Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T20:29:18.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Emerging Regional Architecture of World Politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

Amitav Acharya
Amitav Acharya
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, United Kingdom, [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This article examines the importance of regions in shaping world order. Reviewing two recent books that claim that the contemporary world order is an increasingly regionalized one, the author argues that regions matter to the extent they can be relatively autonomous entities. While both books accept that regions are social constructs, their answer to the question of who makes regions reflects a bias in favor of powerful actors. A regional understanding of world politics should pay more attention to and demonstrate how regions resist and socialize power—at both global and regional levels—rather than simply focusing on how powers construct regions. Power matters, but local responses to power, including strategies of exclusion, resistance, socialization, and binding, matter more in understanding how regions are socially constructed. The article elaborates on various types of responses to power from both state and societal actors in order to offer an inside-out, rather than outside-in, perspective on the regional architecture of world politics.

Type
Review Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 59 , Issue 4 , July 2007 , pp. 629 - 652
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Lake, David A. and Morgan, Patrick M., “The New Regionalism in Security Affairs,” in Lake, and Morgan, , eds., Regional Orders: Building Security in a New World (University Park: Pannsylvania State University Press, 1997), 7Google Scholar.

2 Despite agreement on these basic points, the two books differ in significant ways. R&P covers all the major regions of the world, while AWR focuses on Europe and Asia, with a concluding chapter that discusses how its framework applies to other regions—South Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa. But AWR's thematic scope is wider, incorporating the economics-security nexus and the role of culture and identity in shaping regional interactions. R&P concentrates on security dynamics.

3 Katzenstein uses the terms “imperium” (that is, the combination of America's territorial and nonterritorial power) and “core states” (Japan and Germany), while Buzan and Wsever stick to more traditional categories such as superpower, great power, and regional power.

4 I disagree with the characterization of the South Pacific as an “unstructured region.” It has a fairly active regional institution, the South Pacific Forum, and the relatively small size of most of its member states creates a shared vulnerability and engenders a sense of security interdependence.

5 The notion of regional security complex has evolved since Buzan first proposed it in 1983. Then, RSCs designated only areas of intense rivalry (for example, India-Pakistan; Arab states-Israel, North and South Korea), while ignoring regions where the main pattern of relationship is cooperative; Buzan, Barry, “A Framework for Regional Security Analysis,” in Buzan, Barry and Rizvi, Gowher, eds., South Asian Insecurity and the Great Powers (London: Croom Helm, 1986), 8Google Scholar. In the new formulation they may vary from anarchy (“conflict formations”) to “security communities,” where war has been rendered unthinkable.

6 There are other types of complexes. Supercomplexes are a number of RSCs bound together by one or more great powers that generate “relatively high and consistent levels of interregional security dynamics.” Subcomplexes are similar to an RSC but are firmly embedded within a larger RSC. Precomplexes are potential RSCs or RSCs in the making, but the bilateral relationships have not yet reached the level of interdependence to qualify as a full-fledged RSC. Protocomplexes occur when the degree of security interdependence within a region is sufficient to differentiate it from its neighbours, but the overall regional security dynamics remains thinner and weaker than a fully fledged RSC (Buzan and Wasver, 490–92). Finally, a “mini-complex” is an RSC on a small scale, composed at least partly of substate actors.

7 Hemmer, Christopher and Katzenstein, Peter J., “Why Is There No NATO in Asia: Collective Identity, Regionalism, and the Origins of Multilateralism,” International Organization 56 (Summer 2002), 575Google Scholar.

8 Beyond the U.S. role, AWR identifies state power, regime type, and state structures as the factors that make Asian regionalism different from Europe's (Katzenstein, 220). European regionalism is a regional]sm of relatively equal neighbors of similar regime types with well-functioning bureaucracies. Intra-Asian relations are more hierarchical, Asian political regimes differ widely, and Asian states are “non-Weberian” in the sense that “rule by law” rather than “rule of law” prevails.

