Japan's Dual Hedge

Heginbotham, Eric; Samuels, Richard J.

doi:10.2307/20033272

Cited by 53 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These strategies can operate simultaneously and are not mutually exclusive. In fact, many authors have recently demonstrated that states employ a set of partially contradictory "hedging" strategies by diversifying their options and pursuing different approaches at the same time in order to decrease their security risks (Goh 2005(Goh , 2008(Goh , 2011aHeginbotham and Samuels 2002;Kuik 2008;Medeiros 2005;Tessman and Wolfe 2011).…”

Section: Rising Powers and Their Discontents: The Merits And Limits Omentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Binding (Ikenberry 2003;Rock 2000) Blackmailing (Lapp 2012;Walt 2005) Buck-passing (Chan 2010;Christensen and Snyder 1990;Mearsheimer 2001;Mochizuki 2007) Buffering (Gries 2005) Chain ganging (Christensen and Snyder 1990) Delegitimation (Walt 2005) Economic prebalancing (Layne 2006) Evasion (Bobrow 2008) Everyday and rightful resistance (Bobrow 2008;Destradi 2010;Ikenberry 2003;Ikenberry et al 2009;Prys 2010;Schweller and Pu 2011) Hedging (Goh 2005(Goh , 2008(Goh , 2011aHeginbotham and Samuels 2002;Kuik 2008;Medeiros 2005) Leash-slipping (Layne 2006) Log rolling (Ikenberry 2003) Niche diplomacy (Cooper 1997) Modification (Bobrow 2008) Omni-balancing (David 1991) Omni-enmeshment (Goh 2008) Pulling and hauling (Ikenberry 2003) Soft and indirect balancing (Goh 2008;Pape 2005;Paul 2005a)…”

Section: Competitivementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Politics of Contestation in Asia: How Japan and Pakistan Deal with Their Rising Neighbors

Ebert¹,

Flemes²,

Strüver³

2014

The Chinese Journal of International Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rising powers have attracted tremendous interest in international politics and theory. Yet the ways in which secondary powers strategically respond to regional changes in the distribution of power have been largely neglected. This article seeks to fill this gap by presenting a systematic comparative analysis of the different types of and causes of contestation strategies undertaken by secondary powers. Empirically, it focuses on two contentious regional dyads in East and South Asia, exploring how structural, behavioral, and historical factors shape the way in which Japan and Pakistan respond, respectively, to China's and India's regional power politics. The paper concludes that the explanatory power of these factors depends on the particular context: in the case of Japan, China's militarily assertive regional role has invoked the most significant strategic shifts, while in the case of Pakistani contestation, shifts in polarity have had the largest impact on the strategic approach.

show abstract

Section: Rising Powers and Their Discontents: The Merits And Limits Omentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Competitivementioning

confidence: 99%

The Politics of Contestation in Asia: How Japan and Pakistan Deal with Their Rising Neighbors

Ebert¹,

Flemes²,

Strüver³

2014

The Chinese Journal of International Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this way, Japan has relied on deterrence offered through the security alliance with the US and more broadly through the UN to ensure stable oil supplies from the Middle East. It has increasingly played a supportive role through, for example, rear-area support, although this has been seen as a symbolic change to Japanese policies as it has not been directly involved with any coalition partners in front-line war efforts in the Middle East (Heginbotham and Samuels, 2002).…”

Section: Reinforcing Portfolio Structures: Inducementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Much of it has explored the management of the Japanese balancing act between its economic security relations with the Middle East and its military security relations with the United States. Several variables have been used to explain this balancing act and the extent to which that has changed over time and include: domestic political structures (Inoguchi, 1991;Pekkanen and Krauss, 2005), identity (Catalinac 2008), hedging (Heginbotham and Samuels, 2002), resources diplomacy (Yoshitsu, 1984), the uses of soft versus hard policy instruments (Rynhold, 2002), and the Japanese role in collective self-defence (George, 1993).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Insuring State: Japanese Oil Import Security and the Middle East

Lesbirel¹

2013

Asian Journal of Political Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article investigates Japanese approaches to managing oil import security in the period 1970Á2005 by developing a framework that integrates portfolio and inducement approaches to managing import security. It argues that Japan is an insuring state and, in the context of continuing asymmetric dependence, seeks to ensure its security not only through portfolio strategies that aim to reduce systemic and specific risks, but also through political and economic inducements that reinforce those portfolio strategies. Empirical evidence suggests that these strategies have enhanced Japan's insurance cover against oil unanticipated supply disruptions and has enhanced its relative security over the period. The Japanese case suggests the importance of exploring portfolio strategies and structures as power in addition to other forms of non-military power, such as economic aid and diplomacy, in understanding international economic security.

show abstract

“…Germany declared its full military support for the United States, and departing from the restraint that had characterized all German uses of force beyond Europe since World War II, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder staked the future of his government on legislation that would permit Germany to join the allied war effort. German soldiers were among the first to die in Afghanistan, and Germany even offered to assume leadership of the subsequent peacekeeping operation" (Heginbotham and Samuels, Foreign Affairs, [9], p. 116). This paper argues that the German determination has somehow faded into harsh realities since then.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

In the Shadow of Pacifism: Foreign Policy Choices of Germany and Japan in Afghanistan

Hein¹

2011

East Asia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the policy choices of Germany and Japan for contributing to international security and stability in Afghanistan. Both countries have been closely involved with Afghanistan in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks 2001. It is argued that the policy choice of Japan with a low military element and high civilian element differs significantly from the German military centered approach. An analysis of the goals and motives behind the foreign policy choices reveals that in Germany the military involvement has been justified with humanitarian reasons, national self interests and the right to "unlimited" sovereignty. This logic has ultimately led to the acceptance of civilian casualties and participation into offensive counterinsurgency operations. It is suggested that elite driven discourses have determined foreign policy strategy. In the case of Japan the paper claims that the conservative LDP elite had been pushing for intensified military involvement which materialized in the dispatch of military vessels to the Indian Ocean and ground forces to Iraq. Similar to Germany these moves towards gaining international reputation were rooted in domestic politics.

show abstract

Japan's Dual Hedge

Cited by 53 publications

References 0 publications

The Politics of Contestation in Asia: How Japan and Pakistan Deal with Their Rising Neighbors

The Politics of Contestation in Asia: How Japan and Pakistan Deal with Their Rising Neighbors

The Insuring State: Japanese Oil Import Security and the Middle East

In the Shadow of Pacifism: Foreign Policy Choices of Germany and Japan in Afghanistan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About