Journal Name: International Relations of the Asia-Pacific:
February 2002, Vol. 2, Nov. 1
ISSN: 1470-482X, Online ISSN: 1470-4838
The international society perspective on world politics reconsidered (pp1-28)
Hidemi Suganami (Department of International Relations, School of Politics, International Relations and the Environment, Keele University, UK)
In this paper, I outline and assess the international society perspective on world politics, and identify the distinctive common ground of the leading English School writers in terms of the three dimensions of their main subject-matter – structural, functional and historical. I focus on the major works of Manning, Bull, Wight, Watson, Wheeler, and Buzan and Little, paying special attention to the structure of each writer's argument and the interconnections of these writers' ideas. I conclude by listing a number of themes that the English School writers offer. These provide us with significant points of departure from where we may build on or transcend their collective and individual achievements.
Will science and technology undermine the international political system? (pp29-46)
Eugene B. Skolnikoff (Department of Political Science, MIT, USA)
The framework, actors and issues of international politics have changed as a result of the massive effects of advances in science and technology, but the fundamental principles and organization of the international system have not been substantially altered. Science and technology are no more or less subversive of the international political system than are other pressures for change. Rather, the nation-state structure, with all its problems, will be essential to manage this increasingly complex and interdependent world. The policy processes within nations, in fact, rarely allow scientific and technological factors to dominate policy, even in international issues in which those aspects are clearly central, might be thought to be the overwhelming considerations, and might have been expected to overturn traditional patterns in the international system. With climate change as the primary example, it is seen how and why economic, political and social considerations dominate, not the scientific and technological.
Cosmopolitan democracy and the national identity question in Europe and East Asia (pp47-68)
Baogang He (East Asian Institute, National University of Singapore and School of Government, University of Tasmania, Australia)
This paper seeks to apply the idea of cosmopolitan democracy to the question of national identity in a comparative context in the European Union and East Asia. The application of the idea of cosmopolitan democracy to East Asia is constrained by a number of factors, and hence cannot be understood as a universal concept, but rather as a contingent regional phenomenon that is dependent on certain conditions. The paper concludes that East Asia will find its own approach to the question of national identity and that this has been demonstrated to some extent by China's handling of Hong Kong.
Between balance of power and community: the future of multilateral security co-operation in the Asia-Pacific (pp69-94)
G. John Ikenberry (School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, 301 Bunn Intercultural Center, USA) and Jitsuo Tsuchiyama (School of International Politics, Economics and Business, Aoyama Gakuin University, Japan)
This paper explores the logic behind US and Japanese approaches to regional security and the prospects for a more comprehensive co-operative security order in the Asia-Pacific. The current security order in the region bears the marks of long-established and distinctive American and Japanese approaches. These approaches do hold out some hope in building a more inclusive and co-operative order, but for years to come the Asia-Pacific will be a region that will exist somewhere between a balance of power and a community-based security order.
China's changing images of Japan, 1989–2001: the struggle to balance partnership and rivalry (pp95-130)
Gilbert Rozman (Department of Sociology, Princeton University, USA)
Chinese views of Japan, both official and popular, grew more negative after the end of the cold war. From 1989 to 1993 the Japanese side bears much of the blame for failing to overcome the distrust of the Chinese people. When the major deterioration in Japan's image occurred from 1994 to 1998, however, it was China's leadership that was chiefly responsible, arousing nationalist emotions. When China's leaders sought to reverse this process from 1999 to 2001 they were unsuccessful both because of the intensity of public emotions and the lack of reassurance from the Japanese leadership and public. Divisions inside China reveal the hesitation of leaders to foster a realistic image of Japan. By tracing the content of changing Chinese perceptions, we can observe the effects of overconfidence and insensitivity in each state and recognize the difficulty at times of uncertain national identity of finding a coordinated strategy for expanding mutual trust.
Hegemony, not anarchy: why China and Japan are not balancing US unipolar power (pp131-150)
Peter Van Ness (Contemporary China Centre, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University, Australia)
The United States today dominates the globe and many regional geographical subsystems in an unprecedented way, maintaining a hegemonic order that is in no way similar to the ‘anarchy’ assumed in realist analyses. The global system today is not simply unipolar; it is a hegemonic system that is increasingly globalized, in which the basic concepts of realism (anarchy, self-help and power balancing) provide little guidance or understanding in explaining state behavior. This paper describes the US hegemonic system, analyzes the roles of China and Japan within this system, and examines how the Bush administration's plans for missile defense might transform the system. The conclusion points to some critical implications from this analysis for realist interpretations of international politics.
International Relations of the Asia-Pacific (2002)
Copyright ©2002 Oxford University Press and the Japan Association of International Relations
(This journal is available online at: http://irap.oupjournals.org/)
Posted with permission from the publisher.