9 On the various ways of defining regions, see Cantori, Louis J. and Spiegel, Steven L., eds., The International Politics of Regions: A Comparative Approach (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1970)Google Scholar; Thompson, William R., “The Regional Subsystem: A Conceptual Explication and a Prepositional Inventory,” International Studies Quarterly 17 (March 1973)Google Scholar; Hurrell, Andrew, “Regionalism in Theoretical Perspective,” in Louise Fawcett and Andrew Hurrell, eds., Regionalism in World Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996)Google Scholar; Neumann, Iver, “A Region-Building Approach to Northern Europe,” Review of International Studies 20 (1994)Google Scholar; Jayasurya, Kanishka, “Singapore: The Politics of Regional Definition,” Pacific Review 7, no. 4 (1994)Google Scholar; Bernard, Mitchell, “Regions in the Global Political Economy: Beyond the Local-Global Divide in the Formation of the Eastern Asian Region,” New Political Economy 1 (November 1996)Google Scholar; Singh, Hari, “Hegemonic Construction of Regions: Southeast Asia as a Case Study,” in Owen, Sarah, ed., The State and Identity Construction in International Relations (London: Macmillan, 1999)Google Scholar; Acharya, Amitav, The Quest for Identity: International Relations of Southeast Asia (Singapore: Oxford University Press, 2000)Google Scholar; Murphy, Alexander, “Regions as Social Constructs: The Gap between Theory and Practice,” Progress in Human Geography 15, no. 1 (1991)Google Scholar; Varynen, Raimo, “Regionalism: Old and New,” International Studies Review 5, no. 1 (2003)Google Scholar; Hurrell, Andrew, “One World? Many Worlds? The Place of Regions in the Study of International Society,” International Affairs 83 (2007)Google Scholar.

10 Mansfield, Edward and Milner, Helen, “The New Wave of Regionalism,” International Organization 53 (Summer 1999)Google Scholar.

11 Pentland, Charles, “The Regionalization of World Politics: Concepts and Evidence,” International Journal 30 (Autumn 1974–75), 615Google Scholar. On the behavioral perspective on regions, see Russett, Bruce, International Regions and the International System: A Study in Political Ecology(Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967)Google Scholar; idem, “Delineating International Regions,” in Singer, Joel David, ed., Quantitative International Politics: Insights and Evidence (New York: Free Press, 1968)Google Scholar.

12 Adler, Emanuel and Crawford, Beverly, “Constructing a Mediterranean Region: A Cultural Approach” (Paper presented at the Conference on the Convergence of Civilizations? Constructing a Mediterranean Region, Lisbon, Portugal, June 6—9, 2002), 3Google Scholar.

13 Wsever, Ole, “Culture and Identity in the Baltic Sea Region,” in Pertti Joenniemi, ed., Cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region (London: Taylor and Francis, 1993)Google Scholar.

14 See Dirlik, Arif, “The Asia-Pacific Region: Reality and Representation in the Invention of the Regional Structure,” Journal of World History 3, no. 1 (1992)Google Scholar.

15 Katzenstein, Peter J. and Sil, Rudra, “Rethinking Asian Security: A Case for Analytical Eclecticism,” in Suh, J. J., Katzenstein, Peter J., and Carlson, Allen, eds., Rethinking Security in East Asia: Identity, Power and Efficiency (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2004), 5Google Scholar.

16 Security complexes may merge to become “supercomplexes” or may split. They may become conflict prone or peaceful through “securitization and desecuritization.” Securitization involves taking extraordinary measures to address challenges that have been labeled/constructed as existential threats to a state or other international actors (including regions) (Buzan and Wasver, 71). Desecuritization refers to the reverse process whereby issues already labeled as such are taken out of the emergency mode and put back into normal political sphere (Buzan and Waever, 71).

17 R&P discusses material security linkages between the neighboring RSCs, such as South, Southeast, and Northeast Asia; the Middle East and Africa; North and South America; and the links between Russia and Europe and Asia (Buzan and Waever, chap. 6 and pp. 258–60, 333–37, 429–33).

18 Acharya, Amitav, “How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism,” International Organization 58 (Spring 2004)Google Scholar.

19 Alagappa, Muthiah, “The Study of International Order,” in Alagappa, , ed., Asian Security Order: Instrumental and Normative Features (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2003), 34Google Scholar. For a discussion of regional orders produced by internationalist coalitions, see Solingen, Etel, Regional Orders at Century's Daivn: Global and Domestic Influences on Grand Strategy(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998)Google Scholar.

