8/9/2019 IR Theories in EA

1/7

Amitav Acharya, Theoretical Perspectives on International Relationsin Asia. In International Relations of Asia

REALISM States as main actors

Power (econ and military interest) national interest Sec!rity and order "ero#s!m $ame, relative $ains %ompete &or power and in'!ence, con'ict inevitale,

cooperation rare and s!percial Pre&erred international order* a alance#opower system

!nderpinnin$ y selhelp and alliances to maintain internationalorder

+ode o& interaction* strate$ic interaction Classical realism:h!man nat!re Neo-realism: str!ct!ral properties o& IR system, esp

distri!tion o& power pitcp,e Ofensive realists (neo-realism): (+earsheimer) states

power#ma-imiers, he$emonic $oal, re$ional e-pansionism,impose sphere o& in'!ence, concern &or s!rvival so e-pand tos!rvive. /.S. military presence +!ltipolar rivalry. Re$ionalinstit!tions as ad0!ncts to alance o& power (and e1ective only i&there is a prior alance o& power)

Deensive realists (classical realism): (Roert 2evis30ac4Snyder) states maintain alance o& power. Satis&y with thestat!s 5!o i& their own sec!rity is not challen$ed. S!rvival and

sec!rity. 6ipolarity

%hinese e-pansionism. Re$ionalinstit!tions as instr!ments o& %hinese sphere o& in'!ence

Balance of Power: US as regional balancer. %hie& &actor ehind Asias

staility Post cold#war* s!perpower entrenchment7 end o&

ipoloarity disorder. 6ipolarity3ilateralism more stalethan m!ltipolarity3m!ltilateralism

+!ltipolarity!nstale 6oP Asent (e.$. %hinese he$emony)8o 6oP

+!ltipolar contest etween risin$ %hina, remilitaried 2apan and

India. Power Transition theory implies inevitale con&rontation

etween stat!s 5!o power (/S) and power challen$er (%hina) Re$ional instit!tions are r!ish e.$. AP9% (Asia#Pacic

9conomic %ooperation), AS9A8 Re$ional :or!m, AS9A8(Association o& So!theast Asia 8ations) They are created y wea4 powers %&. s!ccess&!l mana$ement o& sec!rity dilemma ; 4eep all

relevant $reat powers involved in the re$ional arena so thatthey can alance each others in'!ence.

7 Soviet /nion withdraws naval &acilities in

8/9/2019 IR Theories in EA

2/7

(Aaron :rieder$) Thin economic interdependence within Asia.8o shared political systems. +iti$atin$ &actors o& loss o& ipolarstaility.

Critics: Ignore other forces, e.g. Asia regional norms & institutions

Economic growth Domestic politics Empirically wrong: Asias power-Col war insecurity ha!e

yet to materiali"e (>an ?!eton$)* %old war ipolarity can prevent war etween

s!perpowers, !t not re$ional con'icts@

LIBERALISM: States, m!ltinational corporations, international or$aniations as

main actors Primary $oal* cooperation and coordination to achieve collective

$oals= world peace Pre&erred international roder* collective sec!rity system

!nderpinnin$ y &ree trade, lieral democracy and instit!tions +ode o& interaction* domestic and international ar$ainin$,

trades Commercial Liberalism* econ interdependence, esp &ree

trade, transnational prod!ction, red!ces prospects o& war. I&$oods do not cross orders, soldiers will

Democratic peace* lieral democracies are more peace&!l thana!tocracies

Liberal instittionalism: international or$aniations

collective sec!rity, cooperation Neo-liberal instittionalism:international system is anarchic

!t instit!tions created y states in their sel& interest constrainanarchy= instit!tional dynamics (i.e. how instit!tions a1ectehavior) intl instit!tions Bre$imes &ormal or$aniationsC in&ormation#sharin$, prevent cheatin$, red!ce T%, aven!e &orpeace&!l resol!tion o& con'icts

/S ; eni$n he$emon* &ree access to its mar4et y Asiasind!strialiers even at a cost to itsel& (Trade decits), $reaterecon interdependence

6e&ore a&ter cold war* interdependence ind!ced y rapideconomic $rowth m!ltipolar staility d!e to e-pansionism o&capitalism and commerce.

