Inter-regional relations tend to differ from conventional international relations in two respects. First, the nature of the actors cannot be taken for granted. Hence, their very existence becomes a problematic issue. Two states do not need to refer to their internal structures and proceedings when negotiating a deal; whereas, two international regions will most probably do so. Furthermore, as inter-regional relations are usually asymmetric, i.e. they tend to involve regions with different levels of accomplishment such as the EU vis-&agrave;-vis most developing regional groupings, explicit, top-down, support for further integration and the transfer of integration technologies tend to be a key part of any agreements. <br />Second, the scope of inter-regional negotiations is usually limited to ?low politics?: regional blocs typically engage in negotiations regarding exlcusively economic issues, not political or military ones. This said, most inter-regional treaties do proclaim larger political goals and are garnished with verbose rhetoric; sometimes, inter-regional summits end up by issuing presidential communiqu&eacute;s that mention geopolitical issues and envisage the establishment of ?strategic alliances?, whatever that means. However, these statements rarely produce concrete results. <br />A number of recent studies have analyzed the nature, types and prospects of inter-regional relations (Am&eacute;rica Latina Hoy 2005; H&auml;nggi 2000; H&auml;nggi, R&uuml;land and Roloff 2004; Hettne 2003; Hettne and S&ouml;derbaum 2000). Their results are tentative rather than conclusive, and most agree that the multidimensionality of this phenomenon requires the combination of different analytical approaches. Inter-regionalism is frequently regarded as a necessary step towards global governance. Some authors even deem it unavoidable and irreversible (as regional integration itself).