Hierarchy and the role of the United States in the East Asian security order

Goh, Evelyn

doi:10.1093/irap/lcn011

Cited by 46 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There is now more questioning of this assumption, and a rising interest in hegemony (Watson, 1992: 299-309, 319-25;1997;Gong, 1984: 7-21;Clark, 1989Clark, , 2011aHurrell, 2007: esp. 13, 35-6, 63-5, 71, 111-14;Dunne, 2003;Goh, 2008). Both Watson's spectrum and the analysis of classical empires by Buzan and Little (2000: 176-88) suggest that there is room for international society well up towards the hierarchical end of Watson's spectrum in which hegemony itself could be a primary institution (Clark, 2011a).…”

Section: Weaknessesmentioning

confidence: 99%

China’s rise in English school perspective

Buzan

2018

International Relations of the Asia-Pacific

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter looks at English School (ES) theory as a way of understanding China and its rise. It focuses both on where ES theory fits well enough with China to provide an interesting perspective, and on where 'Chinese characteristics' put China outside the standard ES framing and raise theoretical challenges to it. The first section briefly reviews the ES literature on China. The second section places China within the normative structure of contemporary global international society by looking at how China relates to the primary institutions that define that society. The third section explores two challenges that 'Chinese characteristics' pose for how the ES thinks about international society: hierarchy and 'face'. The Conclusions assess the strengths and weaknesses of ES theory in relation to understanding the rise of China.

show abstract

Section: Weaknessesmentioning

confidence: 99%

China’s rise in English school perspective

Buzan

2018

International Relations of the Asia-Pacific

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If Southeast Asian leaders agree with China on the way in which Chinese principles and disciplines advocate in the regional economic integration process, Chinese dominance is more assured. More importantly, an emerging power such as China will potentially become in a position to make (not being a rule-taker anymore) that will "institutionalize" its advantage (Ba 2006;Goh 2008;. The construction of CAFTA provides space for it to create mechanisms, both formal and informal, to gain access to the decision-making structures in the regional trade realm with the involvement of all of Southeast Asian states (Greenwald 2006).…”

Section: China and The Quest For Leadership In Southeast Asiamentioning

confidence: 99%

International Leadership as a Process: The case of China in Southeast Asia

2017

Rev. bras. polít. int.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Leadership theory in IR still lacks a coherent approach, and it is analytically useful to use eclectic lenses by combining all factors related to power and the usage of power to gain leadership status. I define the term "international leadership" as a process in which a state mobilizes its resources to influence a group of other states (followership) in order to achieve a common goal. In the empirical investigation, I will focus on China's abilities to lead in Southeast Asia. Despite the fact that there are many advantages for China, the mechanism of transforming power resources into regional leadership is still questionable. • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original author and source are credited.• Este é um artigo publicado em acesso aberto e distribuído sob os termos da Licença de Atribuição Creative Commons, que permite uso irrestrito, distribuição e reprodução em qualquer meio, desde que o autor e a fonte originais sejam creditados.

show abstract

“…Donnelly, 2006, Goh, 2008, Hobson and Sharman, 2005. In hierarchical systems, unlike anarchical systems, dominant states acquire the ability to command while subordinate states accept a duty to obey through the exercise of legitimate authority (Lake, 2013: 74, Hobson andSharman, 2005: 69-70).…”

Section: Analysing India-australia Relations: a Postcolonial Criticalmentioning

confidence: 99%

The natural/neglected relationship: liberalism, identity and India–Australia relations

Chacko

Davis

2015

The Pacific Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Recent commentary on India-Australia relations has defined the relationship as 'natural' and based on 'shared values' and 'shared history'. The relationship has simultaneously been considered 'neglected'. The paradoxical juxtaposition of a natural/neglected partnership is yet to be adequately explained. We consider the historical construction of liberalism in both states as a facet of state identity to argue that, far from creating a natural relationship, differing liberal identities have served to keep these two states apart. This is illustrated through case studies of divergent opinions over the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea and the rise of China.

show abstract

Hierarchy and the role of the United States in the East Asian security order

Cited by 46 publications

References 9 publications

China’s rise in English school perspective

China’s rise in English school perspective

International Leadership as a Process: The case of China in Southeast Asia

The natural/neglected relationship: liberalism, identity and India–Australia relations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About