Abstract
This Special Issue aims to explain the transition from the Cold War US-led system of exclusive bilateral alliances in East Asia (or “hub-and-spokes” system) into a “networked security architecture”, i.e. a network of interwoven bilateral, minilateral and multilateral defence arrangements between the US and its regional allies and partners, and that also partly includes China. Drawing from the English School of International Relations, it challenges dominant Structural Realist explanations which interpret such development as a form of external balancing against a revisionist China. By contrast, this Special Issue submits that China’s selective contestation of the US-led hegemonic order in East Asia has sparked a renegotiation of such order among regional powers, which has resulted in the restructuring of the underlying alliances and defence partnerships into a networked security architecture. Specifically, regional powers have sought to broaden the composition of the US-led hegemonic order in East Asia—by diversifying the range of defence ties between US allies and partners, but also by seeking to include the PRC in it. Thereby, rather than merely balancing the People’s Republic of China, they have sought to channel the trajectory of China’s rise within this hegemonic order through a mixture of resistance and accommodation. This introductory paper develops the theoretical framework and central argument of the Special Issue.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Two exceptions to the bilateral structure of the “hub-and-spokes” alliance system were the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and the Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty (ANZUS). However, not only was SEATO largely ineffective, but it was dissolved in 1977. New Zealand was suspended from ANZUS in 1986. See Cha (2016).
The concept of “networked security architecture” introduced in this Special Issue partly draws on Victor Cha’s work on the East Asian “complex patchwork” (Cha 2011, 2014). Cha’s (loosely defined) concept referred to an incoherent assemblage of “bilateral, trilateral and other plurilateral configurations” (Cha 2011, 28). A networked security architecture specifically entails the purposeful intent—on the part of regional powers—of participating in, and fostering growing connectivity through, a network of overlapping bilateral, minilateral and multilateral arrangements. Partly building upon Tow and Taylor (2010, 96), we define a security architecture as an overarching security structure for a geographically defined area which facilitates the resolution of that region’s policy concerns. Unlike that of Tow and Taylor, however, this definition does not assume ex ante the overarching coherence of this structure. This is because a variety of often competing priorities and interests (i.e. multiple agencies) shape and mould the organizational make-up of a security architecture.
The normative pillars of the US-led hegemonic order in East Asia are the recognition of great power status, respect of sovereignty, free trade, deterrence and international law (Buzan and Zhang 2014b)—and specifically freedom of navigation and overflight and the multilateral, rules-based system of dispute resolution. A definition of primary and secondary institutions is provided below.
In this Special Issue, “alliance dynamics” refers to the reordering of alliances and defence partnerships among states in a given region. This can entail the development of bilateral, minilateral and/or multilateral forms of defence cooperation. The “networked security architecture” that has emerged in East Asia is one possible configuration of alliance dynamics.
China is thus included in some of the initiatives constituting the networked security architecture (e.g. bilateral partnerships with individual regional powers, minilateral arrangements and multilateral fora), but not in others, i.e. the system of five US bilateral mutual defence treaties.
On Defensive Realism and the rise of China, see, for instance, Beckley (2017), Friedberg (1993, 2011), Fravel (2010), Glaser (2015) and Liff (2016). For an Offensive Realist perspective, see Mearsheimer (2001, 2006, 2010). On Power Transition Theory as applied to the rise of China, see Allison (2017), Lemke and Tammen (2003) and Tammen and Kugler (2006).
Other variants of Realism put forward partly different perspectives. Neo-Classical Realists introduce domestic intervening variables, such as nationalism, domestic mobilization or leaders’ perceptions of threats and interests that can impact the degree of China’s revisionism and the counter-balancing strategies of regional powers (Christensen 1996; Schweller 2018; Sørensen 2013). For their part, Classical Realists focus on a larger range of state goals than mere survival (e.g. fear, honour, prestige), on the role of both domestic and international politics in shaping state behaviour as well as on the importance of contingency (Kirshner 2010, 2018). On these grounds, they dispute the fact that China is a revisionist power that will inevitably bid for regional hegemony and that it should therefore be counterbalanced. On the contrary, they argue that the US can and should avoid conflict by accommodating China’s rise. For an overview of the key propositions of Realists on the consequences of China’s rise and the response by regional powers, see also Mastanduno (2014).
Lim and Cooper (2015) argue that the range of hedging states in East Asia is smaller than usually assumed in the literature.