Re$ional instit!tions !ild economic and sec!rity re$imes topromote &ree trade and mana$e disp!tes arisin$ &rom $rowin$interdependnence.

CONSTRUCTIISM

@ #During the Col war, the $o% etween '( an (o!iet 'nion ipre!ent them from attac)ing each other irectly in this region, ut itfaile to pre!ent wars etween their allies or was etween one ofthem an the allies of the other, e.g. *orean +ar

8/9/2019 IR Theories in EA

3/7

States, transnational 4nowled$e comm!nities, moralentreprene!rs as main actors

Ideational, S!0ective inter#s!0ective &actors, e.$. ideas,norms, history, c!lt!re, identity

+!t!al interactions socialiation interests identities o&

states (not $iven e-o$eno!sly y h!man nat!re3domesticpolitics)

Primary $oal* comm!nity !ildin$ thro!$h interactions andshared normative &ramewor4s

Pre&erred international order* $loal and re$ional sec!ritycomm!nities thro!$h shared norms and collective identity

International instit!tions deeply impact on ehavior o& states.%onstit!te state identities.

Di1erence o& collective identity o& 9!rope Asia e-plains whythere isnt an Asian 8ATE (%hris Femmer and Peter 4atenstein)

AS9A8 way ; shaped y shared norms (e.$. non#intervention,e5!ality o& states, avoidance o& memership in $reat powermilitary pacts), socialiation in search o& common identity in&ormal, consens!al, process#centric Asian re$ionalism, asopposed to &ormal, le$alistic, !rea!cratic nat!re o& 9!ropeanre$ionalism

Re$ional instit!tions ; norm#settin$ and comm!nity !ildin$thro!$h haits o& dialo$!e and in&ormal instit!tions

A&ter cold war* m!ltipolar staility thro!$h socialiation o& %oldGar rivals.

Sorpon$ Peo!. (@H7H). Peace and Sec!rity in the Asia#Pacic* Theoryand Practice. /S* Prae$er

%lassical realism F!man nat!re +a- power, ens!re own sec!rity Selsh h!man ein$s Driven y this desire to dominate others Tendency towards war Power ; national sec!rity ; sec!re $eo$raphical o!ndaries,

lar$e territorial sie, sels!ciency in nat!ral and ind!strial

reso!rces 8o !niversal moral standards that all states can a$ree

8eo#%lassical realism +ore modern approach, emphasie on relative material power,

dynamics o& domestic politics, political elites perceptions /nipolar3he$emonic system more prone to international staility

than m!ltipolar /S s!premacy very important Jrowin$ economic and military power, $rowin$ state, $reater

capaility

states ecome e-pansionist ; collide with the sphereo& other states ; emroiled in intl con'icts ; chan$e intl system

8/9/2019 IR Theories in EA

4/7

8/9/2019 IR Theories in EA

5/7

than h!man nat!re Anarchy, distri!tion o& power ; str!ct!ral &actors Anarchy no sense o& sec!rity, states cant tr!st each other,

eca!se each possess o1ensive military capacity, !ns!re ao!tothers intentions

Disposed to thin4 o1ensively towards staets Systemic dynamics, not h!man nat!re3perception3domestic

politics ? stat!s 5!o, international system #stron$ incentive to $ain

more power at the e-pense o& others, ta4e advanta$e o& thesit!ation, !ltimate $oal ; he$emon

Power ma-imiers ; ma- relative power within internationalsystem

Re0ect non#con&rontational strate$y, e.$.andwa$onin$3appeasement ; &anci&!l and dan$ero!s strate$yallow alance o& power to shi&t towards the a$$ressor

6ein$ he$emon ; $!arantee &or own national sec!rity, prevent&!t!re power decit

Revisionist 9mphasis cost#and#enet calc!lation, n!clear parity, str!ct!ral

ipolarity. Peace is possile when cost and ris4s o& $oin$ to warare hi$h

Jreat power m!st possess n!clear weapons ; s!rvive n!clearstri4e a$ainst it. 8!clear weapons can dampen hyper#nationalism. State sec!rity depends on n!clear weapon ratherthan pop!lar s!pport

