Annotated Bibliography On Hierarchical Order Within South East Asia Essay

Robert Jervis in ‘Security dilemma’ states that “states can neither neglect the possibility that others will become aggressive in the future nor credibly guarantee that they themselves remain peaceful”. He argued that although other motives such as ‘greed, glory and honour’ come into play, much of international politics is

Secondly, the motivation for war in pursuit of honor was alleviated through the formalization of international diplomacy and the evolution of beliefs about human rights. Lastly, we reviewed how the pursuit of self-interests, specifically security and resources, continues to serve a motivator for conflict, but primarily between those states operating outside of the current international order. So what are the implications of this argument for the future? The way in which we choose to manage the self-interests of states is of utmost importance. There is either the potential to reduce self-interests as a motivator for war, or the potential to erode the previous reduction of fear as a motivator. The current international order has prevented great-power war for over 70 years. There have been conflicts motivated by self-interests, but they pale in comparison to the death and destruction of the world wars. As threats to security arise and resources are restrained, states have the option to work within the system to meet them or pursue them by other

Realism has dominated international relations theory since emerging in the 1930’s. The era of state conflict lasting from the 1930’s to the end of the cold war in 1947, proved the perfect hostile environment to fit the largely pessimistic view of world politics. While many aspects of realism are still alive in International Relations today; including the dominant presence of states, intrinsic of war and the decentralised government. However, realism only reaches so far in explaining and creating a structure for international relations. Whilst the strengths of the theory lie in its pragmatic approach to power politics and conflict. However, the realist view is weakened by changes in the way that conflict is fought, the ineffectiveness of the balance of power model and the increasing global and interconnected world. Thus, using realism as a structure to explain international relations today is to some extent, a theory of the past.

During the interwar era, politicians and governments around the world had self-perceptions of policies, views, and values that would have shaped their states and international interactions. With these politics self-perceptions, it showed to have great instabilities in failing and having issues from their policies and provisions. As with the ‘League of Nations’ international organization formed after world war one. Established a peace-making conference that resulted in

The conclusion of World War II and the establishment of the Cold War created an environment in which colonial occupiers retreated from their empires. Similarly, a prodigious amount of newly formed post-colonial nations began to not only vie for domestic and regional power, but also gain influence internationally through the United Nations (CNN). These fledgling countries, while attempting to navigate the complexities of international politics, reduced global stability and balance. To that end, the firm post-war establishment of European boundaries offered little room for evangelical growth of capitalist and communist ideals. Thus, peripheral encounters afforded an opportunity for growth of both systems in the ambiguously designed boundaries of the developing world (CNN). Ultimately, such peripheral confrontations and proxy wars enabled the Americans and Soviets to portray a narrative of fostering global stability, while also reducing the

Liberal institutionalism assumes the nature of international system to be cooperative. This theory argues that despite the anarchic nature of international system, states are willing to communicate and cooperate with each other for mutual benefit.1 International institutions and norms are crucial for mitigating hostile tensions between states by creating a platform that allows state to communicate, generate trust and develop peaceful relationship. Additionally, the continued interactions between states increases the likelihood of cooperation.2 In a liberal institutional international

Scholars such as John K. Fairback and David Kang have argued that the theory of the tribute system can explain most of pre-modern East Asian history. However, there was an interesting period of pre-modern East Asian history that cannot be fully explained by the tribute system. This was the Imjin War of 1592-1598, also known as the greatest international conflict in pre-modern East Asia. If pre-modern East Asian countries were tributaries under the hegemon that is China, they would not rebel against their hegemon. As Japan rebelled by attempting to conquer China through Korea, the tribute system cannot explain the Imjin War.

