Multilateralism and East Asian transitions: the English School, diplomacy, and a networking regional order
This article traces East Asia’s evolving multilateralisms and role in transitioning East Asia away from “US hub-and-spokes” bilateralism toward a more networked system of security arrangements. Drawing on the English School, it argues for revisiting multilateralism’s diplomatic foundations as a way to direct attention to (1) the practice’s region-specific content and (2) the ways that multilateralism has introduced system-transitioning changes that include system-level dynamics associated with membership, actor hood, and the types of security at stake. The result is a more complex security environment and normative context that calls for more multifaceted responses from all, including the United States and China whose current multilateral diplomacies both draw from and challenge the multilateral norms and practices that have been created. Theoretically, re-attention to multilateralism’s diplomatic foundations also offers the English School an opportunity to make more distinctive contributions to ongoing debates about East Asia’s networking processes and security arrangements.
KeywordsSecurity multilateralism Diplomacy English School Security networks Power transition Asia
The author gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Czech Science Foundation under the standard research Grant No. GA16-02288S.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.
- Alagappa, M. (ed.). 2003. Asian security order: Instrumental and normative features. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Ba, A.D. 2009b. (Re) negotiating East and Southeast Asia: Region, regionalism, and the association of Southeast Asian Nations. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Bloomberg. 2016. Obama’s ‘pivot’ to Asia staggers as trade Deal Stalls, China Rises (May 16, 2016).Google Scholar
- Buzan, B. 2004. From international society to world society? English School and the social structure of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Caballero-Anthony, M. (ed.). 2005. Regional security in Southeast Asia: Beyond the ASEAN way. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.Google Scholar
- Cha, V.D. (2003). The dilemma of regional security in East Asia: Multilateralism versus bilateralism. In Regional conflict management, ed. P.F. Diehl and J. Levgold, 104–122. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
- Chu, S. 2007. The APT process and East Asian security cooperation. In Reassessing security cooperation in the Asia Pacific, ed. A. Acharya and E. Goh, 155–176. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Cossa, R. 2009. Evolving US Views on Asia’s Future Institutional Architecture. In Asia’s new multilateralism: Cooperation, competition, and the search for community, ed. M.J. Green and B. Gill, 33–54. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Emmerson, D. (2010) ASEAN and American engagement in East Asia. East Asia Forum (25 April).Google Scholar
- Gill, B., M.J. Green, K. Tsuji, and W. Watts. 2009. Strategic views on asian regionalism: Survey results and analysis. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies.Google Scholar
- Goldstein, A., and E. Mansfield. 2012. The nexus of economics, security, and international relations in East Asia. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Grossman, D. 2019. Quad supports US goal to preserve rules-based order. The Strategist (7 February).Google Scholar
- Ha, H.T. 2019. ASEAN Outlook on the Into-Pacific: Old Wine in New Bottle? ISEAS Perspective 51 (June 25).Google Scholar
- Huisken, R. (ed.). 2009. The architecture of security in the Asia-Pacific. Canberra: Australian National University Press.Google Scholar
- Joint Declaration of the Heads of State/Government of ASEAN and the People’s Republic of China on Strategic Partnership for Peace and Prosperity, 8 October 2003.Google Scholar
- Le Thu, H. 2018. Southeast Asian perceptions of the quadrilateral security dialogue. Canberra: Australian Strategic Policy Institute.Google Scholar
- Leifer, M. 1996. The truth about the balance of power. In The evolving pacific power structure, 47–51. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.Google Scholar
- Madan, T. 2017. The rise, fall, and rebirth of the quad. War on the Rocks (November 16) https://warontherocks.com/2017/11/rise-fall-rebirth-quad/. Accessed: 13 Dec 2018.
- Maniam, Hari. 1991. Baker urges against replacing proven security arrangements that include U.S. AP (25 July).Google Scholar
- Rogin, J. 2018. Trump’s Indo-Pacific strategy: Where’s the beef? (opinion). The Washington Post (June 6).Google Scholar
- Sharp, P. 2010. “Diplomacy” in international studies. International Studies Association. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Storey, I., and M. Cook. 2018. The trump administration and Southeast Asia: America’s Asia policy crystalizes. ISEAS Perspective (29 November).Google Scholar
- Watson, A. 2005. Diplomacy: The dialogue between states. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Wiseman, G. 2011. Norms and diplomacy: The diplomatic underpinnings of multilateralism. In The new dynamics of multilateralism boulder, ed. J. Muldoon, 5–22. CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar