Regional Institution and Institutional Balancing: The Case of the East Asian Summit
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Two factors-economic necessity and regional identity-have been suggested as the main factors behind the emergence of East Asia-only regionalism following the Asian economic crisis. Despite the importance of these factors in its early stages, the recent development of East Asian regionalism, especially the complex dynamics around the launch of the East Asian Summit(EAS) cannot be explained by these factors. In this paper the author argues that the recent evolution of East Asian regionalism, has been determined to a great extent, by power politics which has been neglected in previous studies of East Asian regionalism. The effort of China and Malaysia to hasten the formation of the EAS was an attempt to use it as a mechanism of institutional balancing against the U.S. To thwart China’s intention of championing regional cooperation, Japan and some ASEAN countries dragged countries outside the region including Australia, New Zealand and India into the EAS, thereby turning it into something China never wanted. Japan’s strategy also could be interpreted as an institutional balancing act with the aim to block the establishment of a China-centered regional organization. The future of East Asian regionalism is not rosy. Because China has changed its policy toward multilateralism and begun to actively involve itself in regional matters via multilateral institutions, East Asian regional cooperation has become a matter of power politics. Especially, when East Asian countries started pursuing a more institutionalized regional cooperation, balancing consideration prevailed over economic and identity factors. East Asian regionalism is further complicated by the fact that this region is important to the strategic interests of the U.S. As long as the U.S. is concerned with the development of regionalism in East Asia, this regionalism cannot be seen as strictly a regional matter. In terms of theories of East Asian regionalism, the author argues that East Asian regionalism cannot be explained by any single factor. Different factors predominated in different stages of the evolution of East Asian regionalism. As this regionalism enters a more institutionalized stage, power politics will become increasingly more important than factors such as economic interests and collective identity.
Abstract
Two factors-economic necessity and regional identity-have been suggested as the main factors behind the emergence of East Asia-only regionalism following the Asian economic crisis. Despite the importance of these factors in its early stages, the recent development of East Asian regionalism, especially the complex dynamics around the launch of the East Asian Summit(EAS) cannot be explained by these factors. In this paper the author argues that the recent evolution of East Asian regionalism, has been determined to a great extent, by power politics which has been neglected in previous studies of East Asian regionalism. The effort of China and Malaysia to hasten the formation of the EAS was an attempt to use it as a mechanism of institutional balancing against the U.S. To thwart China’s intention of championing regional cooperation, Japan and some ASEAN countries dragged countries outside the region including Australia, New Zealand and India into the EAS, thereby turning it into something China never wanted. Japan’s strategy also could be interpreted as an institutional balancing act with the aim to block the establishment of a China-centered regional organization. The future of East Asian regionalism is not rosy. Because China has changed its policy toward multilateralism and begun to actively involve itself in regional matters via multilateral institutions, East Asian regional cooperation has become a matter of power politics. Especially, when East Asian countries started pursuing a more institutionalized regional cooperation, balancing consideration prevailed over economic and identity factors. East Asian regionalism is further complicated by the fact that this region is important to the strategic interests of the U.S. As long as the U.S. is concerned with the development of regionalism in East Asia, this regionalism cannot be seen as strictly a regional matter. In terms of theories of East Asian regionalism, the author argues that East Asian regionalism cannot be explained by any single factor. Different factors predominated in different stages of the evolution of East Asian regionalism. As this regionalism enters a more institutionalized stage, power politics will become increasingly more important than factors such as economic interests and collective identity.
참고문헌 (25)
- Acharya, Amitav, "Regional Institutions and Asian Security Order: Norms, Power, and Prospects for Peaceful Change. in: Asian Security Order: Instrumental and Normative Features" (2003), Stanford University Press
- Adler, Emanuel, "Imagined (security) Communities: Cognitive Regions in International Relations", Millennium, 26(2) (1997)
- Bae, Geung-chan, "East Asia Summit: Origin, Outcome and Future", IFANS Review, 14(2) (2006)
- Baker, James, "The Politics of: War and Peace, 1989∼1992" (1995), G. P.Putnam’s Sons
- Bergsten, Fred c., "Toward a Tripartite World. The Economist. July 15", ~ (2000)
- Ciorciari, John D., "Material, Institutional, and Ideational Balances in Contemporary Southeast Asia", Paper presented at the ISA Annual Meeting (2008)
- Grieco, Joseph M., "Systemic Sources of Variation in Regional Institutionalization in Western Europe, East Asia, and the Americas. in: The Political Economy of Regionalism" (1997), Columbia University Press
- He, Kai, "Institutionalizing Security: Institutional Realism and ASEAN Security", Paper presented at the 47th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association (2006)
- Ikenberry, John G., "After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint and the Rebuilding of Order After Major Wars" (2001), Princeton University Press
- Ikenberry, John G., "A New East Asian Security Architecture: A Note From our Guest Editor", Global Asia, 5(1) (2010)
- Kawai, Masahiro Dean, "ASEAN＋3 or ASEAN＋6: Which Way Forward?", Paper Presented at the Conference on Multilateralising Regionalism sponsored and organized by WTO-HEI, co-organized by the Center fro Economic Policy Research(CEPR) (2007)
- Keohane, Robert, "The Demand for International Regimes. in: International Regimes" (1983), Cornell University Press
- Keohane, Robert, "After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Economy" (1984), Princeton University Press
- Kuik, Cheng-Chwee, "Multilateralism in China’s ASEAN Policy: Its Evolution, Characteristics, and Aspirations", Contemporary Southeast Asia, 27(1) (2005)
- The ASEAN Regional Forum: Extending ASEAN’s Model of Regional Security, "Leifer, Michael", International Institute for Strategic Studies, ~, pp.Adelphi Paper 302 (1996)
- Malik, Mohan, "The East Asia Summit: More Discord than Accord. YaleGlobal", ~ (2005)
- Mansfield, Edward D., "The New Wave of Regionalism", International Organization, 53(3) (1999)
- Pape, Robert A., "Soft Balancing against the United States", International Security, 30(1) (2005)
- Paul, T.V., "Soft Balancing in the Age of U.S. Primacy", International Security, 30(1) (2005)
- Paul, T. V., "The Enduring Axioms of Balance of Power Theory. in: Balance of Power: Theory and Practice in the 21st Century" (2004), Stanford University Press
- Shirk, Susan, "American Hopes: An Agenda for Cooperation That Serves US Interests", Global Asia, 5(1) (2010)
- Terada, Takashi, "Constructing an ‘East Asian’ concept and growing regional identity: from EAEC to ASEAN＋3", The Pacific Review, 16(3) (2003)
- East Asian Summit: Issues for Congress. CRS Report for Congress, "Vaughn, Bruce", ~ (2005)
- Hyun-SeokYu, "EXPLAINING THE EMERGENCE OF NEW EAST ASIAN REGIONALISM: BEYOND POVER AND INTEREST-BASED APPROACHES", Asian Perspective, 27(1), pp.261~288 (2003), 극동문제연구소