Asia's diversity in culture, religion, ethnicity, language, and economic development presents a complex landscape for analyzing its engagement with global issues. The paper highlights the post-World War II proliferation of multilateral treaties addressing global issues and the lack of systematic, statistical analysis of Asian states' responses through treaty participation. Existing literature primarily employs qualitative methods and focuses on treaty compliance rather than ratification practices. This study aims to address this gap by investigating the speed at which Asian states participate in UN multilateral treaties (research question 1) and how they have adapted to these treaties over time (research question 2). The study uses the Treaty Participation Index (TPI) to measure the speed of ratification, providing quantitative evidence to assess the feasibility of four Asian regionalisms (East, Southeast, South, and Central Asia) in the context of the shift from international to global politics.

The authors reference several key works in international relations theory and multilateral treaty analysis. Denemark and Hoffmann's Multilateral Agreements and Treaties Record Set (MATRS) project is highlighted as a broad examination of multilateral treaty-making, focusing on temporal, spatial, and substantive patterns. The authors note that while MATRS provides valuable insights, it does not examine the speed of state ratification. Other relevant studies focusing on the geographical patterns of treaty signing locations and the use of network theory to analyze treaty relationships are mentioned. However, these studies lack a focus on the temporal aspect of treaty ratification, which is the central focus of this study's methodology. The study also draws on existing literature linking development performance to multilateral treaty participation and the East-West rebalancing of global politics.

The study uses a quantitative approach, developing a Treaty Participation Index (TPI) to measure the speed of state participation in UN multilateral treaties. The TPI is calculated as 1/(1+D), where D is the number of years between treaty promulgation and ratification by a given state. A dataset of 600 major UN multilateral treaties across six policy domains (peace and disarmament, trade and commerce, intellectual property, human rights, environment, and labor and health) was collected. Ratification data for 28 Asian countries divided into four sub-regions were also compiled from UN Treaty Collection, WIPO-Administered Treaties Collection, and NORMLEX. The TPI is calculated for each country in each policy domain, allowing for national and regional comparisons. The authors analyze TPI scores across different time periods (Cold War, post-Cold War, and post-2008) to assess adaptation to the UN treaty system. Line graphs are used to visually represent the TPI trends over time, comparing Asian sub-regions to the global average for each policy domain.

The analysis reveals significant variations in TPI scores across the four Asian sub-regions and policy domains. In the peace and disarmament domain, India shows the highest TPI among Asian states, while Central Asian states exhibit the lowest. Southeast and South Asia show diversity in TPI scores, with some countries showing quicker ratification than others. In trade, commerce, and communication, Malaysia, Japan, and South Korea demonstrate higher TPIs, while Central and South Asian countries show lower scores. Intellectual property shows Japan as a leader, while South and Southeast Asia display lower and varied TPIs. South Asia shows highest TPI in human rights; East Asia also shows increasing TPI, while Southeast and Central Asia display lower TPIs. In environment, Asia demonstrates high and consistent TPI scores. Finally, in labor and health, Asia shows lower and varied scores, with Central Asia consistently demonstrating the lowest TPI scores. Analysis across time periods indicates varied trends in TPI scores across sub-regions and policy domains. There is no consistent pattern of regional clustering among the four Asian sub-regions based on treaty participation. Central Asian countries consistently display low TPIs across all policy domains, indicating passive participation in multilateral treaties.

The findings challenge the assumption of homogeneous regional behavior in Asia regarding multilateral treaty participation. The study reveals significant diversity within and between the four Asian sub-regions, with Central Asia showing notably less engagement in multilateral treaties compared to the other regions. This challenges the notion of unified regionalism in Asia based solely on geographical proximity. The varying degrees of treaty participation across sub-regions and policy domains reflect differing national interests, political priorities, capacities, and historical experiences. The study highlights the importance of considering internal factors influencing each state's decision-making processes alongside global dynamics. The findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the complexities of Asian regionalism in the context of global politics, underscoring the limitations of geographically based regional classifications.

This study provides a quantitative framework for analyzing Asian engagement with global issues through UN multilateral treaties. The TPI offers a valuable tool for future research on state behavior in international cooperation. The findings highlight significant diversity among Asian sub-regions regarding multilateral treaty participation, questioning the sustainability of geographically defined regionalisms. Further research could use clustering algorithms to identify groups based on treaty adoption patterns, providing refined regional classifications. Investigating the effectiveness of regional cooperation mechanisms and their capacity to adapt to global changes will enhance our understanding of these regionalisms' long-term prospects.

The study's limitations include the reliance on a specific dataset of UN treaties, potentially overlooking other relevant agreements. The TPI's simplicity might not fully capture the complexities of ratification processes. Further research should explore a broader range of treaties and incorporate qualitative data to provide a more nuanced understanding. The study also acknowledges limitations in the scope of the current analysis, highlighting the need for future research to delve deeper into the nuances of each region's participation in multilateral treaties, as well as the impact of factors such as political systems, economic structures, and socio-cultural contexts.