Regionalization Models in the Asia-Pacific Region

Regionalization Models in the Asia-Pacific Region

Arapova E.Ya.,

Director of Center of Sanction Policy Expertise, Leading Research Fellow, MGIMO University,

elibrary_id: 883854 | ORCID: 0000-0001-8765-9825 | RESEARCHER_ID: U-6969-2018

Khokhlova N.I.,

Head of Department, MGIMO University,

elibrary_id: 681876 | ORCID: 0000-0002-3470-3201 |

DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2020.05.05

For citation:

Arapova E.Ya., Khokhlova N.I. Regionalization Models in the Asia-Pacific Region. – Polis. Political Studies. 2020. No. 5. P. 60-74. (In Russ.).

The study was supported by Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University), project No. 1921-01-06


The article is devoted to the regionalization processes in the Asia-Pacific region through the prism of the theory of the formation of mega-regional blocs. In terms of global and regional leadership, this region is becoming a competitive area between two superpowers: the USA and China; this determines the complexity and multiples levels of regional processes, as well as the formation of several regionalization models that run parallel to each other. The purpose of the article is to compare the approaches taken by the United States and China to the formation of mega-regional blocs in the Asia-Pacific region, as well as to outline the ASEAN approach. As a result, the authors conclude that the US approach to the formation of mega-regional blocs is based on more stringent forms of institutionalization, their opposition to the existing system of global trade regulation led by the WTO, and closed principles; the Chinese approach, however, involves combining formal integration with flexible forms of cooperation in certain areas, reliance on the principles of the WTO, and openness to the involvement of new members. The competition between the two superpowers results in fragmentation and sophistication of regionalization trends, and pushes regional actors to search for new forms of strategic collaboration. 

globalization, Asia-Pacific region, regional integration, APEC, open regionalism, ASEAN, China, Trans-Pacific Partnership, USA, Regional Comprehensive economic partnership.


Arapova E. 2015. Measuring “Integration Potential” of the Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific. – Malaysian Journal of Economic Studies. No. 2. P. 157-185.

Kai He. 2018. Three faces of the Indo-Pacific: Understanding the “Indo-Pacific” from an IR Theory Perspective. – East Asia. Vol. 35. No. 2. P. 149-161.

Keling M.F., Som H.M., Saludin M.N., Shuib M.S., Na’iem Ajis M. 2011. The Development of ASEAN from Historical Approach. – Asian Social Science. Vol. 7. No. 7.

Khurana G.S. 2007. Security of Sea Lines: Prospects for India-Japan Cooperation. – Strategic Analysis. Vol. 31. No. 1.

Lunev S., Shavlay E. 2018. Russia and India in the Indo-Pacific. – Asian Politics and Policy. Vol. 10. No. 4. P. 713-731.

Noland M. 2018. US Trade Policy in the Trump Administration. – Asian Economic Policy Review. Vol. 13. No. 2. P. 262-278.

Novikov D., Shumkova V. 2018. Mega-Regional Agreements and the Struggle for Economic Order in the Asia-Pacific Region. – Asian Economic Policy Review. Vol. 10. No. 4. P. 791-811.

Park S.C. 2017. RCEP versus TPP with the Trump Administration in the USA and Implications for East Asian Economic Cooperation. – Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review. Vol. 5. No. 4. P. 135-152.

Roos R.S. 2018. On the fungibility of economic power: China’s economic rise and the East Asian Security. – European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 25. No. 1. P. 302-327.

Wignaraja G. 2014. The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership: An Initial Assessment. – The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Negotiation. P. 93-159.

Wilson J.D. 2014. Mega-Regional Trade Deals in the Asia-Pacific: Choosing between the TTP and RCEP? – Journal of Contemporary Asia. Vol. 45. No. 2. P. 345-353.

Wuthnow J. 2017. Asian Security without the United States? Examinig China’s Security Strategy in Maritime and Continental Asia. – Asian Security. Vol. 14. No. 3. P. 230-245.

Yilmaz S., Changming L. 2018. China’s ‘Belt and Road’ Strategy in Eurasia and Euro-Atlanticism. – Europe-Asia Studies. Vol. 70. No. 2. P. 252-276.


