The TPI metric, which indicates the speed with which Asian states ratify multilateral treaties, is used in this section to capture the intention of Asian states to join multilateral treaties. Based on our collective data of 600 UN multilateral treaties, this indicator is gradually applied to six global regime domains: (1) peace and disarmament, (2) trade, commerce, and communication, (3) intellectual property, (4) human rights, (5) environment, and (6) labor and health. We progress from national to regional analysis. Twenty-eight Asian countries have been chosen and divided into four sub-regions. South East Asia (comprised of ten ASEAN member countries: the Philippines, Vietnam, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore, and Indonesia) has been chosen to provide a comparative comparison to other Asian sub-regions, including East Asia (China, Japan, South Korea, North Korea), South Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, the Maldives, Afghanistan) and Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Mongolia). The comparable TPI quantitative index results for 28 Asian states in four sub-groups will be explained to show how quickly they join multilateral treaties in various policy arenas. Then, in each of the four regional groups, we will describe the diversity within and between states.
Peace and disarmament
Figure 1 lists the TPI scores of Asian states in the peace and disarmament policy domain. The data analysis shows that among Asian countries, India has taken the most aggressive action in the multilateral treaties in peace and disarmament with the highest score of TPI among the Asia states (TPI = 0.16). This South Asian member has taken initiatives by committing quickly (five years on average) to the peace and disarmament of multilateral treaties. The Philippines and Japan are the following runners in this domain, with less than eight years on average (TPI of 0.14 and 0.11 for the Philippines and Japan respectively) to have membership in the 84 United Nations multilateral treaties related to peace and disarmament issues. However, it took around 10 to 50 years for the other Asian states to join United Nations treaties in peace. The slowest ones are Myanmar, Bhutan, and North Korea with a TPI of merely 0.02.
Let us go deeper to observe TPI in each sub-group, in terms of speed, almost all of Central Asia are cautious in the ratification of multilateral treaties related to global peace with a low score of TPI ranging from 0.03 to 0.07. Central Asia comprises Tajikistan and Turkmenistan, situated on the peripheries of the region. Meanwhile, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan considered pivotal nations in Central Asia, partly constitute the former Soviet Union. Their policy concerns about peace and disarmament are passive and sparse with the delay of ratification ranging from 20 to 30 years. Mongolia is the exception in Central Asia. This country was achieved in the United Nations the earliest, in 1956, and registers the as the highest score of TPI (TPI = 0.08) in global peace regime among Central Asian countries.
Southeast Asia also boasts of its diversity in the peace and disarmament domain, their TPI scores ranging widely from 0.03 to 0.14 (which means that the delay years range from 5 to 30 years). ASEAN was established in 1967 in response to the Cold War and the need for regional stability and aims to promote economic integration, social and cultural cooperation, and regional peace and stability. With a combined population of over 650 million and a GDP of $3 trillion, ASEAN is a significant player in the global economy. Yet, their multilateral treaty participation is not exceedingly active.
South Asian countries have been relatively inactive in joining multilateral treaties related to peace and disarmament. While India is a nuclear power and a member of the Non-Aligned Movement, it has not signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Pakistan is also a nuclear power and has not signed the treaty. Both countries are also not signatories to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. In addition, South Asian countries have been involved in ongoing territorial disputes and conflicts, which may contribute to their reluctance to join multilateral treaties related to peace and disarmament. However, there have been efforts at the regional level, such as the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, to promote peace and cooperation among member countries. Among the South Asian states, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka recorded the highest score (TPI from 0.09 to 0.16) because they all experienced pre-independence politics and diplomacy during the British colonial years. In contrast, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and the Maldives register low figures of TPI of merely 0.04.
East Asia comprises a diverse array of states. The disparities between Japan, South Korea, and China, on the one hand, and North Korea, on the other, are very large in terms of treaty participation in the domain of peace and disarmament. In terms of speed, Japan is the fastest runner with a TPI score of 0.1. South Korea and China have a similar TPI of around 0.05, yet both are much slower than Japan. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) has been cautious and reluctant in participating in global regimes related to peace and disarmament. The DPRK joined the United Nations in 1991, more than four decades after the UN was established. It has also been reluctant to sign and ratify major international treaties related to disarmament, such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has conducted several nuclear tests in violation of UN Security Council resolutions. This has led to tensions and sanctions from the international community. However, there have been ongoing diplomatic efforts to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula and promote peace, including dialogue between the DPRK and the United States. It remains to be seen whether these efforts will lead to significant progress toward peace and disarmament in the region.
