Suchergebnisse

Abstract
Why are some regions more peaceful than others? Some regions are particularly plagued by traditional power politics and political tensions, while the danger of war between major actors has significantly declined in other regions. The conventional literature would answer the question from a dyadic perspective—a region with many states with certain set of traits, such as democracy, should be peaceful. However, it is ultimately an empirical question whether the prevalence of power politics and conflict can be solely explained by the type of states and dyads in a region. I argue that the nature of international interactions is shaped by regional-level environment. Due to local security externalities, dyadic politics and conflict is dependent on conditions in a local neighborhood. More specifically, this study focuses on the role of regional-level alliance structure. A region can be situated in various types of alliance configuration depending on global geopolitical climate. I argue that conflict is unlikely in a region in which a global power establishes hegemonic domination through alliance ties with local states. The presence of an external global power dominating a region provides a local enforcement mechanism and reassurance for local states, which in turn reduces hostile interactions among local states. To examine how the regional-level conditions influence dyadic-level politics among local states, this paper empirically analyzes political events data (Integrated Data for Events Analysis) applying multilevel modeling, aiming at contributing the literature by explicitly modeling the influence of regional-level variables on local politics beyond militarized disputes. Empirical analysis revealed that a regionally shared "patron" can promote peace between local states. However, the effect of regional hierarchy turned out to be indirect. Regional dominance structured by an external global power does not exert an overarching influence over an entire region by shifting the region-specific intercept. Rather, the regional-level global power domination in terms of defense pacts particularly influences powerful states in a region while not quite reducing hostility among "minor" local states. Thus, international conflict and hostility is indirectly constrained in a region under hegemonic domination by a global power. This study has empirically explored an argument that it is fruitful to go beyond a purely dyadic analysis of international conflict. The independent effect of a spatial environment means that even similar dyads may behave differently depending on the conditions surrounding them. It shows a need to reexamine some of the important findings about international conflict from a spatial perspective, taking into account macro-regional contexts within which states operate. Moreover, the introduction of regional contexts potentially bridges a gap between quantitative studies of international conflict and more area-specific studies.

How do territorial disputes shape regional contexts within which politics among local states takes place? This paper analyses regional impacts of territorial disputes drawing on the case of South China Sea and statistical data. I argue that 'local security externalities' produced by ongoing territorial disputes influence not only direct disputants but also other states in the regional neighbourhood. Escalated disputes in the South China Sea exacerbated China's relationships with Japan—which is not a direct disputant—because Japan shares important stakes in the disputed area and China's assertive policy was perceived as a sign of its willingness to use force and pursue a 'hegemonic' ambition in the region. Such effect is also confirmed by a time-series of analysis of the post-Cold War Sino-Japanese relationships. Thus, this paper empirically shows that ongoing territorial disputes may influence a larger group of regional states, thus shaping a regional context for political interactions.

"Approaches to Explaining Regional Conflict and Peace" published on by Oxford University Press.

Strategic rivalries are contests between states that view one another as threatening competitors and treat each other as enemies. A disproportionate amount of interstate conflict is generated by a relatively small number of these pairs of states engaged in rivalries that can persist for years. Thus, to understand interstate peace and conflict, it is useful to know how rivalries work in general and more specifically. In the past two decades, a strenuous effort has been mounted to introduce the concept of rivalry and demonstrate its utility in unraveling conflict situations. Yet all rivalries are not exactly alike. We need to move to a more rewarding differentiation of how they differ in general. Principal rivalries are those antagonisms that are most significant to the decision makers in a state. The main distinction on issues about which rivals dispute are positional and spatial concerns. Positional rivalries contend over regional and global influence. Spatial rivals contend over which state deserves to control disputed territory. Interventionary rivalries predominate in sub-Saharan Africa. Their primary focus involves neighboring states attempting to influence who rules and how co-ethnics are treated. This book updates the inventory of strategic rivalries from 1816 to 2020. Principal rivalries are identified for the first time and cover the same period. A theory stressing the two main types of rivalry (positional and spatial) is elaborated and tested. Regional variations on the origins and terminations of spatial rivalry are explored and interpreted. In addition, attention is paid to fluctuations in the intensity of positional rivalries by examining the working of the contemporary major power triangle (United States, Soviet Union/Russia, and China) and, more generally, the dynamics of regional power that are rising in terms of their relative capability and status in the system. Variations in cooperation and termination dynamics both in general and according to rivalry type are also examined. Overall, the emphases of the book are split between demonstrating the utility of distinguishing among rivalry types and examining selected rivalry dynamics.

