Suchergebnisse

China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) has been visualized by political scientists as a structural change in the balance of power of the world. The corridor has far-reaching economic and geopolitical impacts on Southwest Asian countries in general and Pakistan in particular. CPEC, being a transnational project, may face challenges in geographic as well as human terrain during its implementation phase. It would involve extra ordinary engineering resources to execute, massive funds to realize, and political acumen to manage social elements of Southwest Asian countries. This paper, therefore, explores China's evolving relationship with the international system to achieve accelerated infrastructure development and boosted socio-economic growth through regional integration and liberal institutionalism. It is a multilateral strategy that will help Pakistan realize its true potential in the economic and strategic domains. It also endeavors to find linkages between China's multilateralism with regional integration under the framework of CPEC based on liberal values of connectivity.

Bibliography Entry
Ali, Asif. 2020. "CPEC: A Tool for Regional Integration and Liberal Institutionalism." Margalla Papers 24 (2): 1-15.

Liberal institutionalism has traditionally emphasized the need for institutional arrangements to initiate and sustain cooperation among states. The theory regenerated much interest in the capacity and potential of international institutions, particularly the United Nations, for sustained international cooperation and peace in the post-cold war world. A good number of recent developments, particularly the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on America and the resurgent neoconservative agenda in American foreign policy to wage the endless 'war on terror' and to extend the zone of freedom and democracy through force, run counter to the basic premises of liberal institutionalism. This article analyzes the impact of the neoconservative foreign policy agenda on wider forms of international cooperation and argues that the unilateral US invasion of Iraq in 2003 has created an international environment of conflict and insecurity where rival and hostile states view each other with deep suspicions and prefer not to cooperate on important international peace and security issues. The prevailing international environment of insecurity has seriously undermined, the potential of international institutions, particularly the United Nations, to hold the post-September 11 world together and get states on board to cooperate on a sustained basis.

This article argues that geoeconomics, defined as the geostrategic use of economic power, has become an increasingly important feature of regional powers' strategic behavior. Yet, we still lack analytical tools to identify and compare regional powers' geoeconomic strategies. The article marks a first attempt to develop a typology for differentiating potential geoeconomic strategies that regional powers may pursue in dealing with their corresponding regions. It merges the regional power focus with a geoeconomic perspective, producing the following four ideal-typical strategies: neo-imperialism, neo-mercantilism, hegemony, and liberal institutionalism. This new typology serves as a conceptual device for creating analytical differentiation between regional powers and the range of possible geoeconomic strategies pursued by them. The paper discusses ways in which the new typology may contribute to our understanding of regional powers' foreign policy conduct and to the emerging geoeconomic research agenda. While the purpose of the article is not to test any specific hypothesis or to empirically analyze cases, brief case study vignettes will be presented for illustrative purposes, looking particularly at Brazil, the EU, Germany, and Russia.

The newest liberal institutionalism asserts that, although it accepts a major realist proposition that international anarchy impedes cooperation among states, it can nevertheless affirm the central tenets of the liberal institutionalist tradition that states can achieve cooperation and that international institutions can help them work together. However, this essay's principal argument is that neoliberal institutionalism misconstrues the realist analysis of international anarchy and therefore it misunderstands realism's analysis of the inhibiting effects of anarchy on the willingness of states to cooperate. This essay highlights the profound divergences between realism and the newest liberal institutionalism. It also argues that the former is likely to be proven analytically superior to the latter.

Argues that neoliberal institutionalism misconstructs the realist analysis of international anarchy and therefore it misunderstands realism's analysis of the inhibiting effects of anarchy on the willingness of states to cooperate. Highlights the profound divergences between realism and the newest liberal institutionalism. Argues that the former is likely to be proven analytically superior to the latter. (Abstract amended)

The disagreement between rational choice (RCI) & historical institutionalism (HI) is investigated in the politics of enfranchisement of universal adult male suffrage. The ease of blurring the HI/RCI distinction is identified in how analysis, explanation, & normative assessment commingle in microeconomics. This underscores the multiple tasks that confront equilibrium based theories. A brief historical sketch characterizes universal suffrage as an equilibrium institution. Further exploration identifies how RCI builds normative justification into purportedly "positive" accounts of "moral" or "ethical" explanations that can advance normatively attractive institutions, such as universal suffrage. The lessons learned from the politics of enfranchisement are that RCI accounts must abandon their reduced form of analysis & harness the analytical advantages offered by bargaining explanations of institutional emergence. Tables, References. J. Harwell

AbstractPrompted by both promises and pitfalls in Michael's Zürn'sA Theory of Global Governance, this paper reflects on challenges going forward beyond liberal institutionalism in the study of world politics. Six suggestions are particularly highlighted for future theorizing of global governance: (a) further distance from state-centrism; (b) greater attention to transscalar qualities of global governing; (c) more incorporation of social-structural aspects of global regulation; (d) trilateral integration of individual, institutional, and structural sources of legitimacy in global governance; (e) more synthesis of positive and normative analysis; and (f) transcendence of Euro-centrism. Together these six shifts would generate a transformed global governance theory – and possibly practice as well.

This work develops institutionalism into a normative and philosophical theory with the ability to explain the historical development of institutions. It contributes to Rawlsian scholarship by arguing that Rawls' theory of justice is an institutionalist justification of liberal democracy from the internal perspective of a democratic citizen.

This work develops institutionalism into a normative and philosophical theory with the ability to explain the historical development of institutions. It contributes to Rawlsian scholarship by arguing that Rawls' theory of justice is an institutionalist justification of liberal democracy from the internal perspective of a democratic citizen