Order Now

How do main stream IR theories approach and explain the states’ behavior within the membership of ASEAN which result in a clear division of two opposing stances regarding the South China Sea dispute?

Category:

0 / 5. 0

Words: 1650

Pages: 3

103

Main Stream International Theoretical Approach to ASEAN and the South China Sea Conflict
Name:
Course:
Institution:
City:
State:
Date:

Main Stream International Theoretical Approach to ASEAN and the South China Sea Conflict
Introduction
The South China Sea (SCS) territorial disputes have generated inconsistency in the East Asian regional integration. China and ASEsAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) have deepened their relationships since the 1990s through investment and trade but the issue of the SCS is still a major stumbling block against advancing integration with allusion to institutional organization for the mechanism of settling disputes (Ba, 2003, 625). Tension between the two ASEAN claimants (Philippines and Cambodia) and China has intensified consequently upsetting their economic relations following their unilateral policies and disinclination to multilateral solutions (ASD reports, 2013, 1). ASEAN has made effort to enforce multilateral solutions for endorsing peace in the region by organizing agreements and discussions. Despite the efforts, security and solidity in the South China Sea is more vulnerable than before besides, armed struggles between the claimants can occur anytime (Envall & Hall, 2016, 100). The strategic role played by ASEAN in the region could also be compromised if the conflict leads to the formation of another power structure that would ensure stability, peace and cooperation (Batabyal, 2004, 353). In addressing the research about the SCS dispute, this paper will discuss the theoretical underpinnings regarding the issue.

Wait! How do main stream IR theories approach and explain the states’ behavior within the membership of ASEAN which result in a clear division of two opposing stances regarding the South China Sea dispute? paper is just an example!

