Search results

The rise of nationalism, unresolved territorial disputes, an intricate system of alliances, and the perceived breakdown of the balance of power have been identified as the main causes behind the outbreak of World War I. They also are strikingly similar to the challenges East Asia faces today. Will history repeat itself and see East Asia sleepwalking into another hegemonic war? China's future relations with the United States and Japan will be crucial for East Asia's regional order, but its dispute with Japan over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands might lead to a regional war. I argue, however, that a major war is unlikely because pre-World War I Europe and today's Northeast Asia are qualitatively different in terms of what I call multihegemony and sutured regionness. (Asian Perspect/GIGA)

AbstractHow do state identities and their accompanying norms affect security behaviour especially when states consider forming alliances or alignments? Are middle powers different from great powers in their security norms and preferences? This article identifiesdependencyandactivismas two 'identity norms' that constitute and reproduce medium-sized states asbona fidemiddle powers. This article argues that, due to the identity norms of a middle power, Japan and South Korea are reluctant to form a bilateral alliance between themselves and their efforts to socialize with China do not necessarily contradict their security relationships with the United States. The first section focuses on the norm of dependency to illustrate whether Japan and South Korea sought to strengthen bilateral alignment in the event of major security crises, provoked by China and North Korea. It argues that a middle power is not disposed to strengthen alignment with another middle power in the event of a national security crisis because of its entrenched norm of dependency on a great power. The second section elaborates the norm of middle power activism. Both Japan and South Korea have engaged in diplomatic efforts to enmesh China in a number of multilateral security mechanisms in order to hedge against the relative decline of US influences in East Asia.

ABSTRACTRevisiting the nexus of identities and norms, this article argues that actors' attitude and policies are not the automatic reflection of a salient identity but the articulation of what I call 'identity norms', defined as standards of appropriate behaviour for in-group actors vis-à-vis an out-group. Central to my argument is that identities become straw men at times of momentous change, whilst identity norms, crafted and propagated through an intersubjective understanding amongst different actors, emerge as a guiding principle in state-to-state relations. By illustrating the trajectories of reconciliation between North and South Korea, this article examines the anomalies of how antagonistic states forge friendly ties.