Korea and Japan, neighboring democratic countries in Northeast Asia, announced their first COVID-19 cases in January 2020 and witnessed similar patterns of disease spread but adopted different policy approaches to address the pandemic (agile and proactive approach versus cautious and restraint-based approach). Applying the political nexus triad model, this study analyzes and compares institutional contexts and governance structures of Korea and Japan, then examines the differences in policy responses of the two Asian countries. This study first reviews the state of COVID-19 and examines changes in the conventional president-led political nexus triad in Korea and the bureaucracy-led political nexus triad in Japan. Then, this study examines how the differences in institutional contexts and governance structures shaped policy responses and policy outcomes of the two countries in managing the COVID-19 crisis. Points for practitioners •  Institutional and governance structure in a society are likely to affect policymaking processes as well as selection of policies among various policy alternatives. •  Government officials often need to refer to government capacity as well as citizens' voluntary participation in resolving wicked policy problems like COVID-19. •  Policy decisions made by government officials affect policy outcomes while political environment and political leadership are equally important to policy effectiveness.

Intro -- Contents -- 1 The Significance of Regional Analyses -- References -- 2 The Case for Comparative Regional Analysis in International Politics -- 2.1 A Brief Look at the Literature -- 2.1.1 Where to From Here? -- 2.2 Delineating Regions -- 2.3 A Theoretical Framework -- 2.4 A Theoretical Bet -- 2.4.1 A Short Propositional Inventory -- 2.4.2 How Competitive is the Power Environment? -- 2.4.3 How Extensive are the Fault Lines to be Managed? -- 2.4.4 When are Regional Powers Capable and Willing to Create Regional Order? -- 2.5 Conclusion -- Appendix 1: List of Regional Categories Used in Quantitative Studies of Conflict and Cooperation -- Appendix 2: States, Regions, and Border States, 2001-2010 -- Appendix 3: Changes in European Regions, Shown by Decades, 1950-1980 -- References -- 3 Borders, Rivalry, Democracy, and Conflict in the European Region, 1816-1994 -- 3.1 The Gibler Argument -- 3.2 Threat, Democracy, and Conflict -- 3.3 Methodology -- 3.4 Results -- 3.5 Conclusion -- References -- 4 In Search of Super Asia -- 4.1 Introduction -- 4.2 Whither Super Asia? -- 4.3 British India, Qing China, and Strategic Asia -- 4.4 Rise of Japan and World War II -- 4.5 Evaluating Region-ness in the Post-World War II Era -- 4.6 The Early Cold War -- 4.7 Regional Fragmentation and the Cold War -- 4.8 Re-emergence of Super Asia Following the Cold War -- 4.9 Conclusions: Looking Forward -- References -- 5 Is There a Central Asia and Does It Matter? -- 5.1 Introduction -- 5.2 Background on Regional Subsystems -- 5.3 Structural Approaches -- 5.4 Research Design and State Visits Data -- 5.4.1 Data Restrictions -- 5.5 Empirical Findings and Analysis -- 5.5.1 Highly Interactive Subsystem (Model I) -- 5.5.2 Fragmented Regional Subsystem (Model II) -- 5.5.3 Russia-centered Subsystem (Model III) -- 5.6 Concluding Thoughts -- References.

The three main levels of analysis in international relations have been the systemic, the national, and the individual. A fourth level that falls between the systemic and the national is the region. It is woefully underdeveloped in comparison to the attention afforded the other three. Yet regions tend to be distinctive theaters for international politics. Otherwise, we would not recognize that Middle Eastern interstate politics somehow does not resemble Latin American interstate politics or interstate politics in Southern Africa (although once the Middle East and Southern Africa may have seemed more similar in their mutual fixation with opposition to domestic policies in Israel and South Africa, respectively). This book, divided into three parts, first makes a case for studying regional politics even though it must also be appreciated that regional boundaries are also hazy and not always easy to pin down empirically. The second part examines power distributions within regions as an important entry point to studying regional similarities and differences. Two emphases are stressed. One is that regional power assessments need to be conditioned by controlling for weak states which are more common in some regions than they are in others. The other emphasis is on regional power hierarchies. Some regions have strong regional hierarchies while others do not. Regions with strong hierarchies operate much differently from those without them in the sense that the former are more pacific than the latter. The third part of the book focuses on regional differences in terms of conflict behavior, order preferences, rivalries, and rivalry termination. Co-Authors: William R. Thompson, Thomas J. Volgy, Paul Bezerra, Jacob Cramer, Kelly M. Gordell, Manjeet Pardesi, Karen Rasler, J. Patrick Rhamey, Jr., Kentaro Sakuwa, Rachel D. Van Nostrand, and Leila Zakhirova.