This argument differs substantially from the debate over whether the US should engage or contain the PRC (or a combination thereof) (e.g. Friedberg 2011, ch. 4; Khalilzad 1999; Shambaugh 1996; Tellis 2013). First, as Silove (2016) stresses, these two components (engagement and containment) are possible means, rather than the primary goal, of US policy—that she identifies as the enhancement of its overall power in the region. Secondly, previous analyses neglected to link these various components of Washington’s policy to the overarching goal of upholding the US-led hegemonic rules-based order in East Asia. We contend that the US does not merely seek to contain the PRC or to expand its power position in East Asia. Rather, together with its allies and partners, Washington aims to shape the trajectory of China’s rise within such order—from a position of pre-eminence—through a combination of positive and negative incentives (i.e. accommodation and resistance), with the ultimate goal of upholding the existing regional rules-based hegemonic order (see Meijer in this Special Issue). Third, whereas the engagement/containment debate has largely revolved around the US–China bilateral relationship, this Special Issue takes into account the role and agency of all regional powers in developing the policy response to China’s rise.
Only very few authors have analysed East Asian security dynamics through the lenses of the English School (e.g. Buzan and Zhang 2014b; Goh 2013). These works, however, do not examine the relations between the contestation of regional order by rising powers and the shifting regional alliance dynamics.
Given that this Special Issue seeks to explain the changing alliance dynamics in East Asia since the end of the Cold War, we focus specifically on regional (rather than international) order. On the conjunctions of the regional and global levels of analysis, see Foot and Goh (2019).
As shown by Meijer in this Special Issue, the Trump administration has displayed contradictory impulses vis-à-vis China and in managing its alliances in East Asia. On the one hand, in contrast to all its post-Cold War predecessors, it has labelled China as a “revisionist” power and displays greater scepticism on the prospects of integrating the PRC in the US-led rules-based order. On the other hand, the Trump administration’s defence policy in the region—and its approach to alliance dynamics—has displayed very substantial continuity. Under the rubric of the so-called Indo-Pacific Strategy, it continues to foster what itself has begun to refer to as a “networked security architecture” (U.S. DoD 2019, 9, 44–45). In short, compared to previous post-Cold War administrations, the Trump administration has displayed patterns of both continuity and discontinuity in its approach to alliance dynamics in East Asia. Furthermore, as detailed in the various contributions to this Special Issue, the vast majority of US allies and partners in the region have not substantially revised neither their perceptions of the modalities of China’s contestation of regional order nor their role in the development of the regional networked security architecture.
On the continuities/discontinuities in the policies of the Trump administration and of those of its allies and partners in the region, see the previous footnote.
References
Allison, G. 2017. Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Beckley, M. 2017. The Emerging Military Balance in East Asia: How China’s Neighbors Can Check Chinese Naval Expansion. International Security 42 (2): 78–119.
Bellamy, A.J., and M. MacDonald. 2004. Securing International Society: Towards an English School Discourse on Security. Australian Journal of Political Science 39 (2): 307–330.
Bisley, N. 2013. An Ally for All the Years to Come: Why Australia is Not a Conflicted U.S. Ally. Australian Journal of International Affairs 67 (4): 403–418.
Blackwill, R.D., and P. Dibb (eds.). 2000. America’s Asian Alliances. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bull, H. 1961. The Control of the Arms Race. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Bull, H. 1966. Society and Anarchy in International Relations. In Diplomatic Investigations, ed. H. Butterfield and M. Wight, 35–51. London: Allen & Unwin.
Bull, H. 1980. The Future Conditions of Strategic Deterrence. Adelphi Papers 160 (3): 13–23.
Bull, H. 2002. The Anarchical Society, A study of Order in World Politics, 3rd ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Butterfield, H. 1966. The Balance of Power. In Diplomatic Investigations, ed. H. Butterfield and M. Wight, 132–148. London: Allen and Unwin.
Buzan, B. 2004. From International to World Society: English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Buzan, B. 2014. An Introduction to the English School of International Relations: The Societal Approach. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Buzan, B. 2015. The English School: A Neglected Approach to International Security Studies. Security Dialogue 46 (2): 126–143.
Buzan, B. 2018. China’s Rise in English School Perspective. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 18 (3): 449–476.