Structural realism in particular provides a good understanding behind the apparent hostility amongst nations in the world. It is the lack of central and legitimate authority at the international level and the uneven natural distribution of material resources that generates competition amongst nations. This competition often turns into hostility; therefore every state is potentially at risk of a hostile action from another competing state . Thus, the structural organization of world politics leads to an inherent need for countries to defend themselves against potential threats. Since the national interest of all states is to ensure their own survival and provide security to their citizens, states aim to increase their power, or more specifically their military capabilities. By increasing their power, the states aim to increase their odds of survival and prosperity in the anarchical world. This idea is referred to as the self-help system where countries aim to defend themselves by building up their military or entering in military agreements with other states sharing similar values and facing similar threats

While all perspectives are present, liberalism and constructivism influenced this proposal the most. The objectives were deliberately organized to employ more elements of constructivism as the proposal developed. The constructivist perspective was important to this national security challenge because it emphasizes norms, ideas, and that international actors create their own context.6 The case of terrorism in South Asia is a culmination of different norms and ideas that each have a history of their own. The realist perspective focuses on security and state interactions to quell anarchy.6 However, terrorism is not a traditional state and has not operated under the values that are consistent with traditional U.S ideas. Consequently, the liberalist perspective focuses on international organizations, economics, and the spread of democracy.6 Once again, this cannot fully explain the international focus on human rights and how cultural values have presented challenges to mutual exchange. A focus on cultural interactions transcends the liberalist economic focused view. With shortfalls in every IR perspective, the constructivist view provides the most flexible means to view this dynamic situation. This paradigm is also helpful in relating the actors’ different motivations, which are defined best by their ideas and historical context. To explore this further, I will discuss the different perspectives in the context of each strategic

In 1949 Mao Zedong and his Communist Party defeated Chiang Kai-shek and his National Party for control over China. While Mao controlled China until his death in 1976, Kai-shek and his followers fled where and established a new government?

Revisionist states are seen as “challengers” who wants a “new place or share for themselves in global society” proportionate with their power. Revisionist states are generally unsatisfied with their position in the international society. They have a wish to modify the rules by which affairs among countries work. Robert Gilpin who is amid pragmatist scholars, offers possibly the most precise discussion of revisionist and status quo positioning. He simplifies by breaking down the rules of the game into rather more operationalizable components: the distribution of power, the chain of command of status, rights and norms that oversee relations among states.

Southeast Asia is made up of closely intertwined nations. There is shared history and common similarities of having been colonized and therefore appreciate and cherish nation and state building as priority. Multiple traditional and non-traditional security challenges characterised by complex relationships continue have a significant impact in defining the long term peace outlook in Southeast Asia region.

In liberal theories, international institutions play important and often successful roles in promoting peace through state-to-state interaction. As realist scholar Mearsheimer wrote in 1994, liberals “argue that institutions can change a state’s calculations about how to maximize gains” by establishing rules that alter

“Theory of international politics” is a Classic because it gives a chance to recognise not just the international system but also history and ethos in context. Gives individuals a chance to think outside the box and perhaps understand the international state much clearer. Waltz’s notes that Polarity is the only important change in system structure that we can expect under anarchy. Waltz’s theory of international politics is proven to be an unusual powerful volume, creating new discussions and giving new incentive to existing ones. For example, “the book commenced a debate over whether state’s concerns over relative gains impeded cooperation and added momentum to the question of whether bipolar or multipolar international systems were more war-prone” (Griffiths, 2007). However, a flaw is that his theory is too reliant on material understanding of power and misses the social. On the other hand, regardless of his dependency on material understanding, his theory is still practical and helps to understand issues that have occurred from a neo-realist perspective. To the extent “that structural realism sought to explain the cold war by referring to bipolarity”, Waltz’s argued that the cold war was “firmly rooted in the structure of post war international politics and will last if that structure endures” (Waltz, 1989). A downfall of waltz’s ideology is that it’s difficult to settle with the decline in interstate war and the increase in multilateral co-operation among state. Moreover

The Pillars of ASEAN Community began to quickly sustain much of the member-states in order to build a variety of concerns in regional organization. Among the Pillars are ASEAN Political-Security Community in which embodies to be a rules-based community of shared values and norms; a cohesive, peaceful, stable and resilient region with shared responsibility for comprehensive security (Department of ASEAN Affairs, 2012-2014). From the Later, challenges arises political security community of ASEAN from the disguise of territorial disputes of Malaysia within neighboring countries sharing common boundaries. Malaysia’s territorial waters, represents one of the world most important sea lanes both from the security and economic perspectives (Ahmad, 2004) that Malaysia hardly withdraw for the means of consolidation with other claimants and member-states of ASEAN. Thus, ASEAN Community building, including its Political and Security pillar, is a continuously learning process for ASEAN (Son, 2011) which the potential of states particularly a developing country is perhaps expanding and strive for coercive influence.