Suchergebnisse

ASEAN and China – Balancing or Bandwagoning? South China Sea Case "ASEAN and China – Balancing or Bandwagoning? South China Sea Case" thesis focuses on ASEAN states' behaviour and positions vis-a-vis China in the South China Sea conflict. Author raised important question, why despite the recent positive developments in the negotiations on the Code of Conduct, China continues to act aggressively. Two possible explanations were presented – either ASEAN countries are bandwagoning with China in South China Sea conflict or their balancing efforts are unsuccessful. Therefore the purpose of this essay was to examine what strategies ASEAN apply – balancing or bandwagoning and how succesfull it is. Also, another possible strategy was introduced in this thesis – hedging. This concept means that country is occassionaly applying both balancing and bandwagoning strategies and at the same time avoiding negative consequences that are associated with them. The countries in this thesis were divided into three groups. First group comprised from countries that are claimants in South China Sea conflict – Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei Darussalam. The hypothesis is that because they are claimants and their territorial integrity is at stake, they will balance China. The second group comprised of countries that are not claimants, however sea is very important for their survival – Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand. Author argued that these countries will choose balancing or hedging strategy. The third group comprised from Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar – countries that are not claimants and do not have the entrance to the South China Sea or it is small. Hypothesis was that they will hedge China or bandwagon with it. Lastly, other factors like proximity to China, country's military strength, defence relations with China and other countries (especially USA), economic dependence on China and economic relations with other countries were included in this research. The hypotheses that were raised at the beggining of this research were only partially correct because other mentioned factors also play very imporant role in determining countries' positions. Balancing strategy is applied by Vietnam, Indonesia and Singapore, hedging strategy is applied by Malaysia, Thailand and Myanmar and bandwagoning strategy is applied by the Philippines, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia and Laos. The biggest puzzle in the thesis is the Philippines behaviour. Author argued that the main factor behind the sudden change of its position is the election of the new President – Rodrigo Duterte, even though neorealism does not pay attention to the impact of individuals. Another important finding is that ASEAN countries lack unity in the South China Sea conflict. This is reason why China continues to act agressively in the South China Sea. Also, since there is no unity in ASEAN and China sees it, it is highly doubtful if countries will be able to reach legally significant Code of Conduct.

ASEAN and China – Balancing or Bandwagoning? South China Sea Case "ASEAN and China – Balancing or Bandwagoning? South China Sea Case" thesis focuses on ASEAN states' behaviour and positions vis-a-vis China in the South China Sea conflict. Author raised important question, why despite the recent positive developments in the negotiations on the Code of Conduct, China continues to act aggressively. Two possible explanations were presented – either ASEAN countries are bandwagoning with China in South China Sea conflict or their balancing efforts are unsuccessful. Therefore the purpose of this essay was to examine what strategies ASEAN apply – balancing or bandwagoning and how succesfull it is. Also, another possible strategy was introduced in this thesis – hedging. This concept means that country is occassionaly applying both balancing and bandwagoning strategies and at the same time avoiding negative consequences that are associated with them. The countries in this thesis were divided into three groups. First group comprised from countries that are claimants in South China Sea conflict – Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei Darussalam. The hypothesis is that because they are claimants and their territorial integrity is at stake, they will balance China. The second group comprised of countries that are not claimants, however sea is very important for their survival – Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand. Author argued that these countries will choose balancing or hedging strategy. The third group comprised from Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar – countries that are not claimants and do not have the entrance to the South China Sea or it is small. Hypothesis was that they will hedge China or bandwagon with it. Lastly, other factors like proximity to China, country's military strength, defence relations with China and other countries (especially USA), economic dependence on China and economic relations with other countries were included in this research. The hypotheses that were raised at the beggining of this research were only partially correct because other mentioned factors also play very imporant role in determining countries' positions. Balancing strategy is applied by Vietnam, Indonesia and Singapore, hedging strategy is applied by Malaysia, Thailand and Myanmar and bandwagoning strategy is applied by the Philippines, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia and Laos. The biggest puzzle in the thesis is the Philippines behaviour. Author argued that the main factor behind the sudden change of its position is the election of the new President – Rodrigo Duterte, even though neorealism does not pay attention to the impact of individuals. Another important finding is that ASEAN countries lack unity in the South China Sea conflict. This is reason why China continues to act agressively in the South China Sea. Also, since there is no unity in ASEAN and China sees it, it is highly doubtful if countries will be able to reach legally significant Code of Conduct.