Buzan, B., and R. Little. 2000. International Systems in World History (Remaking the Study of International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Buzan, B., and L. Schouenborg. 2018. Global International Society: A New Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Buzan, B., and Y. Zhang. 2014a. Introduction: Interrogating Regional International Society in East Asia. In Contesting International Society in East Asia, ed. B. Buzan and Y. Zhang. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Buzan, B., and Y. Zhang (eds.). 2014b. Contesting International Society in East Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Calder, K.E. 2009. The Pacific Alliance: Reviving U.S.–Japan Relations. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Cha, V.D. 2011. Complex Patchworks: U.S. Alliances as Part of Asia’s Regional Architecture. Asia Policy 11 (2): 27–50.
Cha, V.D. 2014. American Alliances and Asia’s Regional Architecture. In The Oxford Handbook of the International Relations of Asia, ed. R. Foot, S. Pekkanen, and J. Ravenhill, 737–757. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cha, V.D. 2016. Powerplay: The Origins of the American Alliance System in Asia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Chan, S., W. Hu, and K. He. 2018. Discerning States’ Revisionist and Status-Quo Orientations: Comparing China and the US. European Journal of International Relations. 25 (2): 613–640.
Chen, I.T., and A.H. Yang. 2013. A Harmonized Southeast Asia? Explanatory Typologies of ASEAN Countries’ Strategies to the Rise of China. The Pacific Review 26 (3): 265–288.
Christensen, T. 1996. Useful Adversaries: Grand Strategy, Domestic Mobilization, and Sino-American Conflict, 1947–1958. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Chung, C.P. 2004. Southeast Asia–China Relations: Dialectics of ‘Hedging’ and ‘Counter-Hedging’. Southeast Asian Affairs 2004: 35–53.
Ciorciari, J. 2010. The Limits of Alignment: Southeast Asia and the Great Powers since 1975. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Clark, I. 2011. Hegemony in International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cox, R. 1983. Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations. Millennium 12 (2): 162–175.
Cronin, P., et al. 2013. The Emerging Asia Power Web: The Rise of Bilateral Intra-Asian Security Ties. Washington, D.C.: Centre for a New American Security.
Dian, M. 2014. The Evolution of the U.S.–Japan Alliance. The Eagle and the Chrysanthemum. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.
Dolven, et al. 2015. Chinese Land Reclamation in the South China. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.
Dunne, T. 2006. Global Governance: An English School Perspective. In Contending Perspectives on Global Governance, ed. A.D. Ba and M.J. Hoffmann, 82–97. London: Routledge.
Dunne, T., and N.J. Wheeler. 2000. Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fontaine, R.D., P.M. Cronin, M. Rapp-Hooper, and H. Krejsa. 2017. Networking Asian Security. An Integrated Approach to Order in the Pacific. Washington, D.C.: Center for New American Security.
Foot, R., and E. Goh. 2019. The International Relations of East Asia: A New Research Prospectus. International Studies Review 21 (3): 398–423.
Foot, R., and A. Walter. 2010. China, the United States, and Global Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Foot, R., and A. Walter. 2013. Global Norms and Major State Behaviour: The Cases of China and the United States. European Journal of International Relations 19 (2): 329–352.
Fravel, T.M. 2010. International Relations Theory and China’s Rise: Assessing China’s Potential for Territorial Expansion. International Studies Review 12 (4): 505–532.
Friedberg, A.L. 1993. Ripe for Rivalry: Prospects for Peace in a Multipolar Asia. International Security 18 (3): 5–33.
Friedberg, A.L. 2011. A Contest for Supremacy. China, America and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia. New York: W.W. Norton.
Gilpin, R. 1981. War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Glaser, C.L. 2015. A US–China Grand Bargain? The Hard Choice Between Military Competition and Accommodation. International Security 39 (4): 49–90.
Goh, E. 2007. Southeast Asian Perspectives on the China Challenge. Journal of Strategic Studies 30 (4–5): 809–832.
Goh, E. 2013. The Struggle for Order: Hegemony, Hierarchy and Transition in Post-Cold War East Asia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goh, E. 2019. Contesting Hegemonic Order: China in East Asia. Security Studies 28 (3): 614–644.
Green, M.J. 2014. Strategic Asian Triangles. In The Oxford Handbook of the International Relations of Asia, ed. R. Foot, S. Pekkanen, and J. Ravenhill, 758–774. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Green, M.J. 2017. By More Than Providence: Grand Strategy and American Power in the Asia Pacific Since 1783. New York: Columbia University Press.
