International Politics

, Volume 52, Issue 2, pp 208–222 | Cite as

Contested regional orders and institutional balancing in the Asia Pacific

Original Article

Abstract

The rise of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) is gradually transforming the international system from a unipolar world toward multipolarity. China’s ascent not only challenges US domination, but also intensifies the institutionalization of security in the Asia Pacific. On the basis of institutional balancing theory, I argue that (i) China’s rise has led to a competition among different regional orders, that is, the US-led bilateralism versus ASEAN-centered and China-supported multilateralism. However, conflicts or wars are not inevitable since the contested regional orders can coexist in the Asia Pacific. (ii) The deepening economic interdependence has encouraged regional powers, including the United States, China and ASEAN, to rely on different institutional balancing strategies to pursue security after the Cold War.

Keywords

ASEAN BRICS China US hegemony institutional balancing 

References

  1. Acharya, A. (2004) How ideas spread: Whose norms matter? Norm localization and institutional change in Asian regionalism. International Organization 58 (2): 239–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alagappa, M. (ed.) (2003) The study of international order: An analytical framework. In: Asian Security Order: Instrumental and Normative Features. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 33–69.Google Scholar
  3. ASEAN (2002) Declaration on the conduct of parties in the South China Sea, http://www.asean.org/asean/external-relations/china/item/declaration-on-the-conduct-of-parties-in-the-south-china-sea, accessed 6 June 2012.
  4. Asian Development Bank (2008) Emerging Asian Regionalism. Manila, the Philippines: Asian Development Bank.Google Scholar
  5. Bhadrakumar, M. (2006) China, Russia welcome Iran into the fold. Asian Times 18 April, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HD18Ad02.html, accessed 8 August 2008.
  6. Bhagwati, J. (2006) Why Asia must opt for open regionalism on trade. Financial Times 3 November, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9ba8569c-6ae0-11db-83d9-0000779e2340.html#axzz2mWPgOuqs, accessed 6 June 2012.
  7. Bowles, P. (2002) Asia’s post-crisis regionalism: Bringing the state back in, keeping the (United) states out. Review of International Political Economy 9 (2): 244–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bull, H. (1977) The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Capie, D. (2010) When does track two matter? Structure, agency and Asian regionalism. Review of International Political Economy 17 (2): 291–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Capie, D. and Taylor, B. (2010) The Shangri-La Dialogue and the institutionalization of defence diplomacy in Asia. The Pacific Review 23 (3): 359–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cheng, J. (2001) Sino-ASEAN relations in the early twenty-first century. Contemporary Southeast Asia 23 (3): 420–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Christensen, T. (2001) Posing problems without catching up: China’s rise and challenges for U.S. security policy. International Security 25 (4): 5–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chung, C. (2004) The Shanghai co-operation organization: China’s changing influence in Central Asia. The China Quarterly 180 (1): 989–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Das, S. (2013) The Trans-Pacific Partnership as a tool to contain China: Myth or reality? East Asia Forum, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/06/08/the-trans-pacific-partnership-as-a-tool-to-contain-china-myth-or-reality/, accessed 7 July 2013.
  15. Foot, R. (1998) China in the ASEAN regional forum: Organizational processes and domestic modes of thought. Asian Survey 38 (5): 425–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. He, K. (2009) Institutional Balancing in the Asia-Pacific: Economic Interdependence and China’s Rise. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. He, K. (2012) Undermining adversaries: Unipolarity, threat perception, and negative balancing strategies after the Cold War. Security Studies 21 (2): 154–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hiebert, M. and Hanlon, L. (2012) ASEAN and partners launch regional comprehensive economic partnership. Critical Questions, 7 December, http://csis.org/publication/asean-and-partners-launch-regional-comprehensive-economic-partnership, accessed 5 May 2013.
  19. Hurrell, A. (2007) On Global Order: Power, Values, and the Constitution of International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ikenberry, G.J. (2008) The rise of China and the future of the West: Can the liberal system survive? Foreign Affairs 87 (1): 23–35.Google Scholar
  21. Johnston, A. (2008) Social States: China in International Institutions 1980–2000. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Johnston, A. (2013) How new and assertive is China’s new assertiveness? International Security 37 (4): 7–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kennedy, P. (1987) The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  24. Lee, S. (2012) The Evolutionary Dynamics of Institutional Balancing in East Asia. EAI Working Paper no. 21, Seoul, South Korea.Google Scholar
  25. Legro, J. (2007) What China will want: The future intentions of a rising power. Perspectives on Politics 5 (3): 515–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lo, B. (2009) Axis of Convenience: Moscow, Beijing, and the New Geopolitics. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  27. Mearsheimer, J. (2010) The gathering storm: China’s challenge to US power in Asia. Chinese Journal of International Politics 3 (4): 381–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Organski, A. (1958) World Politics. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  29. Rosenau, J. (1992) Governance, order, and change in world politics. In: J. Rosenau and E. Czempiel (eds.) Governance Without Government: Order and Change in World Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ross, R. (1999) The geography of peace. International Security 23 (4): 81–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Simon, S. (2002) Evaluating track II approaches to security diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific: The CSCAP experience. The Pacific Review 15 (2): 167–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stubbs, R. (2002) ASEAN plus three: Emerging East Asian regionalism. Asian Survey 42 (3): 440–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sutter, R. and Huang, C. (2013) China gains and advances in South China Sea. Comparative Connections, January, http://csis.org/files/publication/1203qchina_seasia.pdf, accessed 7 July 2013.
  34. Tasker, R. (1992) Facing up to security. Far Eastern Economic Review 6 August, p. 9.Google Scholar
  35. Webber, D. (2001) Two funerals and a wedding: The up and downs of regionalism in East Asia and Asia-Pacific after the Asia crisis. The Pacific Review 14 (3): 339–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wendt, A. and Friedheim, D. (1995) Hierarchy under anarchy: Informal empire and the East German state. International Organization 49 (4): 689–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Xinhua News (2013) Chinese FM: Confrontation not conducive to solving South China Sea issues, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-06/27/c_132492885.htm, accessed 7 July 2013.
  38. Zhu, R. (2001) Strengthening East Asian cooperation and promoting common development, statement by Premier Zhu Rongji of China at the 5th 10+3 Summit, Bandar Seri Begawan, http://www.fmprc.gov.cn, accessed 6 June 2006.

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kai He
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceThe University of CopenhagenCopenhagen KDenmark

Personalised recommendations