Cross-border infrastructure projects offer significant economic and social benefits for the Asia-Pacific region. If the required investment of $8 trillion in pan-Asian connectivity was made in the region’s infrastructure during 2010–2020, the total net income gains for developing Asia could reach about $12.98 trillion (in 2008 US dollars) during 2010–2020 and beyond, of which more than $4.43 trillion would be gained during 2010–2020 and nearly $8.55 trillion after 2020. Indeed, infrastructure connectivity helps improve regional productivity and competitiveness by facilitating the movement of goods, services and human resources, producing economies of scale, promoting trade and foreign direct investments, creating new business opportunities, stimulating inclusive industrialization and narrowing development gaps between communities, countries or sub-regions. Unfortunately, due to limited financing, progress in the development of cross-border infrastructure in the region is low.

This paper examines the key challenges faced in financing cross-border projects and discusses the roles that different stakeholders—national governments, state-owned enterprises, private sector, regional entities, development financing institutions (DFIs), affected people and civil society organizations—can play in facilitating the development of cross-border infrastructure in the region. In particular, this paper highlights the major risks that deter private sector investments and FDIs and provides recommendations to address these risks.

This article emphasizes the critical role of the subsidiarity principle in facilitating adaptation to climate change. Employing a comparative legal analysis approach, the paper examines how this principle, traditionally pivotal in distributing powers within the European Union, could be adapted globally to manage climate change displacement. Specifically, it explores whether subsidiarity can surmount the challenges posed by national sovereignty and states’ reluctance to cede control over domestic matters. Findings indicate that while domestic efforts and local adaptations should be prioritized, international intervention becomes imperative when national capacities are overwhelmed. This article proposes that ‘causing countries’ and the global community bear a collective responsibility to act. The Asia-Pacific region, characterized by diverse and vulnerable ecosystems like small islands, coastal areas, and mountainous regions, serves as the focal point for this study. The research underscores the necessity of developing policies and further research to robustly implement the subsidiarity principle in protecting climate-displaced populations.

Regional cooperation stands as a key strategy to address intense economic competition and formidable local governance challenges. Successful regional collaborations are typically founded on the basis of institutional similarity, which also serves as the starting point for a multitude of related theoretical studies. Consequently, the regional cooperation within the context of institutional conflicts has been overlooked. This paper aims to explore the process of regional cooperation against the backdrop of conflicts, using the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (GBA) as a case study and analyzing it from the perspective of the sociology of knowledge. The article posits that conflicts can stimulate interactions among various actors, foster the generation of local knowledge, and propel specific cooperative practices. Moreover, local and central governments, grounded in local knowledge and universal managerial insights, continuously authenticate and propagate local innovations, establishing guiding policies and, consequently, producing rational knowledge. The accumulation of such knowledge has not only strengthened civilian cooperation but also facilitated broader collaborative efforts. The study reveals that despite the GBA’s remarkable achievements in cooperation, challenges persist: on the one hand, there are issues with the government’s process of rational knowledge production and the quality of knowledge itself; on the other hand, excessive governmental dominance may suppress the production and application of local knowledge. Therefore, refining the knowledge production mechanism is especially critical. The findings of this paper uncover the mechanisms of regional cooperation amidst institutional conflicts and deepen our understanding of regional collaboration and cross-border governance.