20 Ayoob, Mohammed, “Regional Security and the Third World,” in Ayoob, ed., Regional Security in the Third World (London: Croom Helm, 1986), 4Google Scholar.

21 Bull, Hedley, The Anarchical Society, 2nd ed. (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1999)Google Scholar.

22 Ibid., 16–19.

23 Morgan, “Regional Security Complexes and Regional Orders,” in Lake and Morgan (fn. 1), 32.

24 Alagappa (fn. 19), 39.

25 Of these, the definitions of three types of regional security orders are noteworthy. Conflict formation: “a pattern of security interdependence shaped by fear of war and expectations of the use of violence in political relations”; security regime: “a pattern of security interdependence still shaped by fear of war and expectations of the use of violence in political relations, but where those fears are restrained by an agreed set of rules and expectations that those rules will be observed”; security community: “a pattern of security interdependence in which the units do not expect or prepare for the use of force in their political relations with each other” (Buzan and Wtever, 489, 491).

26 Lake and Morgan (fn. 1), 12.

27 Katzenstein, Peter J., “Introduction: Asian Regionalism in Comparative Perspective,” in Peter J. Katzenstein and Takashi Shiraishi, eds., Network Power: Japan and Asia (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1997), 3Google Scholar.

28 Acharya, Amitav and Johnston, Alastair Iain, eds., Crafting Cooperation: Regional International Institutions in Comparative Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007)Google Scholar. This study is different from the Rational Design of International Institutions (RDII) project, which addressed why and how international institutions differ (in terms of their membership rules, scope of issues, centralization of tasks, rules for controlling the institution, and flexibility of arrangements) but bracketed considerations of their effectiveness. Koremenos, Barbara, Lipson, Charles, and Snidal, Duncan, The Rational Design of International Institutions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)Google Scholar; Duffield, John S., “The Limits of ‘Rational Design,’“ International Organization 57 (Spring 2003)Google Scholar. The RDII project did not study regional institutions. The Acharya-Johnston project looks at both material and ideationai aspects of design variations among regional institutions and then studies the impact of these features on the effectives of institutions.

29 Amitav Acharya and Alastair Iain Johnston, “Conclusion: Institutional Features, Cooperation Effects, and the Agenda for Further Research on Comparative Regionalism,” in Acharya and Johnston (fn. 28)

30 Acharya, Amitav, “Why Is There No NATO in Asia? The Normative Origins of Asian Multilateralism,” Working Paper, no. 05–05 (Cambridge: Harvard University, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, July 2005)Google Scholar.

31 Acharya, Amitav, Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order (London: Routldge, 2001), 182Google Scholar.

32 Singh (fn. 9).

33 Mearsheimer, John, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York: W. W. Norton, 2001), 41Google Scholar.

34 Cooper, Scott and Taylor, Brock, “Power and Regionalism: Explaining Regional Cooperation in the Persian Gulf,” in Laursen, Finn, ed., Comparative Regional Integration: Theoretical Perspectives (Aldershot: Ashgate. 2003)Google Scholar; Grubber, Lloyd, Ruling the World: Power Politics and the Rise of Supranational Institutions (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000)Google Scholar.

35 Grieco, Joseph M., “Realism and Regionalism: American Power and German and Japanese Institutional Strategies during and after the Cold War,” in Kapstein, Ethan B. and Mastanduno, Michael, eds., Unipolar Politics: Realism and State Strategies after the Cold War (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999)Google Scholar.

36 Ikenberry, G. John, After Victory. Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000)Google Scholar.

37 Mittleman, James and Falk, Richard, “Global Hegemony and Regionalism,” in Calleya, Stephen C., ed., Regionalism in the Post-Cold War World (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000), 19Google Scholar.

38 Acharya, Amitav, “Regional Military-Security Cooperation in the Third World: A Conceptual and Comparative Study of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations,” Journal of Peace Research 29 (January 1992)Google Scholar; Hettne, Bjorn, “The New Regionalism: Implications for Development and Peace,” in Hettne, Bjorn and Inotai, Andras, eds., The New Regionalism: Implications for Global Development and International Security (Helsinki: United Nations University, World Institute for Development Economics Research, 1994)Google Scholar.