Green, M.J., et al. 2014. Federated Defense in Asia. Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Hoffmann, S. 1987. Janus and Minerva: Essays in Theory and Practice of International Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Hopf, T. 2013. Common-Sense Constructivism and Hegemony in World Politics. International Organization 67 (2): 317–354.
Hudson, G.F. 1966. Collective Security and Alliances. In Diplomatic Investigations, ed. H. Butterfield and M. Wight, 176–181. London: Allen & Unwin.
Hurrel, A. 2007. On Global Order: Power, Values, and the Constitution of International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ikenberry, G.J. 2014. Introduction: Power, Order, and Change in World Politics. In Power, Order, and Change in World Politics, ed. G.J. Ikenberry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ikenberry, G.J., and A. Liff. 2014. Racing toward Tragedy? China’s Rise, Military Competition in the Asia-Pacific, and the Security Dilemma. International Security 39 (2): 52–91.
Ikenberry, G.J., and D.H. Nexon. 2019. Hegemony Studies 3.0: The Dynamics of Hegemonic Orders. Security Studies 28 (3): 395–421.
Jackson, V.J. 2016. Red Teaming the Rebalance: The Theory and Risks of U.S. Asia Strategy. Journal of Strategic Studies 39 (3): 365–388.
Johnston, A.I. 2003. Is China a Status Quo Power? International Security 27 (4): 5–56.
Kennedy, S. (ed.). 2017. Global Governance and China: The Dragon’s Learning Curve. London: Routledge.
Khalilzad, Z. 1999. Congage China. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Khong, Y.F. 2014. East Asia and the Strategic ‘Deep Rules’ of International/Regional Society. In Contesting International Society in East Asia, ed. B. Buzan and Y. Zhang, 144–166. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kindleberger, C. 1973. The World in Depression. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Kirshner, J. 2010. The Tragedy of Offensive Realism. Classic Realism and the Rise of China. European Journal of International Relations 18 (1): 53–75.
Kirshner, J. 2018. Handle Him with Care: The Importance of Getting Thucydides Right. Security Studies 24 (4): 1–24.
Kupchan, C. 2014. Unpacking Hegemony: The Social Foundations of Hierarchical. In Power, Order, and Change in World Politics, ed. G.J. Ikenberry, 19–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, C.M. 2017. Asia’s New Long March: Bottling Conflicts and Managing Political Turbulences. The Pacific Review 30 (6): 843–856.
Lemke, D., and R.L. Tammen. 2003. Power Transition Theory and the Rise of China. International Interactions 29 (4): 269–271.
Liff, A.P. 2016. Whither the Balancers? The Case for a Methodological Reset. Security Studies 25 (3): 420–459.
Lim, D.J., and Z. Cooper. 2015. Reassessing hedging: The logic of alignment in East Asia. Security Studies 24 (4): 696–727.
Little, R., and J. Williams (eds.). 2006. The Anarchical Society in a Globalized World. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Manicom, J. 2014. China and American Seapower in East Asia: Is Accommodation Possible? Journal of Strategic Studies 37 (3): 345–371.
Mastanduno, M. 2014. Realism and Asia. In The Oxford Handbook of the International Relations of Asia, ed. R. Foot, S. Pekkanen, and J. Ravenhill, 25–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mazarr, M.J., T.R. Heath, and A.S. Cevallos. 2018. China and the International Order. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Mearsheimer, J.J. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: Norton.
Mearsheimer, J.J. 2006. China’s Unpeaceful Rise. Current History 105 (690): 160–164.
Mearsheimer, J.J. 2010. The Gathering Storm: China’s Challenge to U.S. Power in Asia. The Chinese Journal of International Politics 4 (1): 381–396.
Meijer, H. (ed.). 2015. Origins and Evolution of the U.S. Rebalance Toward Asia: Diplomatic, Military, and Economic Dimensions. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Nilsson-Wright, J. 2017. Creative Minilateralism in a Changing Asia Opportunities for Security Convergence and Cooperation Between Australia, India and Japan. London: Chatham House.
Palmujoki, E. 2013. Fragmentation and Diversification of Climate Change Governance in International Society. International Relations 27 (2): 180–201.
Pempel, T.J., and C.M. Lee (eds.). 2012. Security Cooperation in Northeast Asia: Architecture and Beyond. London: Routledge.
Rinehart, I., and B. Elias. 2015. China’s Air Defense Identification Zone. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.
