Suchergebnisse

A reassessment the nature of "alliances" and "alignments" since the end of the Cold War, both practically and conceptually, is long overdue. Treaty alliances have become partially obsolescent as new models of security cooperation, such as the 'strategic partnership', and other "minilateral" configurations, have emerged as preferred instruments of alignment. The evolving nature of alliance and alignment is nowhere better illustrated than in the metamorphosis of the venerable Hub-and-Spokes US alliance system in the Indo-Pacific. This article captures the changes occurring in the US alliance system from both a macro-level (structural) standpoint, before proceeding to the micro-level to evaluate individual alliance/partnership dyads to illustrate the complexion of the hub-and-spokes "plus" configuration of today. It argues that we are witnessing is a "reshuffling of the deck" in terms of traditional treaty allies – with Japan and Australia now forming the "core" of the system, with South Korea effectively confined as a "single-issue" alliance focused on the peninsula, and with Thailand and the Philippines (arguably) becoming increasingly "peripheral". But even as the original treaty-system contracts, Washington is seeking to "network" the original model through the acquisition of non-treaty strategic partnerships with key states such as India, Singapore, (and, more circumspectly – Taiwan), whilst also welcoming European engagement. This networking strategy is also designed to achieve second and third order effects through incentivisation of direct "spoke-to-spoke" security cooperation and through the concentration of allies/partners into minilateral formations. The resultant reconfiguration might be dubbed a Hub-and-Spokes "plus" model. (Asian Aff / GIGA)

In an era of heightened great power competition, debates about American grand strategy in the Indo-Pacific region have returned to the fore. This review essay looks at three recent volumes that directly address such debates. After introducing the concept of grand strategy, Part I reviews
each of the books individually in sequence, outlining their scope, contents, and contributions. Part II then integrates the contributions of each of the volumes into a broader discussion relating to four pertinent issues: American perspectives on "Asia"; international relations (IR) theory;
American strategic culture; and the rise of China, before concluding. The books under review are to differing degrees orientated toward one of the core IR theory paradigms: realism (Green), liberalism (Campbell), and constructivism/ critical approaches (Kang). As such, read together, they
contribute to a multi-faceted theoretical understanding of US grand strategy in the Indo Pacific that will be of significant value to both scholars and practitioners.

This article argues that the creation of 'strategic partnerships' as an alternative form of alignment represents an effort by Tokyo, and other US-allies, to 'decenter' their respective security policies from their erstwhile over-dependence on Washington. By examining the nature, purpose, and dynamics of strategic partnerships more closely, and investigating the empirical case of Australia, we can gain a greater appreciation of their significance both to Japan's evolving security policy and the broader role they play in the Asia Pacific security landscape. The article argues that Australia has been the most significant and successful of Japan's new strategic partnerships to date, has therefore come to represent the template for other new alignments, and hence provides a yardstick against which their effectiveness can be measured. It concludes that while the strategic partnership certainly represents a new departure for Japanese security policy – ostensibly independent of the US-alliance – closer inspection reveals how this relationship remains fundamentally bound to the broader American-hub-and-spokes system. (Pac Rev/GIGA)

This article provides a working taxonomy of the concept of 'alignment' in the discipline of International Relations (IR); a heretofore major deficiency in the otherwise abundant literature on alliance/alignment. It further contends that the label 'alliance' is commonly employed reflexively and unreflectively, where in fact the term 'alignment' would be a superior and more accurate descriptor. This contention is buttressed by empirical developments in international politics. The article makes the case that the contemporary security environment is characterised by multiple forms of 'alignment', not just alliances, in their many guises. In addition, we can identify 'coalitions', 'security communities', and 'strategic partnerships'; all distinctly different from the conventional 'alliance' archetype. It concludes that a change in our thinking about defining and conceptualising alignment and alliance is required to bring disciplinary work closer in line with the paradigmatic shift that is occurring in contemporary international politics. Adapted from the source document.