Trade, commerce, and communication
Asia remains the world’s most dynamic and fastest-growing region with a rapid increase in international trade and financial flows and tremendous investment and technology transfer opportunities. Despite the dynamic economies, the TPI scores of Asian states in Fig. 2 show that their participation in the international trade, commerce, and communication regime is neither fast nor widespread. The analysis results show that although Malaysia, Japan, and South Korea show their active action in consolidating and facilitating the expansion of the global trade and communication system, their sore of TPI is less than 0.1 (which means that their delay in joining the global regime in trade is nearly 10 years). Other Asian countries are reluctant to participate in trade, commerce, and communication agreements. That is depicted by the ratification delay of 20 to 60 years (Fig. 2).
TPI of Asian states in Trade, Commerce and Communication policy domain.
East Asia is a region with a mix of rich and poor states. Japan, South Korea, and China are among the richer states, while North Korea is much poorer. Japan and South Korea have both been active in trade, commerce, and communications, registering positive scores (TPI of nearly 0.08) in this domain. This is in line with their high economic growth rates. China’s participation in multilateral treaties related to trade was limited in the mid-twentieth century but has steadily increased since the 1970s, following a policy change. North Korea, on the other hand, is widely considered to be one of the least participatory countries in the world trade system (its TPI is around 0.01). Its economy is heavily controlled by the government and subject to international sanctions due to its nuclear program.
When shifting from East Asia to Central Asia, it is clear that the participation of Central Asian countries in multilateral treaties related to trade, commerce, and communication is much lower. Kazakhstan is the only Central Asian country that has continuously registered its participation in the highest number of treaties in this policy domain, with a TPI score of 0.02. Other Central Asian countries have been less active in participating in these treaties. This may be due to several factors, including the relatively smaller size of their economies, limited infrastructure, and political instability. However, efforts to promote regional cooperation and integration have been made, such as the formation of the Eurasian Economic Union, which includes Kazakhstan and several other Central Asian countries.
As compared to other sub-regions, Southeast Asia has witnessed the widest disparities between nations in terms of speed in joining the global trade and commerce regime. Some countries with high scores of TPI, such as Malaysia, Thailand, and Singapore, have been quick to adopt policies that promote international trade and investment and have become major hubs for regional and global commerce. Others, such as Laos and Myanmar (TPI of nearly 0.02), have been slower to integrate into the global trade system due to factors such as weak infrastructure and political instability. Nonetheless, initiatives to encourage regional collaboration and to create a single market and production base among member countries have been made. Despite the disparities, Southeast Asia as a whole has become an increasingly important region for global trade and commerce.
South Asia has also seen significant differences among countries in terms of how quickly they embraced the rules of international trade, commerce, and communication. India, the largest economy in the region with the highest score of TPI among others (TPI of nearly 0.07), has been actively promoting international trade and investment and has become a major player in the global economy. Other countries, such as Bangladesh and Sri Lanka (TPI of nearly 0.04), have also been relatively quick to integrate into the global trade system. However, some countries in the region, such as Afghanistan and Nepal (TPI of around 0.02), have been slower to adopt policies that promote international trade and investment, due to factors such as political instability and weak infrastructure.
Overall, it can be explained that the willingness to join these multilateral treaties in trade and commerce among Asian states differs vastly depending on their current stages of economic growth and integration. Dynamic Asian economies are comprised of countries that can legitimately be classified as matured industrialized economies (such as Japan), emerging market economies, and developing economies at various stages of development. Apart from being the most prosperous region in terms of adopting export-led or trade-induced growth, Asia also contains some countries that do not see a liberalized and diverse multilateral trade regime as beneficial to their economies. As a result, they lag behind the rest of the world in terms of joining the international trade and commerce regulation system.
Intellectual property
Intellectual property is one of the domains most directly related to trade, investment, and technology transfer. Nonetheless, despite the transition in Asia from import-substituting to export-led expansion and the strong emphasis on attracting foreign direct investment, this region is perceived to have less recognition for intellectual property than Europe and the United States. Moreover, the relatively modest commitment in many treaties administered by WIPO and other IP-related treaties confirms that Asia countries have little enthusiasm and eagerness to support intellectual property regimes. Moreover, it illustrates that the delayed years for the Asian states to ratify these treaties vary from 10 to 50 years (Fig. 3).
