`Human security' is a promising but still underdeveloped paradigmatic approach to understanding contemporary security politics. We argue that tension between those embracing the politics of development and those supporting the human security paradigm has intensified because the transnational dimensions embodied within the latter approach have been under-assessed. The idea of `threat' also needs to be identified with more precision for the human security concept to accrue analytical credibility. We focus on how transnational behaviour addresses the central human security problems of vulnerability and immediacy. Human security's utility for confronting crisis is also evaluated via the application of two case studies of humanitarian intervention: the 1994 multinational operation in Haiti and the 1999 intervention in East Timor. We conclude that, while general security politics includes both domestic and international issues, human security allows us to transcend sovereign prerogatives and to address emerging transregional threats more effectively.

The Indo-Pacific region's security landscape is unfolding in highly uncertain and potentially explosive ways. The postwar American-led network of bilateral alliancesunderpinned by concrete guarantees of extended deterrence and containmentis now yielding to a more diverse set of alignments and coalitions to manage an increasingly complex array of regional security issues. Multilateralism and minilateralism have emerged as two increasingly prominent forms of such cooperation. Minilateralism's informality and flexibility appeals to those who are sceptical about multilateralism's traditional focus on norm adherence and communitybuilding even as great power competition in the Indo-Pacific is sharply intensifying. However, minilateralism's track record in the region is underdeveloped. The potential for this policy approach to be applied by the United States and its regional security partners as an enduring and credible means of diplomatic and security collaboration in the region will remain unfulfilled as long as the Trump administration's own geopolitical orientation remains uncertain.

U.S. alliances in the Asia-Pacific are increasingly viewed as more than just threat-centric policy instruments. Three core principles for alliance management underscore this reasoning: maintaining consensus about purpose and objectives; generating maximum alliance adaptability; and building capabilities to achieve full-spectrum deterrence. The interests that compel U.S. regional allies to cooperate with Washington are this special issue's analytical focus. Evolving U.S. security partnerships in the Asia-Pacific, the emergence of "hybrid" forms of security alignment, and Sino-U.S. tensions complicate understanding the nature and politics of U.S. security alignments in the region. A Chinese "shadow" is likely to confront U.S. alliances and partnerships in ways which will compound strategic competition and tensions in the region. This reality impels the United States and its regional collaborators to understand and to coordinate each other's motivations for security cooperation as effectively as possible.

Abstract‘Architecture’ has emerged as the new catchphrase in Asian security politics. Despite its growing centrality, insufficient attention has thus far been given to defining the term, often leading to its imprecise usage. This article seeks to redress that shortcoming. It reviews the ways in which various scholars and practitioners have employed the term ‘security architecture’ and highlights the anomalies that their often differing employment has created. The article proposes a set of guidelines to aid conceptualisation and application of the term. In so doing it establishes criteria to ascertain what ‘security architecture’ actually exists in the Asian region, and must ultimately exist to assure regional security.