International Relations Theory And The Asia Pacific

Looking at approaches to understanding the interactions among three critical players, China, Japan and the United States, the authors of this text show that understanding the effects of cultural divides between Asian and American policymakers is crucial to building effective policies in the future.

In this volume, experts on East Asia focus on each of the past five decades to explain the weak predictive power of traditional IR theory as applied to the region and uncover the true forces driving change.

International Relations (IR) as a discipline is often deemed to be “too Western” centric. It has been argued that much of mainstream IR theory is “simply an abstraction of Western history.” In this respect, many IR scholars have called for “broadening” the theoretical horizon of IR while problematising the Western parochialism of the discipline, and it is increasingly acknowledged that IR needs to embrace a wider range of histories, experiences, and theoretical perspectives, particularly those outside of the West. However, despite such a meaningful debate over broadening the theoretical and practical horizons of IR, several critical questions remain unclear and under-explored. For example, does IR need to embrace pluralism? If so, how much? To what extent, and in what sense, is IR parochial? Should IR promote dialogue across theoretical and spatial divides? If so, how? Yong-Soo Eun addresses these questions. He undertakes a literature review and an empirical analysis of the extent to which the field has actually become diverse and pluralistic. This investigation considers diversity beyond the current limited focus on the geographical origins of theory. Yong-Soo also draws attention to the mechanisms and processes of knowledge production and transmission in IR. More importantly, he addresses what is probably the most acute issue associated with the “non-Western” IR theory-building enterprise; namely, fragmentation and dialogue. In conclusion, Yong-Soo notes that the role of unsettling the present hierarchical structure of the discipline falls to reflexive individual agents. He argues that in order for their agential power to be more fully harnessed in the opening up of IR, critical “self”-reflection and “collective” empathy and collaboration among marginalised scholars are all essential.

What do we study when we study International Relations (IR)? This book interrogates the meanings of the established ontology and subjectivity embedded in the discourse of "Western" and "non-Western" IR. We are predisposed to see a nation-state as a unified entity, everlasting and moving towards a particular end. This leads us to say, for example, "Japan is threatened by the possible Chinese attack’ without questioning what "Japan" and "China" mean in this context. This book tries to locate and unearth the consistent structure and system of the world, with a particular focus on subjectivity and temporality in IR that captures the way in which we conceive and misconceive the world. The contributors reveal the extent to which contemporary IR discourses are a part of the culture of linear progress and pre-given autonomous sovereign individuals. Our targets of inquiry therefore inevitably include not only "Western" IR, but "non-Western" discourses as well. The contributors focus on the fluid identities of contemporary world affairs with special attention to temporality, and strive to develop a new approach to understanding the contemporary world and the meanings of world affairs.

Introduces non-Western IR traditions to a Western IR audience, and challenges the dominance of Western theory. This book challenges criticisms that IR theory is Western-focused and therefore misrepresents much of world history by introducing the reader to non-Western traditions, literature and histories relevant to how IR is conceptualised.

Why does North Korea behave erratically in pursuing its nuclear weapons program? Why did the United States prefer bilateral alliances to multilateral ones in Asia after World War II? Why did China become "nice"—no more military coercion—in dealing with the pro-independence Taiwan President Chen Shuibian after 2000? Why did China compromise in the negotiation of the Chunxiao gas exploration in 2008 while Japan became provocative later in the Sino-Japanese disputes in the East China Sea? North Korea’s nuclear behavior, U.S. alliance strategy, China’s Taiwan policy, and Sino-Japanese territorial disputes are all important examples of seemingly irrational foreign policy decisions that have determined regional stability and Asian security. By examining major events in Asian security, this book investigates why and how leaders make risky and seemingly irrational decisions in international politics. The authors take the innovative step of integrating the neoclassical realist framework in political science and prospect theory in psychology. Their analysis suggests that political leaders are more likely to take risky actions when their vital interests and political legitimacy are seriously threatened. For each case, the authors first discuss the weaknesses of some of the prevailing arguments, mainly from rationalist and constructivist theorizing, and then offer an alternative explanation based on their political legitimacy-prospect theory model. This pioneering book tests and expands prospect theory to the study of Asian security and challenges traditional, expected-utility-based, rationalist theories of foreign policy behavior.

Demonstrating that none of the various perspectives under review has emerged as the clear winner in the struggle for theoretical hegemony in security studies, this book shows that eclectic perspectives, like democratic realist institutionalism, can better explain peace and security in the Asian Pacific. The Asian Pacific has emerged as one of the most important regions in the world, causing scholars to pay increased attention to the various challenges, old and new, to peace and security there. Peace and Security in the Asia-Pacific: Theory and Practice is a comprehensive, critical review of the established theoretical perspectives relevant to contemporary peace and security studies in the light of recent experiences. Illuminating ongoing debates in the field, the book covers some 20 theoretical perspectives on peace and security in the Asian Pacific, including realist, liberal, socialist, peace and human security, constructivist, feminist, and nontraditional security studies. The first section of the book discusses perspectives in realist security studies, the second part covers perspectives critical of realism. The author's goal is to assess whether any of the perspectives found in nonrealist security studies are capable of undermining realism. His conclusion is that each theoretical perspective has its strengths and weaknesses, leaving eclecticism as the best way to understand the region's dynamics.