China, India, Japan and an Emerging Eastphalian Order?

  • Yang Razali Kassim
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Political Science book series (BRIEFSPOLITICAL)


The growing influence of China and India in international politics, concomitant with their rise as emerging powers, has encouraged scholars to assess more closely the phenomenon of the rise of the East. In the context of the doctrine of the responsibility to protect and humanitarian intervention, some have even theorised about the possible emergence arguably and perhaps quite controversially of an ‘Eastphalian’order. Continuing from the previous discussion on China’s role as a P5 player, this chapter looks at the positions of two other Asian powers—India and Japan—and the domestic tensions they respectively face in the whole debate about R2P and international humanitarian intervention. Whilst India is an emerging power at a time when Japan is seen as waning, though not necessarily in terminal decline, what are the potential roles—or otherwise—of both Asian states in the prospective Eastphalian order?


Eastphalia Westphalia Beijing consensus Asian model Five principles of peaceful co-existence UN human rights council Fukushima disasters 


  1. Dunne, T., & Gifkins, J. (2011, April 15). Libya & R2P: A perfect storm? The Interpreter. Retrieved June 11, 2012, from
  2. Fidler, D. P., & Ganguly, S. (2010). India and Eastphalia. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 17(1), 147 (Article 7).Google Scholar
  3. Fukuda, Y. (2008). Address by HE Mr Yasuo Fukuda, Prime Minister of Japan, Session on The Responsibility to Protect: Human Security and International Action, Davos, Switzerland, 26 January.Google Scholar
  4. Global Research. (2009, March 29). India predicts China war by 2017. Retrieved May 18, 2012, from
  5. Haidar, S. (2012, February 27). Taking a false step. Times of India. Retrieved August 12, 2012, from
  6. Honda, M., (n.d). R2P and conflict prevention in Asia: A Japanese perspective. Paper presented at 4th annual convention of NTS-Asia (to check with NTS). Google Scholar
  7. Honna, J. (2012). Japan and the responsibility to protect: Coping with human security diplomacy. The Pacific Review, 25(1), 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kim, S. W., Fidler, D. P., & Ganguly, S. (2009). Eastphalia rising? Asian influence and the fate of human security. World Policy Journal, 26(2), 53–64.Google Scholar
  9. Komano, K. (2005). Statement of Kinichi Komano, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Japan in Charge of Human Security. Seventh Ministerial Meeting of the Human Security Network, Ottawa, May 18–20, 2005.Google Scholar
  10. Larouche Pac. (2012, February 25). Indian ambassador: UN’s “R2P” used selectively for regime change. Retrieved August 20, 2012, from
  11. Malone, L. A. (2011, April 4). IntLawGrls. Retrieved August 12, 2012, from
  12. Mohan, C. R. (2011, April). India, Libya and the principle of non-intervention. ISAS Insights, No 122-13.Google Scholar
  13. Mulgan, A. G. (2009). Why Japan can’t lead. World Policy Journal, 26, 101–110. (in footnote of Fidler and Ganguly). Google Scholar
  14. Muni, S. D. (2011, 23 April). ISAS, South Asian Soundings, BRICS as a Block.Google Scholar
  15. National Law School of India Review. (n.d.). The Responsibility to Protect in Environmental Emergencies: The Case of Japan. Google Scholar
  16. Perthes. (2012, 19 June). Balance shifts in a multipolar world. The Australian. Retrieved June 20, 2012, from
  17. Takasu (2009, 24 July). Statement by Ambassador Yukio Takasu. Permanent Representative of Japan on the responsibility to Protect, at the General Assembly.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations