Japan’s Role In The Regionalism And Regionalisation Of East Asia That Made Possible The Creation Of Asean+3

Artur LE

doi:10.57033/mijournals-2026-4-0315

Keywords

ASEAN+3 regionalism regionalisation East Asia Japan (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ “ASEAN Way” East Asia Vision Group Chiang Mai Initiative Multilateralisation by/4.0/) intra-regional trade institutionalisation

Abstract

ASEAN+3 is a major institution in East Asia that plays one of the most important roles in the integration, security, regional peace, stability, Received: 10-05-2026 prosperity, sustainable development, economic development, cultural dialogue Accepted: 28-05-2026 and political development of the region. This article examines the role of Japan Published: 09-06-2026 in the establishment, development and evolution of regional cooperation in East Asia, namely within the ASEAN+3 framework. It also answers the questions of why previous attempts at regionalism failed, why ASEAN+3 was finally established, and what formed the background of the constraints on the development of regional cooperation in East Asia. The article likewise describes Copyright: © 2026 by the authors. Japanese foreign policy within ASEAN+3, including the Chiang Mai Initiative Submitted for open access publication Multilateralisation, the various track-two channels for dialogue on economic, under the terms and conditions of the political, security, environmental and other transnational issues, the East Asia Creative Commons Attribution Study Group, the East Asia Vision Group and East Asian think tanks. (CC BY) license

References

1. Acharya, A. (1997a). Ideas, identity and institution-building: from the “ASEAN Way” to the “Asia- Pacific Way”? The Pacific Review, 10(3), pp. 319–346.

2. Acharya, A. (1997b). Multilateralism: is there an Asia-Pacific way? Analysis, 8(2). Seattle: The National Bureau of Asian Research, pp. 10–11. 160 E-ISSN:3070-8370 Vol. 1, (Issue 4/2026)

3. Amako, S., Matsuoka, S. & Horiuchi, K. (2013). Regional Integration in East Asia: Theoretical and Historical Perspectives. Tokyo: United Nations University, pp. 110–111.

4. ASEAN+3 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors (2012). Joint Statement of the 15th ASEAN+3 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors’ Meeting, 3 May 2012, Manila. Available at: https://www.mof.go.jp/english/international_policy/convention/asean_plus_3/20120503.pdf

5. Evans, P. M. (1994). The dialogue process on Asia-Pacific security issues: inventory and analysis. In: P. M. Evans (ed.), Studying Asia-Pacific Security. Toronto and Jakarta: University of Toronto– York University Joint Centre for Asia-Pacific Studies and Centre for Strategic and International Studies, p. 303.

6. Fukushima, K. (2006). A Fate of Regionalism in East Asia and Northeast Asia (A View from Tokyo). Tokyo: National Institute for Research Advancement, 3 March.

7. Kondo, S. (2005). East Asian Strategic Review 2005. Tokyo: National Institute for Defense Studies, p. 33. (in Japanese)

8. Munakata, N. (2004). Regionalization and Regionalism: The Process of Mutual Interaction. RIETI Discussion Paper Series 04-E-006. Tokyo: Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry, January.

9. Satoh, Y. (1991). Asian-Pacific process for stability and security. Paper prepared for the Manila Conference on Regional Security, sponsored by the Government of the Philippines, 5–7 June, pp. 5–6.

10. Tan, S. S. (n.d.). Regionalism in Asia: Critical Issues in Modern Politics, vol. 4: Non-Official Diplomacy and Activism in Asia. New York: Routledge.

11. Terada, T. (2011). ASEAN+3: Becoming More Like a Normal Regionalism? GIARI Working Paper Vol. 2010-E-4. Tokyo: Waseda University Global COE Program, February, p. 2. 161 E-ISSN:3070-8370