Arapova E.Ya. 2016. Regionalizatsiya v Vostochnoi Azii v usloviyakh diversifikatsii istochnikov ekonomicheskogo rosta [Regionalization in East Asia under the Diversification of Sources of Economic Growth]. Moscow: Prospekt. 232 p. (In Russ.)

ASEAN. Novyi vitok integratsii i pozitsii Rossii. 2019. Doklad RSMD. Pod ruk. E. Kanaeva [ASEAN. A New Round of Integration and Russia’s Position. Report of the RIAC. Under the Leadership of E. Kanaev]. (In Russ.) URL: (accessed 07.14.2020).

Baikov A.A. 2012. Sravnitel’naya integratsiya. Praktika i modeli zarubezhnoi integratsii v zarubezhnoi Evrope i tikhookeanskoi Azii [Comparative Integration. Practice and Models of Foreign Integration in Foreign Europe and Pacific Asia]. Moscow: Aspect Press. 256 p. (In Russ.)

Kheifets B. 2019. Novye ekonomicheskie megapartnerstva i Rossiya [New Economic Megapartnerships and Russia]. Saint Petersburg: Aletheia. 288 p. (In Russ.)

Koldunova E.V. 2014. Formirovanie novoi mezhdunarodno-politicheskoi situatsii v ATR [The Formation of a New International Political Situation in the Asia-Pacific Region]. – Tikhookeanskoe obozrenie 2012-2013. Pod red. N.P. Maletina, O.V. Novakovoi, V.V. Sumskogo [Pacific Review 2012-2013. Ed. by N.P. Maletin, O.V. Novakova, V.V. Sumskiy]. Moscow: International Relations Publ. P. 59-72. (In Russ.)

Kolosyuk N.A. 2003. The Reasons of the Asian Financial Crisis. – Oriental Institute Journal. No. 7. P. 42-47. (In Russ.)

Kostyunina G.M. 2014. Ekonomicheskoe razvitie ATR i regional’naya integratsiya [Asia-Pacific Economic Development and Regional Integration]. – Aziatsko-Tikhookeanskii region: regional’nye problemy, mnogostoronnie organizatsii i ekonomicheskie gruppirovki [Asia Pacific: Regional Issues, Multilateral Organizations, and Economic Groups]. Moscow: Vostok-Zapad. P. 239-256. (In Russ.)

Lebedeva M.M., Kuznetsov D.A. 2019. Transregional Integration as a New Phenomenon of World Politics: Nature and Prospects. – Polis. Political Studies. No. 5. P. 71-84. (In Russ.)

Maletin N.P. 2007. ASEAN: chetyre desyatiletiya razvitiya [Asean: Four Decades of Development]. Moscow: MGIMO University. 312 p. (In Russ.)

Sevastyanov S.V. 2009. The “New Regionalism” of East Asia: Theoretical and Practical Aspects. – Polis. Political Studies. No. 4. P. 111-122. (In Russ.)

Streltsov D.V. 2018. Indo-Pacific Region as a New Reality of the Global System of International Relations. – The International Affairs. No. 9. P. 65-74. (In Russ.) 

Content No. 5, 2020

See also:

Sevastyanov S.V.,
The «New Regionalism» of East Asia: Theoretical and Practical Aspects. – Polis. Political Studies. 2009. No4

Lebedeva M.M., Kuznetsov D.A.,
Transregional Integration as a New Phenomenon of World Politics: Nature and Prospects. – Polis. Political Studies. 2019. No5

Arbatov A.G.,
China and Arms Control: Not Utopia, but a Reality. – Polis. Political Studies. 2020. No4

Efremova K.A.,
ASEAN as a Potential Actor in Global Governance: Prerequisites, Opportunities, and Prospects. – Polis. Political Studies. 2020. No3

Rutland P.,
Russia and China: Saga of Two Transitions to Market Economy. – Polis. Political Studies. 2009. No3



Introducing an article

Polis. Political Studies
2 2011

Pastukhov V.B.
The demon of law. Russian law as escaping reality

 The article text


   2023      2022      2021   
   2020      2019      2018      2017      2016   
   2015      2014      2013      2012      2011   
   2010      2009      2008      2007      2006   
   2005      2004      2003      2002      2001   
   2000      1999      1998      1997      1996   
   1995      1994      1993      1992      1991