ASEAN and China – Balancing or Bandwagoning? South China Sea Case "ASEAN and China – Balancing or Bandwagoning? South China Sea Case" thesis focuses on ASEAN states' behaviour and positions vis-a-vis China in the South China Sea conflict. Author raised important question, why despite the recent positive developments in the negotiations on the Code of Conduct, China continues to act aggressively. Two possible explanations were presented – either ASEAN countries are bandwagoning with China in South China Sea conflict or their balancing efforts are unsuccessful. Therefore the purpose of this essay was to examine what strategies ASEAN apply – balancing or bandwagoning and how succesfull it is. Also, another possible strategy was introduced in this thesis – hedging. This concept means that country is occassionaly applying both balancing and bandwagoning strategies and at the same time avoiding negative consequences that are associated with them. The countries in this thesis were divided into three groups. First group comprised from countries that are claimants in South China Sea conflict – Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei Darussalam. The hypothesis is that because they are claimants and their territorial integrity is at stake, they will balance China. The second group comprised of countries that are not claimants, however sea is very important for their survival – Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand. Author argued that these countries will choose balancing or hedging strategy. The third group comprised from Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar – countries that are not claimants and do not have the entrance to the South China Sea or it is small. Hypothesis was that they will hedge China or bandwagon with it. Lastly, other factors like proximity to China, country's military strength, defence relations with China and other countries (especially USA), economic dependence on China and economic relations with other countries were included in this research. The hypotheses that were raised at the beggining of this research were only partially correct because other mentioned factors also play very imporant role in determining countries' positions. Balancing strategy is applied by Vietnam, Indonesia and Singapore, hedging strategy is applied by Malaysia, Thailand and Myanmar and bandwagoning strategy is applied by the Philippines, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia and Laos. The biggest puzzle in the thesis is the Philippines behaviour. Author argued that the main factor behind the sudden change of its position is the election of the new President – Rodrigo Duterte, even though neorealism does not pay attention to the impact of individuals. Another important finding is that ASEAN countries lack unity in the South China Sea conflict. This is reason why China continues to act agressively in the South China Sea. Also, since there is no unity in ASEAN and China sees it, it is highly doubtful if countries will be able to reach legally significant Code of Conduct.

ASEAN and China – Balancing or Bandwagoning? South China Sea Case "ASEAN and China – Balancing or Bandwagoning? South China Sea Case" thesis focuses on ASEAN states' behaviour and positions vis-a-vis China in the South China Sea conflict. Author raised important question, why despite the recent positive developments in the negotiations on the Code of Conduct, China continues to act aggressively. Two possible explanations were presented – either ASEAN countries are bandwagoning with China in South China Sea conflict or their balancing efforts are unsuccessful. Therefore the purpose of this essay was to examine what strategies ASEAN apply – balancing or bandwagoning and how succesfull it is. Also, another possible strategy was introduced in this thesis – hedging. This concept means that country is occassionaly applying both balancing and bandwagoning strategies and at the same time avoiding negative consequences that are associated with them. The countries in this thesis were divided into three groups. First group comprised from countries that are claimants in South China Sea conflict – Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei Darussalam. The hypothesis is that because they are claimants and their territorial integrity is at stake, they will balance China. The second group comprised of countries that are not claimants, however sea is very important for their survival – Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand. Author argued that these countries will choose balancing or hedging strategy. The third group comprised from Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar – countries that are not claimants and do not have the entrance to the South China Sea or it is small. Hypothesis was that they will hedge China or bandwagon with it. Lastly, other factors like proximity to China, country's military strength, defence relations with China and other countries (especially USA), economic dependence on China and economic relations with other countries were included in this research. The hypotheses that were raised at the beggining of this research were only partially correct because other mentioned factors also play very imporant role in determining countries' positions. Balancing strategy is applied by Vietnam, Indonesia and Singapore, hedging strategy is applied by Malaysia, Thailand and Myanmar and bandwagoning strategy is applied by the Philippines, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia and Laos. The biggest puzzle in the thesis is the Philippines behaviour. Author argued that the main factor behind the sudden change of its position is the election of the new President – Rodrigo Duterte, even though neorealism does not pay attention to the impact of individuals. Another important finding is that ASEAN countries lack unity in the South China Sea conflict. This is reason why China continues to act agressively in the South China Sea. Also, since there is no unity in ASEAN and China sees it, it is highly doubtful if countries will be able to reach legally significant Code of Conduct.