6ipolarity L m!ltipolarity L &ractio!s and !nalancedm!ltipolarity

Power as the end itsel&

De&ensive realism 6eni$n nat!re o& international anarchy States are more concerned ao!t de&endin$ their sec!rity than

ma-imiin$ power 6alance power that threaten them States ecome a$$ressive only when threatened

Asia#Pacic moves towards staility y ipolar alance o&power3alance o& threat

So!rce o& threat 7. F!man nat!re ; selsh, a$$ressive, st!pid. @relative power* capaility e$ pop!lation, territorial sie, reso!rceendowment, military stren$th. M. International anarchy* relative$ain L asol!te $ain

Disli4e he$emony Pre&er alance#opower. 6alance the overwhelmin$ power in the

system. States will 'oc4 to the wea4er state,. 6ipolarity, n!clear weapons stailiers.

6ipolarity red!ces !ncertainty etter than m!ltipolarity 8!clear weapon ; proaility o& ma0or war amon$ states havin$

8/9/2019 IR Theories in EA

6/7

n!clear weapons approaches ero. Insec!rity is e-a$$erated. %hie& so!rce o& insec!rity perceived

insec!rity y states I& states are s!rro!nded y nat!ral arriers e$ mo!ntains ;

sho!ld &eel more sec!re

E1ensive dominance is rare De&ensive military str!ct!res, arms control a$reement to limit

o1ensive &orces States p!rs!it o& sec!rity with power as the means

Realist instit!tionalism %ollective sec!rity* imposes diplomatic, economic and military

sanctions a$ainst international o!tlaws %ollective sec!rity L military alancin$ !nder anarchy Power not e-ercised y the stron$est power in the system in the

&orm o& he$emony, !t y a comm!nity o& states Jreat powers participate in sec!rity mana$ement Jreat powers share a common &ar o& oth anarchy, ma0or

powers as winners o& a he$emonic war are hi$hly sensitive tothe costs o& war

+ana$e the prolem o& power amon$ $reat powers in s!ch away to ma4e it possile &or them to coordinate their relationseven to settle disp!tes amon$ themselves

%ooperation amon$ ma0or powers increases with hi$her level o&transparency, timlyl warnin$.

In&ormal, rather than indin$ &ormal arran$ement. Decisions

made on the asis o& in&ormal consens!s. 8E collectiveen&orcement mechanisms. %onsens!s#ased. Selrestraint

Shared ideolo$y Ideal tye o& collective sec!rity ; international law %omm!nity o& power, or$anied common peace. %ommon

interest in intl peace and sec!rity rather than separate narrowminded national interests.

Provide sec!rity &or all states, y the action o& all states, a$ainstall states that challen$e e-istin$ order

S!pport collective en&orcement action a$ainst a$$ression,isolate the wron$doer

States are rational. A$$ressors 4now they will &ace threats.Potential victims rely on the sec!rity system

9conomic sanctions

8eo#lieral instit!tionalism State operates !nder conditions o& comple- interdependence,

which miti$ates state ehavio!r States N non#state actors, &ormal in&ormal ties etween

nations 8E hierarchy o& iss!es (c& realist* military sec!rity the dominant)

states have a vvariety o& policy $oals, nonmilitary iss!es nots!ordinated to military iss!es

8/9/2019 IR Theories in EA

7/7

+ilitary &orce less relevant, war dic!lt to wa$e International instit!tions promote cooperation +!ltiple leadership ; one $overnment ta4es the lead in one

iss!e !t m!st e prepared to e a &ollower in another Re0ect he$emonic, !nilateral, collective leadership

Shared3m!t!al interests >es, states are e$oistic, !t can still p!rs!e lon$#term interests,

place $reater val!e on asol!te $ains Reciprocity ; cooperation Intl isntit!tions* !se&!l in&ormation, !nderstand each others

intention and red!ce !ncertainties, cheatin$, disclos!re o&military e-pendit!re etc