FTAs in East Asia have proliferated with the onset of 21^st century. Establishment of ASEAN Economic Community and formation of ASEAN plus 1 FTAs is main achievement of East Asia Economic Integration in the first ten years of 21^st century. Since 2010, East Asian countries have embarked on the realization of region-wide Asian FTA. As for region-wide FTA, two concepts were proposed. One is Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) which is originated in trade liberalization projects of APEC and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) which was proposed by ASEAN being influenced by the start of negotiation of TPP.

TPP was signed in February of 2016 after 5 years of hard negotiation. TPP was called 21^st Century FTA because of high level of liberalization and advanced rules such as discipline of State Enterprise and e-Commerce. After sign of the agreement, it was most probable that TPP would become FTAAP (FTA of Asia Pacific) as East Asian countries such as Korea, Thailand and Philippines expressed the intention of joining TPP. However, President Trump withdrew from TPP when he took office in January of 2017. Remaining 11 countries started to negotiate TPP 11 from March of 2017 and reached agreement substantially in November. TPP11 (CPTPP) was signed by 11 countries in March of 2018. TPP 11 maintained the characteristics of TPP as 21^st Century FTA though it suspended 22 stipulations. Until now, Thailand and Columbia expressed the intention of participation in TPP11 and various countries including UK showed interest in joining TPP11. TPP11 was concluded in a very short time and many countries desired to join because these countries were concerned about the expansion of protectionism.

Though not high in liberation rate and not advanced in rule if compared to TPP, RCEP is a quite important region-wide Asian FTA because it includes production centers of manufacturing industries and emerging consumer markets such as China, ASEAN and India. Negotiation of RCEP was being delayed, but negotiating parties agreed in July of 2018 to advance negotiation to reach agreement by the end of 2018.

Economic integration of East Asia becomes more and more important to maintain the trade regime in the Asia-Pacific which is free and based on rule and to prevent the expansion of protectionism caused by Trump Administration.

　This paper summarizes the evolution and background of the European Union’s （EU） Free Trade Agreement （FTA） strategy, which focuses on economic objectives, since October 2016 when the EU published its “Global Europe” strategy. It also considers the substantive impact of the Lisbon Treaty on the EU’s trade agreements, the current status of the outcomes of the EU’s FTA strategy by setting targets and introducing an effective monitoring mechanism, and the role of the European Commission, particularly in trade. As a result, the analysis clarifies the following points.

　First, when the Lisbon Treaty entered force in December 2009, the EU’s exclusive competence extended to the trade of services, trade aspects of intellectual property rights, and foreign direct investment. However, the mechanism to pursue economic effects is currently limited to traditional trade-related tariff-saving effects. The topic of the negotiations of the EU-wide investment protection agreements is still being explored. On the other hand, having the EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement （EPA） enter into force as a non-mixed agreement is a new step from the perspective of EU integration.

　Second, to promote economic gains through the FTA strategy, the EU established trade-related KPIs and created a mechanism for monitoring progress through annual activity reports and FTA implementation reports. However, cooperation from partner countries is indispensable, such as by collecting data on preferential tariff utilization rates by FTAs. This data exchange provision was introduced with the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement （CETA） with Canada, and the EU is forming a mechanism by which future agreements will reflect the improvements discovered to date. In addition, the accumulation of expertise in the European Commission contributed greatly to the creation of this mechanism.

　Third, this mechanism has progressed, and the EU-Korea FTA is regarded as the “first sample” of “new generation FTA,” and certain effects, such as tariff reduction, have been confirmed five years after the provisional application started. However, FTAs for which the negotiations began after the Global Europe Strategy did not achieve satisfactory outcomes in line with their initial goals, except the EU-Korea FTA. It is not yet possible to confirm the effects of the CETA and the EU-Japan EPA.

　Based on the discussion above, I believe that I was able to show that the EU adopted a target-management type evaluation method in its recent FTA strategy and clarified its policy of pursuing more economic effects using this method.

In this article, we discuss the correlation between structural change in the world economy and Russian strategy. The transition to market economy in former socialist countries was the process joining the neo-liberalistic world economy. The liberalization of cross-border capital flow accelerated the expansion of capital markets and outsourcing. It stimulated the economic growth in China and other East Asian countries. Russia also enjoyed its benefits increasing oil price. It has caused a power shift from Europe and United States to Asia.

But the failure of “circulation of growth”—the financial capitalism driven by USA and EU, the export-led quantitative growth in China, and the growth in Russia depended on natural resources—was revealed after the global economic crisis in 2009.

According to the Constellation theory, the Ukraine crisis reflects an unstable hegemonic core of the world economy. In the EU financial institutions were relieved, but the burden is imposed on citizens by the reduced budget. It caused social deficits and anti-EU movements. At the same time, because of developing division of labor between East Asian countries, the East Asia economy is stepping into the way of self-sustained growth.

The competition for hegemony of the world economy is intensified by mega-regions. A Eurasian Union alone could not be a very serious challenge to the hegemonic core. However, Russia’s Pivot to the East will strengthen its economic relations with East Asian countries, and might contribute to development of “counterpoints” with the capitalism model different from the neo-liberal one.

The world energy market is undergoing a structural change through liberalization, development of renewables, and change of demands from Europe to Asia. Russia, depending on resources, must adapt to changes in the energy market and modernize its economic structure. The eastwards shift of Russia may be a wise choice. Its strategy is an adaptation to the structural change in the world economy, even if it costs enormous money to develop Far East regions in Russia. Closer relations between Russia and Asian countries will secure the energy supply in Asia and support their development. The power shift from the West to the East will be accelerated. From the long-term viewpoints, Russian joining the division of labor in Asia could be a chance of modernizing Russian industry.

At the same time, for Russia, being afraid of excessive dependence on China, the cooperation with Japan is more important than ever.