TPI of Asian states in Intellectual Property policy domain.
Standing out from others in Asia, Japan bores the leading role in diffusing intellectual property-related multilateral treaties (TPI = 0.1). This Eastern Asian country is undoubtedly at the most sophisticated end of the spectrum among Asian countries in promoting the intellectual property rights protection regime. Other East Asian countries have also made progress in promoting the intellectual property rights protection regime. South Korea and China with their TPI score of 0.1, have implemented comprehensive legal frameworks and enforcement mechanisms to protect intellectual property. China, which has been criticized in the past for lax enforcement of intellectual property rights, has also taken steps to strengthen its legal framework and enforcement mechanisms in recent years. It is most surprising to see the high TPI score (0.05) of North Korea in this policy domain (also the highest score of North Korea among the six policy domains). Multilateral treaty participation in the intellectual property domain of North Korea has been sporadic and has coincided with various political and economic developments in the country. North Korea has maintained a longstanding relationship with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) (Hong, 2020). Despite its isolation, North Korea regards WIPO as a highly respected international organization, and WIPO has provided capacity-building programs to assist with legislation and training. It is also notable that North Korea is one of a handful of socialist countries with which WIPO maintains a tradition of cooperation. However, it is unclear how much North Korea’s participation in these treaties has contributed to the protection of intellectual property rights within the country (International Treaties, North Korea in the World, 2023). Overall, the trend in East Asia is towards greater protection of intellectual property rights, although progress has been uneven across the region.
South Asia has indeed seen great differences across countries in terms of the speed of assimilation into the intellectual property regime when compared to other sub-regions. India has been relatively quick to adopt policies and legislation that promote and protect intellectual property rights and has been an active participant in international and multilateral agreements related to intellectual property (TPI of nearly 0.1). However, other countries in the region, such as Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, have been slower to adopt comprehensive legal frameworks and enforcement mechanisms for intellectual property protection (TPI from 0.03 to 0.06). Countries like Afghanistan, Nepal, Maldives, and Bhutan, on the other hand, have been slower to assimilate into the intellectual property regime (TPI from 0.01 to 0.02) due to factors such as political instability, weak institutions, and limited resources. The lack of uniformity in the speed of assimilation of intellectual property rights across the South Asian region has made it difficult to establish a coherent regional intellectual property rights framework.
South East Asia and Central Asia have experienced a modest score in the speed of joining multilateral treaties related to intellectual property rights (TPI ranging from 0.03 to 0.07). Countries in these regions, such as the Philippines and Singapore in Southeast Asia, and Kyrgyzstan and Mongolia in Central Asia, have made significant progress in adopting and implementing legal frameworks for intellectual property protection. They have also been active participants in international and multilateral agreements related to intellectual property rights. However, there are still challenges in enforcing intellectual property laws in some countries in these regions, such as Vietnam, Laos, and Brunei in Southeast Asia, and Tajikistan and Uzbekistan in Central Asia (TPI = 0.03). Overall, while South East Asia and Central Asia have made progress in assimilating into the intellectual property regime, there is still room for improvement in terms of uniformity and enforcement of intellectual property laws across the regions.
Human rights
Many governments have worked more actively to improve human rights through multilateral treaties since the establishment of the United Nations. However, there are considerable obstacles to widely working to promote and spread human rights principles, particularly in Asia. There is a variation in how the Asia members join the human rights treaties. The delay of ratification for other Asian members converges in 10 to 30 years on average for the human rights treaties (Fig. 4).
TPI of Asian states in Human Rights policy domain.
This domain has received the most active action in the ratification of multilateral treaties from South Asian states, such as India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. South Asians are known for their passion and aspiration, and the TPI score of which in the human rights domain manifests itself very positively (TPI ranging from 0.17 to 0.23). On average, it took five years for those states to participate in these treaties.
East Asia region has made significant strides in the human rights domain in recent years. China has become an active participant in international and multilateral agreements related to human rights. China’s TPI score has also increased significantly over the past few years (TPI = 0.2), indicating a greater level of participation in human rights-related multilateral treaties. While there are still concerns about enforcement issues, China’s progress in this domain has been notable. It is worth noting that Japan, despite being a leader in other policy domains, has been relatively slow in ratifying human rights-related multilateral treaties, with an average delay of nearly 20 years (TPI = 0.04).