39 For a discussion, focusing on material factors, on the challenge to US hegemony, see Layne, Christopher, “The Unipolar Illusion: Why New Great Powers Will Rise,” International Security 17 (Spring 1993)Google Scholar. Layne does not discuss ideational and normative challenges. The durability of unipolarity is asserted in Wohlforth, William, “The Stability of a Unipolar World,” International Security 24 (Summer 1999)Google Scholar.

40 The effort failed due to U.S. opposition but has not faded away. For possible areas of Japanese challenge to the U.S., see Gilpin, Robert, “Sources of American-Japanese Economic Conflict,” in Ikenberry and Mastanduno, eds., International Relations Theory and the Asia Pacific (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003)Google Scholar.

41 Kupchan, Charles, “After Pax Americana: Benign Power, Regional Integration, and the Sources of Stable Multipolarity,” International Security 23 (Autumn 1998)Google Scholar. By contrast, Wohlforth dismisses such regional unipolarities, because all potential challengers to the U.S. have great power neighbors that could turn into natural allies of the U.S. or balance each other; Wohlforth (fn. 39).

42 Kang, David, “Getting Asia Wrong: The Need for New Analytical Frameworks,” International Security 27 (Spring 2003)Google Scholar. For a contrarian view, see Acharya, Amitav, “Will Asia's Past Be Its Future?” International Security 28 (Winter 2003–4)Google Scholar.

43 Muni, S. D., “China's Strategic Engagement with the New ASEAN,” 1DSS Monographs, no. 2 (Singapore: Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, 2002), 21,132Google Scholar; “Economic Juggernaut: China Is Passing U.S. as Asian Power,” New York Times, June 29, 2002, cited in Friedrich Wu et al., Foreign Direct Investments to China and Southeast Asia: Has ASEAN Been Losing Out,” Economic Survey of Singapore (Third Quarter 2002), http://unpanl.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/ UNPAN010347.pdf (accessed July 28, 2007), 96; Manning, Robert A., “The Monroe Doctrine, Chinese Style,” Los Angeles Times, August 16,1998,2Google Scholar. Ernst Bower, the then president of the U.S.-ASEAN Business Council, said in 2003: “I do feel the Chinese Monroe Doctrine is being built here in the region. As the Chinese get their act together and play on the world stage, this region is the first of a series of concentric circles”; cited in Jane Perlez, “The Charm from Beijing,” New York Times, October 9, 2003, http://taiwansecurity.org/NYT/2003/NYT-100903.htm (accessed May 12, 2007).

44 Quoted in Gordon, Bernard, “The FTA Fetish,” Wall Street Journal, November 17, 2005, A16.Google Scholar

45 Ravenhill, John, “In Search of an East Asian Region: Beyond Network Power,” in Aggarwal, Vinod K. and Koo, Min Gyo, eds., “Roundtable: Peter J. Katzenstein's Contributions to the Study of East Asian Regionalism,” Journal of East Asian Studies 7 (September-December 2007)Google Scholar.

46 Japan is vulnerable to China's challenge not just materially but, as Katzenstein himself notes, ideationally. After all, it was China that had the central role in the historical identity of East Asia. And “Japan's inability to recognize its militarist past reinforces political suspicion throughout Asia, and its atypical national security policy has had remarkably little influence in reshaping Asia's regional security order” (Katzenstein, 140).

47 Acharya, Amitav and Tow, William T., “Obstinate or Obsolete: The U.S. Alliance Structure in the Asia Pacific” (Manuscript, Department of International Relations, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University, August 2006)Google Scholar.

48 Ispahani, Mahnaz Z.; “Alone Together: Regional Security Arrangements in Southern Africa and the Arabian Gulf,” International Security 8 (Spring 1984)Google Scholar.

49 Fukuyama, Francis, “The West May Be Coming Apart,” The Straits Times, August 10, 2002Google Scholar.

50 Kagan asserts that compared with Americans, Europeans are “more tolerant of failure, more patient when solutions don't come quickly.” They eschew “finality” in international affairs, prefer “negotiation, diplomacy, and persuasion,” and emphasize “process over result.” Many of these observations are true of Asian regionalism as well. Kagan, Robert, “Power and Weakness,” Policy Review, no. 113 (June-July 2002)Google Scholar.

