those features of the APEC model that make it possible to develop interaction between the economies of countries located on different continents and having different levels of development.

The functioning of the APEC Forum is, on the one hand, an important and already integral factor of economic cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region and the global economy, but on the other hand, the Forum does not have an institutional and legal basis for development, which creates certain difficulties in making its decisions binding.

At the same time, the Forum performs an important function - it is a place of dialogue and exchange of information, which would not be possible in such forms in normal interstate communication. A vivid example of this was the last summit in Beijing (2014), where the leaders of Russia and the United States met. In addition, the most important outcome of the last summit was the decision to start creating a free trade zone, the conditions for creating which have been discussed for many years.

As for the APEC integration model, it is based on the principle of "open regionalism "and the phenomenon of" soft " law. The APEC example demonstrates an alternative integration option (in comparison with the European model), where economic interests and integration goals are put at the forefront, and the integration process itself takes place not between nation states, but between national economies.

That is why Taiwan and Hong Kong are among the APEC participants, along with China. It is highly likely that in the future development of APEC, a key role will be played by the business structures that actually determine the construction of the APEC integration building.

^{Skurko E. V.} 1 Global and regional trade and economic integration: Effectiveness of legal regulation. St. Petersburg, 2004. P. 24. (Skurko E. V. 2004. Globalnaya i regionalnaya torgovo-ekonomicheskaya integratsia: effektivnost pravovogo regulirovaniya. SPb) (in Russian)

² Ibid.

^{3. Leksyutina Ya. V.} 3 APR as an advance stage of China-USA rivalry in the XXI century. 2014, N 7, с. 2. (Leksyutina Ya. V. 2014. ATR kаk avanstsena sopernichestva Kitaya i SSHA v XXI veke // Azia i Afrika segodnya. N 7) (in Russian)

^{Kostyunina G. M.} 4 Asia-Pacific Economic Integration, Moscow, 2002. P. 3. (Kostyunina G. M. 2002. Aziatsko-Tikhookeanskaya ekonomicheskaya integratsiya. M.) (in Russian)

^{Arin O.} 5 The Myth of the Asia-Pacific region / / Asia and Africa today. 1998. N 1 (Arin О. 1998. Mif ob Aziatsko-Tikhookeanskom tegione // Azia i Afrika segodnya. N 1) (in Russian)

⁶ Seoul Declaration, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 13 - 14 November 1996 - http://www.apec.org/apec/documents_reports/science_and_techno logy_ministerial_meetings/past_meetings.MedialibDownload.vl.html?u rl-/etc/medialib/apec_media_library/downloads/ministerial/sectoral/s _t/1996.Par.0002.File.v1.1

⁷ APEC Leaders Economic Vision Statement. 1993 -http://www.apec.org/apec/leaders__declarations/1993.html

⁸ Bogor Declaration - APEC Economic Leaders' Declaration of Common Resolve. 1994 - http://www.apec.org/Meeting-Papers/ Leaders-Declarations/1994/1994_aelm.aspx

⁹ Ibidem.

^{Vasilyeva N. A., Lagutina M. L.} 10 Global Eurasian Region: experience of theoretical understanding of socio-political integration. St. Petersburg, 2012. pp. 87-88. (Vasilieva N. A., Lagutina M. L. 2012.

Globalnyi evraziyskiy region: opyt teoreticheskogo osmysleniya sotsialno-politicheskoy integratsii. SPb) (in Russian)

¹¹ APEC - a pretty empty chatter. Four adjectives in search of a conclusion, 2007 // The Economist Online - http://www.economist.com/ node/9788478?story_id=9788478

^{Vasilyeva N. A., Lagutina M. L.} 12 Decree. op. P. 88.

^{Ostrovskaya E. Ya., Firsova I. S.} 13 The role of APEC in the development of economic cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region -http://www.hse.ru/data/2011/10/18/1218713003.pdf

^{Yuen Pau Woo.} 14 APEC After 10 Years: What's Left of "Open Regionalism"? / Trading Arrangements in the Pacific Rim. New York: Oceana publications Inc., 1999.

^{Breslavets A. A.} 15 The principle of open regionalism as a political basis for the Organization of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. Abstract of diss. ... Candidate of Political Science Khabarovsk, 2003 -http://www.dissercat.com/content/printsip-otkrytogo-regionalizma-kak-politicheskaya-osnov a-organizatsii-aziatsko-tikhookeansk

¹⁶ Ibid.

¹⁷ Results of the APEC Summit 1995 - http://apec2012.ru/content/?a" 324&s=168&p=1

¹⁸ Declaration on the results of the 17th APEC Economic Leaders 'Meeting" Towards Sustainable Development and Strengthening Regional Ties". November 15, 2009 - http://news.kremlin.ru/ref_notes/373

¹⁹ Singapore Statement of APEC Heads of State and Government "A new Growth paradigm for a Unified Asia-Pacific Region in the twenty-first century". November 15, 2009 - http://news.kremlin.ru/ ref_notes/374

²⁰ The APEC Summit in Beijing - 2014 is over, the participating countries agreed to develop the "Internet economy" and curtail protectionism measures - http://www.fontanka.ru/2014/11/11/195/

Permanent link to this publication: