Opportunity Squandered? Institution building in Asia Pacific

Outre-Terre ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol N°58-59 (1) ◽  
pp. 107
Author(s):  
Xinyuan Dai ◽  
Joshua Holmes
Keyword(s):  
Asia Pacific ◽  
Institution Building

Searching for Cooperative Security 2.0

2015 ◽  
Vol 01 (04) ◽  
pp. 537-551
Author(s):  
Paul Evans
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
Institution Building ◽  
Power Transition ◽  
Cooperative Security ◽  
Multilateral Institutions ◽  
Power Shift ◽  
Widespread Agreement ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
The Cold War

At a moment of strategic transition in Asia Pacific security, views differ widely on the inevitability of conflict and the prospects of a managed accommodation of great power relations. There is widespread agreement that economic integration is deep and valuable, that a power shift is underway, and that the new array of multilateral institutions are welcome but merely formative. At the end of the Cold War period, there was a creative moment in which key concepts like cooperative and comprehensive security underpinned an era of institution building. The essay argues that it is time to revisit these ideas and look at the fundamental elements of a security order appropriate to a diverse and increasingly interconnected region in the midst of a power transition. It examines some of the key ideas offered by security thinkers from several countries and pays particular attention to the concept of a consociational security order as an entree to constructive discussion. As important as the U.S.-China relationship is to a future security order, a G2 is neither likely nor desirable. The conclusion poses a series of questions that will need to be answered as a new version of cooperative security with 21st century characteristics is developed.

scholarly journals The institutionalization of the Indo-Pacific: problems and prospects

2020 ◽  
Vol 96 (1) ◽  
pp. 149-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kai He ◽  
Huiyun Feng
Keyword(s):  
Executive Leadership ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
Comparative Case Study ◽  
Institution Building ◽  
Leadership Roles ◽  
Leadership Studies ◽  
The Future ◽  
Common Interests ◽  
Relative Gains

Abstract Although the term ‘Indo-Pacific’ has become popular in the foreign policy discourse of some countries, we have yet to see any significant institution-building in the Indo-Pacific region. Borrowing insights from functional institutionalism and political leadership studies of international regimes, we introduce a ‘leadership–institution’ model to explore the problems and prospects of institutionalizing the Indo-Pacific. Through a comparative case study of the institutionalization of the Asia–Pacific vs the Indo-Pacific, we argue that two crucial factors contributed to the slow institutionalization of the Indo-Pacific as a regional system in world politics: the lack of ideational leadership from an epistemic community and the weak executive leadership from a powerful state. While ideational leaders can help states identify and expand common interests in cooperation, executive leadership will facilitate states to overcome operational obstacles in cooperation, such as the ‘collective action’ problem and the ‘relative gains’ concern. The future of institution-building in the Indo-Pacific will depend on whether and how these two leadership roles are played by scholars and states in the region. In the conclusion, we discuss the challenges of institutionalizing the Indo-Pacific and highlight China as a wild card in the future of Indo-Pacific regionalism.

scholarly journals Understanding the dynamics of the Indo-Pacific: US–China strategic competition, regional actors, and beyond

2020 ◽  
Vol 96 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kai He ◽  
Mingjiang Li
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
Institution Building ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Policy Responses ◽  
Strategic Competition ◽  
The Us ◽  
Regional Order ◽  
Regional Institution ◽  
Country Specific

Abstract As a geographical concept, ‘Indo-Pacific’ has existed for decades. As a political and strategic concept, it has since 2010 gradually become established in the foreign policy lexicon of some countries, especially Australia, India, Japan and the United States. However, China seems to be reluctant to identify itself as part of the Indo-Pacific; Chinese leaders believe that the US-led Indo-Pacific strategy aims to contain China's rise. While the battle between the two geographical concepts ‘Indo-Pacific’ and ‘Asia–Pacific’ may be fairly easily settled in the future, US–China strategic competition has just begun. Will the Indo-Pacific become a battlefield for US–China rivalry? How will China cope with the US ‘free and open Indo-Pacific’ (FOIP) strategy? How will other regional actors respond to the US–China strategic competition in the Indo-Pacific? What are the strategic implications of the ‘Indo-Pacific’ concept for regional order transformation? How will the Indo-Pacific be institutionalized, economically, politically and strategically? This article introduces the January 2020 special issue of International Affairs, which aims to address those questions, using both country-specific and regional perspectives. Seven articles focus on the policy responses of major players (Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan and ASEAN) to the US FOIP strategy and related US–China rivalry in the region. A further three articles examine the profound implications of Indo-Pacific dynamics for regional institution-building and for geopolitical and geo-economic architecture.

Legalization as Strategy: The Asia-Pacific Case

2000 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 549-571 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miles Kahler
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Institutional Design ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
Institution Building ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Regional Institutions ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
Global Institutions ◽  
Third Party Dispute Resolution

The Asia-Pacific region offers an example of low legalization of regional institutions and perhaps an explicit aversion to legalization. An examination of three key regional institutions—ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation), and the ARF (ASEAN Regional Forum)—confirms a regional process of institution building without legalization. Recent developments in these institutions permit some discrimination among competing explanations for low legalization. On the one hand, ASEAN has embraced a legalized dispute-settlement mechanism; Asian governments have also employed legalized global institutions. On the other hand, the ARF and APEC continue to resist clear-cut legal obligations and third-party dispute resolution. This pattern suggests that legalization is best viewed as driven by the demands of economic integration and as a strategic response by governments in particular institutional settings. These explanations undermine alternatives based on domestic legal culture and uniformly high sovereignty costs. The Asian economic crisis has reopened a debate over regional institutions, which may fix on legalization as part of a new regional institutional design.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document