51 Acharya, Amitav, “Regionalism and the Emerging World Order: Sovereignty, Autonomy, Identity,” in Breslin, Shaun, Hughes, Christopher W., Phillips, Nicola, and Rosamond, Ben, eds., New Regionalisms in the Global Political Economy (London and New York: Routledge, 2002)Google Scholar; Kacowicz, Arie M., Zones of Peace in the Third World: South America and West Africa in Comparative Perspective (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998)Google Scholar.

52 Vivekanandan, B., “The Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace: Problems and Prospects,” Asian Survey 21 (December 1981)Google Scholar; “Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality Declaration, Malaysia, 27 November 1971,” http://www.aseansec.org/1215.htm (accessed July 28, 2007); Hanggi, Heiner, ASEAN and the ZOPFAN Concept (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1991)Google Scholar; Acharya, Amitav and Ogunbanwo, Sola, “The Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones in South-East Asia and Africa,” SIPRI Year/rook 1998 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998)Google Scholar; Nuclear Weapon-free Zones: Advantages, Shortcomings and Prospects (Paris: Le Centre Thucydide, 2005)Google Scholar, http://www.afri-ct.org/article.php3?id_article=1636 (acccessed May 12, 2007).

53 Ayoob, Mohammed, “The Primacy of the Political: South Asian Regional Cooperation (SARC) in Comparative Perspective,” Asian Survey 25 (April 1985), 444Google Scholar; idem, “From Regional System to Regional Society: Exploring Key Variables in the Construction of Regional Order,” Australian Journal of International Affairs 53, no. 3 (1999)Google Scholar.

54 Mecham, J. Lloyd, The United States and Inter-American Security 1889–1960 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1962)Google Scholar.

55 Hurrell (fn. 9, 2007), 143.

56 Leifer, Michael, The ASEAN Regional Forum, Adelphi Paper, no. 302 (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1996)Google Scholar.

57 Mark Beeson, “Resisting Hegemony: The Sources and Limits of Anti-Americanism in Southeast Asia” (Paper prepared for the workshop on Globalisation, Conflict and Political Regimes in East and Southeast Asia, Fremantle, Australia, August 15–16, 2003), http://eprint.uq.edu.au/ archive/00000623/01/mb-cgpr-03.pdf (accessed May 11,2007).

58 Hettne, Bjorn, “The New Regionalism and the Return of the Political” (Paper presented at the XIII Nordic Political Science Association Meeting, Aalborg, August, 15–17, 2002), 2Google Scholar.

59 Peter Symonds, “Behind Indonesia's Anti-Chinese Riots,” February 14,1998, http://www.wsws. org/news/1998/feb1998/indones.shtml (accessed May 11, 2007); Leo Suryadinata, “Anti-Chinese Riots in Indonesia Perennial Problem but Major Disaster Unlikely,” The Straits Times, February 25, 1998, 36, http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/54b/066.html (accessed May 11, 2007); Bhubhindar Singh, “ASEAN's Perceptions of Japan: Change and Continuity,” Asian Survey 42 (March—April 2002); Aron Patrick, “Origins of the April 2005 Anti-Japanese Protests in the People's Republic of China,” Working Paper (Lexington: University of Kentucky, Patterson School of Diplomacy, January 2007), http://www.aronpatrick.com/essays/PATRICK2005AntiJapaneseProtests.pdf (accessed May 11,2007). Anti-Chinese riots in Malaysia and Indonesia are directed against the ethnic Chinese community, rather than against China itself. But they do have an undercurrent of resentment against the Chinese state. This was stronger in the past, when the local Chinese were known as “overseas Chinese” potential fifth columnists. While most have become local citizens, there is still a possibility that the rise of China will lead to ethnic riots in which local Chinese are victimized in states where the majority ethnic group blames China's economic and security policies for damaging its economic well-being.

60 Neumann (fn. 9), 57.

61 Murphy (fn. 9), 30.

62 Acharya (fn. 9). See also Adler's notion of “cognitive” regions; Emanuel Adler, “Imagined (Security) Communities: Cognitive Regions in International Relations,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 26, no. 2 (1997)Google Scholar.