In current International Relations literature, hegemony and hierarchy describe two possible types of international rule. At the theoretical level, their existence makes two presuppositions: first, that they operate independently from each other; and second, that a set of actors experience only one type of rule (that is, hegemony or hierarchy). But what happens when more than one type of rule seems to prevail over the same set of actors? In an attempt to answer this question, this article examines Southeast Asia-US relations in the post-9/11 period and argues that it is possible for international orders to coexist. While the "war on terror" depicted the centrality of the United States, it subsequently became apparent that Washington could only guarantee its place in the hierarchy if it projected itself as a benign hegemon. The article concludes that the existence of multiple types of international rule is a demonstration of the ongoing efforts of states towards building and maintaining deeper relations with each other.

International Relations scholarship highlights the differences of the countries in the global south. The postcolonial histories of countries herein give rise to unique experiences that push them to consolidate their states at the soonest time possible even as they are inextricably integrated in an international system that is biased towards the great powers. This double pressure either makes or break a state, and it is this tension that is the focus of the special issue. This concluding article offers a bird’s-eye view of the nuances of the differences of the global south and the problems associated with it. I argue that while the differences may indeed be unique, not seeing beyond those is problematic. In line with this, I first acknowledge the differences the global south represents. I look at how the International Relations concepts of state, rational choice, and the international system are seen as inapplicable to the workings of the global south, and how this “misfit” is detected not only in the dynamics of Philippine foreign policy, but also in its relationships with various regional powers like the United States and China. I then turn to the problems associated with seeingonlythe differences of the global south. I highlight the concepts of mimicry and hybridity before examining the cases of the Philippines’ labor conditions, human security for migrant workers, and disability-related issues. In all these, caution, mindfulness, and the need for dialogue are therefore called for.

No abstract

Chapter 2: Counter-Arguments Narratives of Southeast Asia-US relations usually depict the flow of power as unidirectional. In most instances, the relationship is seen as being led by the US, and the Southeast Asian states take on the role of free riders. In other accounts, power is held by the small Southeast Asian states when they are able to "pull" the US into the security architecture of the region. However, given that the flow of power is indeed unidirectional, what explains why sometimes it is the US that seems to shape, influence, or steer the relationship, while at other times it is the Southeast Asian nations? The relationship has also been described as following certain types of rule or order: sometimes it is described as hegemony, while at other times it is characterized by hierarchy. What explains this assortment of international orders? Moreover, what makes one type of rule hold in a particular time period? It is offered in this dissertation that such a variation may be explained by the use of language games as a method of analysis. It is argued here that Southeast Asia-US relations have experienced various types of rule from 1954 to 2006 because of the change in the language games that these states play. Paying attention to language emphasizes the constant and active participation of actors in international relations, be they superpowers or members of the so-called Third World. CHAPTER Chapter 1: Introduction Charmaine G. Misalucha 6 predominated especially in terms of the United States' conviction that its War on Terror was justified and morally right. At the same time, however, the United States' relations with the rest of the international community in general, and with Southeast Asia in particular, were suggestive of a hierarchic type of rule. US President George W. Bush made this clear in his "Either you are with us or with the terrorists" rhetoric, implying that states around the world were forced to take a stand and that if they so decide to side with the "terrorists," they would definitely suffer the wrath of a wronged superpower. Chapter 7 explores the reasons why and how one type of rule shifts to another. It also concludes by identifying the value of using language games to account for international relations. There are benefits to be reaped from the acknowledgement that different types of rule obtain in Southeast Asia-US relations. Barry Buzan and Richard Little in their 2000 piece, International Systems in World History, support this when they push the

No abstract