12 marker skeleton

aspects of regional orgs

reason for formation

• EU

  • encourage cooperation and trade in order to reduce nationalism and prevent future wars bc economic interdependence

  • started w maximising trade of coal and steel

• USCMA

  • free trade agreement, focus on reducing trade barriers/tariffs (NAFTA)

• ASEAN

  • historical context of cold war

  • founded for security/stability, not deep integration. security driven, more defensive

• AL

  • historical context of protecting Arab identity in opposition to Israel

  • establishment of cooperation between Arab nations

• AU

  • Pan-Africanism, anti-colonialism

  • helping economies of the member states and adopting stable governments

similarities- formation

EU and AU

• Both unions prioritize regional stability, economic growth, and the creation of larger, more integrated markets

• Aim for political + economic cooperation, not just trade.

• Built on earlier organisations (EU from EEC; AU from OAU)

ASEAN and AL

• Formed mainly for regional stability and cooperation, especially in response to security concerns (Cold War tensions for ASEAN; rise of Israel for Arab League).

• Emphasise sovereignty and non-interference in member states.

• Looser structures → intergovernmental rather than supranational.

EU and USMCA

• Created to increase economic interdependence and reduce trade barriers.

• Aim to strengthen member economies through integration.

• Both emerged from earlier agreements (EU from EEC; USMCA replacing NAFTA).

AU and AL

• focus on preserving Arab heritage and encouraging cultural exchange to foster a shared identity.

• AU similarly promotes "culture as a driver of unity" through the promotion of Pan-Africanism

differences - formation

• EU and AU

  • EU formed to prevent war through deep economic integration (post-WWII).

  • AU formed to promote unity and pan-africanism after decolonisation.

• ASEAN and AL

  • ASEAN formed mainly for Cold War stability and economic growth.

  • Arab League formed for pan-Arab identity and political unity.

• EU and USMCA

  • USMCA is purely economic (trade deal).

  • EU is economic + political integration

structure/institutions

• EU

  • european commission, european parl, european council, council of ministers, ECJ, ECB

• USMCA

  • free trade commission, dispute settlement mechanisms

• ASEAN

  • ASEAN summit, ASEAN coordinating council, ASEAN secretariat, AICHR

• AL

  • council of the arab league, secretariat-general, arab parl, joint defence council

• AU

  • assembly of the african union, executive council, AU commission, african court on human and people's’ rights

similarities - structure/institutions

• EU and AU

  • Both have multiple formal institutions with defined roles across policy areas.

  • Have a central executive body (EU Commission / AU Commission) → proposes policy, oversees implementation.

  • Include assemblies of member-state leaders (European Council / AU Assembly) → set overall direction.

  • Aim for some level of supranational governance, especially stronger in the EU.

• ASEAN and AL

  • Institutions are limited and mainly intergovernmental.

  • Key bodies are summits/councils of leaders or ministers → decision-making stays with states.

  • Secretariats exist but have weak enforcement powers → mainly coordination/admin roles.

  • Reflect priority of state sovereignty over strong institutions.

• AU and AL

  • Both include assemblies of heads of state → main decision-making authority.

  • Have commissions/secretariats → administrative + coordination roles.

  • Institutions aim to promote political cooperation and conflict resolution, but limited enforcement capacity compared to EU.

powers (supranational vs intergovernmental)

• EU

  • most bodies supranational; only intergovernmental body is the council of ministers and european council

• ASEAN

  • every body is intergovernmental

• AL

  • every body is intergovernmental

• AU

  • every body is intergovernmental EXCEPT African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights - supranational

similarities - powers

• EU and AU

  • Both have some enforcement mechanisms beyond simple cooperation.

  • The EU is clearly supranational → institutions can make binding law and enforce it (e.g. courts, sanctions).

  • The AU shows limited supranational features → can intervene in extreme cases (e.g. coups, human rights), but enforcement is inconsistent.

  • Overall: both go beyond pure intergovernmentalism, but EU far stronger.

• ASEAN and AL

  • Both are intergovernmental → member states retain sovereignty.

  • Very weak enforcement powers → rely on consensus and voluntary compliance.

  • No strong legal mechanisms to force states to act → decisions often non-binding.

  • Reflect priority of non-interference.

• AU and ASEAN

  • Both have limited enforcement compared to EU.

  • AU has slightly stronger powers (e.g. suspending states after unconstitutional changes).

  • ASEAN remains strictly intergovernmental with almost no enforcement tools.

  • Both struggle with compliance due to sovereignty concerns.

• AU and AL

  • Both primarily intergovernmental, though AU has some supranational elements.

  • Limited enforcement capacity → depend on member state cooperation.

  • Can apply political pressure or suspension, but lack consistent legal enforcement.

  • Effectiveness often constrained by internal divisions.

differences - powers

• EU and AL / AU / ASEAN

  • EU = supranational with binding law + strong enforcement.

  • AL / AU / ASEAN = intergovernmental with almost no enforcement.

membership

• EU

  • EU membership is based on the Copenhagen criteria, which require candidate countries to maintain stable democratic institutions, the rule of law, human rights etc

• ASEAN

  • membership is based on the basis of diplomatic recognition by all ASEAN member states, and must also be geographically located in Southeast Asia

  • no strict requirements on democracy, HR, economic development level

• AL

  • members must have strong cultural ties/history w Arab origins, and AL member states are Sunni-majority

• AU

  • membership is through majority consensus vote by AU member states. must be an African country

similarities - membership

• ASEAN and AL

  • Membership based on regional + cultural identity (Southeast Asian / Arab states).

  • Less strict political conditions → regime type not a barrier.

  • Emphasis on shared identity and cooperation, not values.

• AU and AL

  • Both emphasise post-colonial identity and unity.

  • Membership largely based on geography and shared identity rather than strict political criteria.

  • most states in the region are members

criticisms

• USMCA

  • failed to prevent Trump’s tariffs despite being a FTA

  • failure to uphold environmental protections

• ASEAN

  • policy of non-interference and focus on consensus leads to decisions becoming ‘lowest common denominator’

    • seen w the lack of condemnation against military coup in Myanmar and actions of Duterte in the Philippines

  • failure to achieve greater integration, w big economic disparities between members eg Singapore vs Laos

• AL

  • failure to prevent regional conflict and rise of terrorist groups

    • seen w conflicts in Yemen, Syria, Libya

  • failure to foster a significant economic integration or a single market

  • focus on state sovereignty makes it hard to reach consensus on key issues

• AU

  • failure to deal w key issues of conflict, corruption, HR abuses and poverty

    • seen w ongoing conflicts in Somalia, Sudan, DRC

  • dependency on external aid - external partners provide 66% of AU annual budget

  • limited powers of enforcement. largely intergovernmental and there are issues in compelling states to comply w rulings by the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, despite it being a supranational body

  • failure to achieve further integration, demonstrated by delays in developing the African Monetary Union

similarities - criticisms

• ASEAN and AL

  • Both criticised for weak effectiveness due to non-interference.

  • Struggle to respond to conflicts and human rights issues.

• USMCA and AU

  • Both criticised for limited depth of integration.

  • USMCA → seen as dominated by the United States, creating imbalance.

  • AU → failure in creating single market, delay in African Monetary Union