South East Asia and Central Asia have had mixed experiences in joining multilateral treaties related to human rights. Some countries in the region, such as the Philippines in Southeast Asia, and Mongolia in Central Asia, have been relatively active in participating in international and multilateral agreements related to human rights (TPI = 0.1). However, there are also countries in the region, such as Brunei in Southeast Asia, and Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan in Central Asia, that have been criticized for their poor human rights records and lack of participation in international human rights treaties (TPI from 0.01 to 0.03). Overall, the speed and level of participation in human rights-related multilateral treaties vary across the region. The TPI scores for the region also vary widely, reflecting the differences in human rights practices and treaty participation across the various countries in the region.
Environment
Asian countries have recently experienced rapid economic growth and population growth. However, many governments continue to prioritize economic growth over the environment and sustainability. As a result, environmental issues are pervasive and worsen on a yearly basis throughout this region. Global warming, urban excess, deforestation, endangered species conservation, water scarcity, overfishing, and air pollution have threatened to undermine Asia’s future growth and regional stability.
It is widely known that the United Nations’ multilateral environmental agreements adopted after 1945 aimed to strengthen environmental management in various areas, such as sustainable use of biodiversity, freshwater, and land resource management (UNEP, 1999). They have widespread support and prompt responses from the international community, including Asian societies. Our empirical investigation of UN multilateral treaties has shown that the TPI scores for international environment agreements of Asian states are the highest among the six policy domains we analyzed. Additionally, we found that the TPI scores for Asian states in this domain are relatively consistent, with most falling within the narrow range of 5 to 15 years. This suggests that many Asian countries are actively participating in international and multilateral agreements related to the environment and are making efforts to implement and enforce environmental policies and initiatives. Countries such as Japan, South Korea, and China of the East Asia sub-region have been leaders in the development and implementation of environmental policies and initiatives, and have been active participants in international and multilateral agreements related to the environment with a TPI of nearly 0.1 (Fig. 5).
TPI of Asian states in Environment policy domain.
While Asian countries have shown a strong commitment to environmental protection, there are still challenges in terms of the enforcement and implementation of environmental agreements in some countries in the region. Additionally, because Asia is made up of countries at various stages of economic development, their eagerness to take part in multilateral environmental agreements can vary greatly. There is a need for continued collaboration and cooperation among Asian countries to address pressing environmental issues such as climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss, and to ensure effective implementation and enforcement of environmental policies and agreements. Additionally, there is an opportunity for international organizations and developed countries to provide support and resources to help less developed countries in the region to address environmental challenges and promote sustainable development.
Labor and health
Despite the relatively active attitude of the Asian community towards UN multilateral treaties in other domains such as peace and environment, the labor regime has not received as much consideration from countries in the region. There are several reasons behind this situation. Firstly, many labor standards are considered Western-made and are not necessarily resonant with Asian countries. They had primarily been designed by and for European interests, and some Asian countries may not see them as relevant to their labor practices and cultural norms. Secondly, attention paid to the issue of labor protection in Asia is still relatively limited. Many countries in the region are still grappling with issues such as poverty and economic development and may prioritize other policy domains over labor rights. Finally, there may be concerns about the impact of labor standards on trade and competitiveness, which could also factor into countries’ decisions not to join multilateral labor treaties. India and China are willing to join labor-related multilateral treaties with the highest TPI score of 0.12, but Asia is a slow actor in this domain, varying from 10 to 50 years of delay (Fig. 6).
TPI of Asian states in Labor and Health policy domain.
According to our empirical investigation of the TPI index across the four Asian sub-regions, the most modest value for labor and health protection issues can indeed be observed in the countries of Central Asia (TPI of around 0.02 to 0.04). This could be due to several factors, including the region’s history of Soviet-era labor practices and a lack of resources and infrastructure to effectively enforce labor and health protections. Additionally, many Central Asian countries are still in the process of transitioning to market-based economies, which can create challenges in terms of addressing labor protections and ensuring adequate access to healthcare.
Except for North Korea, East Asian countries have generally shown a relatively active role in participating in multilateral treaties related to labor and health. Countries such as China, Japan, and South Korea have implemented policies and initiatives to improve working conditions and protect labor rights, and have been active participants in international and multilateral agreements related to labor and health.
Overall, while there are certainly challenges to promoting labor standards in Asia through multilateral treaties, there are also opportunities for engagement and collaboration to improve working conditions and promote greater respect for labor rights in the region.
Discover more from PressNewsAgency
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.