Schoff, J.L. 2017. Uncommon Alliance for the Common Good. United States and Japan After the Cold War. Washington, D.C.: Carnagie Endowment for International Peace.
Schweller, R.L. 1994. Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back. International Security 19 (1): 72–107.
Schweller, R.L. 1999. Managing the Rise of Great Powers: History and Theory. In Engaging China: Managing a Rising Power, ed. A.I. Johnston and R. Ross. London and New York: Routledge Press.
Schweller, R.L. 2018. Opposite but Compatible Nationalisms: A Neoclassical Realist Approach to the Future of US–China Relations. The Chinese Journal of International Politics 11 (1): 23–48.
Shambaugh, D. 1996. Containment or Engagement of China? Calculating Beijing’s Responses. International Security 21 (2): 180–209.
Shambaugh, D. 2013. Tangled Titans: The United States and China. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Shambaugh, D. 2018. U.S.–China Rivalry in Southeast Asia: Power Shift or Competitive Coexistence? International Security 42 (4): 85–127.
Shin, G.W. 2010. One Alliance, Two Lenses: U.S.–Korea Relations in a New Era. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Silove, N. 2016. The Pivot Before the Pivot U.S. Strategy to Preserve the Power Balance in Asia. International Security 40 (4): 45–88.
Simón, L., A. Lanoszka, and H. Meijer. 2019. Nodal Defence: The Changing Structure of U.S. Alliance Systems in Europe and East Asia. Journal of Strategic Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2019.1636372.
Sørensen, C.T. 2013. Is China Becoming More Aggressive? A Neoclassical Realist Analysis. Asian Perspective 37 (3): 363–385.
Spandler, K. 2015. The Political International Society: Change in Primary and Secondary Institutions. Review of International Studies 41 (3): 601–622.
Stubbs, M., and D. Stephens. 2017. Dredge Your Way to China? The Legal Significance of Chinese Reclamation and Construction in the South China Sea. Asia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and Policy 2 (1): 25–51.
Tammen, R.L., and J. Kugler. 2006. Power Transition and China–US Conflicts. Chinese Journal of International Politics 1 (1): 35–55.
Tan, S.S. 2015. Multilateral Asian Security Architecture: Non-ASEAN Stakeholders. London: Routledge.
Tellis, A.J. 2013. Balancing Without Containment: A U.S. Strategy for Confronting China’s Rise. The Washington Quarterly 36 (4): 109–124.
Tow, W.T. 2014. The East Wind and Australia’s Alliance Politics. Asian Survey 54 (2): 273–296.
Tow, W.T. 2016. Regional Perspectives on America’s Changing Asia-Pacific Alliances and Partnerships. Asian Politics & Policy 8: 1–226.
Tow, W.T., and B. Taylor. 2010. What is Asian security architecture? Review of International Studies 36 (1): 95–116.
Tow, W.T., and B. Taylor (eds.). 2013. Bilateralism, Multilateralism and Asia-Pacific Security: Contending Cooperation. New York: Routledge.
U.S. Department of Defence (2019) Indo-Pacific Strategy Report. Preparedness, Partnerships and Promoting a Networked Region, June 1.
Vincent, J. 1986. Human Rights and International Relations: Issues and Responses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Watson, A. 2000. The Evolution of the International Society. London: Routledge.
Wuthnow, J. 2019. U.S. ‘Minilateralism’ in Asia and China’s Responses: A New Security Dilemma? Journal of Contemporary China 28 (115): 133–150.
Zeng, K., and W. Liang. (eds.). 2013. China and Global Trade Governance: China’s First Decade in the World Trade Organization. New York: Routledge.
Zhao, S. 2018. China and the South China Sea Arbitration: Geopolitics Versus International Law. Journal of Contemporary China 27 (109): 1–15.
Zheng, C. 2016. China Debates the Non-interference Principle. The Chinese Journal of International Politics 9 (3): 349–374.
Acknowledgements
For useful and constructive feedback, the authors would like to thank Shaun Breslin, Tim Dunne, Rosemary Foot, Evelyn Goh, Joseph Grieco, Jonathan Kirshner, Beverly Loke, Avinash Paliwal, Luis Simón, Pascal Vennesson and Jiang Zhongjin.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dian, M., Meijer, H. Networking hegemony: alliance dynamics in East Asia. Int Polit 57, 131–149 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-019-00190-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-019-00190-y