Liberalism and Realism
Interdependence is the main reason for forming regional organization such as ASEAN as a trade area (Ba, 2006, 320). Realists and Liberalists have diverse perspectives on the effect of economic necessity on the propensity towards cooperation and peace building. Libertarians argue that a country’s cooperative conduct is affected by economic interdependence. The theory of liberalism is centered on a set of conventions. The first states that nations pursue policies that function in their best interest. The second one implies that policy or cooperation convergence should serve a state’s best interest since there are defection costs and participation incentives including loss of the prospect to acquire benefit as well as crisis (Peou, 2002, 123). The theory of liberalism stresses the need for cooperation against defection.
According to realists, interdependence escalates the likelihood of clashes rather than decrease them. The perspective of a realist while dealing with interstate anarchy denotes that every country should be concerned with their own security. On the other hand, interdependence reflects susceptibility and an absence of autonomy in particular resources (He, 2008, 502). Consequently, countries within interdependency associations tend to initiate conflict in order to gain access to resources.
Both liberalists and realists agree that there are other factors besides economic interdependence that determine the possibility of peace or war. Liberals come up with other elucidations for the propensity of peace, for instance, transnational institutions and democratic order (Acharyra, 2014, 22). Realists also view interdependence as only one of many factors that cause conflict in regional organizations. If significant trade relations are absent among nations, the relevance of interdependence as a factor that causes war fails. In addition to interdependence realists believe that other factors such as relative power/capabilities contribute to conflict and war.
The background of the Liberalism theory is traced back to the 19th century. In the 1850s Richard Cobden presented the idea that unity amongst states can be achieved through international trade. In 1933 Norman Angell added that in the contemporary world countries have to select between the new system that involves benefiting from peaceful interstate trade, and the old one that is only concerned with power politics (Lau & Po, 2008, 149). Following Angell’s views, war is advantageous but it thwarts the long term gain from commerce. Revolutionizing taxation and economics had augmented trade benefits as well as war costs. To Angell, compared to international business (Cavusgil, et al, 2015, 19), the benefits of war are trivial hence war occurrence was affected by the leaders’ misperceptions about the advantages of warfare.
Neorealist asserts that inter-cooperation escalates prospects of war. For states whose key concern is security, interdependence is not highly welcome. When a problem arises in the supply, reliance on foreign production factors can result in domestic crisis (Lamy, 2011, 33). In the 1970s for instance, the oil crisis instigated by restriction from OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries), many countries were ripped open to crisis. Neorealist therefore only considers it logical that countries anticipate taking charge of their energy resources. In this case, dependence catalyzes the process of war. Even though it is possible that tension could be eased in the region through neoliberalism selfish objectives by states, promotion of institutions and regimes counter the progress. National revisionism has demonstrated a significant challenge for agencies and governments to realize meaningful cooperation and pacification (RüLand, 2015, 13). For instance, the different stances, Philippines and Cambodia, could form one free market and establish standard policies like deregulation, tax cuts, privatization, and globalization.
Virtually, scholars from all perspectives agree that economic interdependence affects the policies and strategies of various states in international relations. The two theories vary in their view of the impact interdependence has and the kind of reaction revealed by the states’ strategies and policies. Liberalists perceive that when countries depend on each other economically, the possibilities of conflict or war are reduced whereas realists believe that with interdependence, there is more likelihood for war to occur (Enia, 2009, 362). Liberals consistently dispute that countries that participate in interdependence should opt for peaceful collaboration and shun conflict. Realists denounce the idea put across by liberals (Acharya, 2009, 18) on account of their own belief that systemic factors have an impact on how leaders view the world and in turn affecting their options in policy and strategy.
Two-level game theory
Two-level games proliferate where international politics are concerned. According to the model decision makers at the national level, while making decisions, they are confronted with two different constituencies: international level sets and domestic-level sets (Quayle, 2013, 501). There are times when the state interests go in line with the international community but other times they are like polar opposites. China and Vietnam both want to be sovereign over Diaoyu Islands (SCS) causing psychological warfare (Asia Times, 2013, 1). Observing the situation many assume that both states can pursue a conciliatory or provocative policy. Pursuing both actions mean that each state is acting logically to make the most of it interests and has full data on how it will benefit and also the benefits to the other country. The benefits attained by each state is dependent upon the policy adopted by both nations.
The model postulates that taking a provocative position means that the country will intimidate the other state by reaping most of the benefits (Hamilton-Hart, 2013, 71). When both countries agree to adopt a similar policy, the benefits will not be as much as the ones obtained with one dominating state. Both countries will thus want to move to the provocative position if they are not in one already hence a shared benefit. The equilibrium is not however satisfactory because the value of conciliation is higher than provocation gains. A provocative policy entails military ground work, and it could interrupt transportation and impact trade flow. The benefits of adopting mediation are therefore larger compared to when both countries claim the provocative position.
The model does not allow consultation and coordination among states. Each country has a responsibility to examine the position it will take in response to the measures adopted by the other country. After years of stagnation, China has demonstrated a readiness to talk about the issue with its neighbors in the ASEAN region about the “code of conduct” in the SCS with limited enforceability (He Shan, 2011, 3).
Constructivism
Constructivism theory claims a sociological conception by centering on the significance of institutions to the actions of the state with regards to norms and by raising the idea of interdependence (Francis, Popovski & Sampford, 2012, 1). The theory states that human behavior is directed by rules, norms, identities and institutions. Moreover, nearly all interstate relations that contour the identities of different countries, as well as interests, are established within the context of systems; and particular institutions represent the norms and rules of the regional connections.
In the context of ASEAN, constructivism can elucidate the role played by standards and collective identity (Eaton & Stubbs, 2006, 144). The ASEAN Way is a chief player in the dynamics of ASEAN as a regional integration therefore the theory can purposefully describe the establishment of collective identity in terms of the region (Thayer, 2013, 79). With constructivism, one is assured of a well elaborated explanation of the failures and accomplishments of ASEAN in which building institutions and transnational steps are perceived as the shapers of power balance in the region.
Member of ASEAN have to an extent shifted from total power balance politics to developing a code of conduct for the area which revolves around norms (Buszynski, 2003, 350). Adhering to the set standards is an obligation with regards to foreign policy, and it is mandatory to view it as the foundation of their interests at the national level. Seeing ASEAN with a constructivist’s perspective is vital, and no serious study of the region does take into account the role of norms (Petri, 2006, 388).
Institutionalism
Proposers of the theory claim that the institutional environment has a substantial impact on the growth of conventional structures in an organization. Often, it is considered more intense than market pressures. Innovative constructions that make technical competence better in early-adopting systems are made legitimate in the environment. Institutionalism in ASEAN should be strengthened and mandated regarding compliance and implementation of policy (DRYSDALE, 2014, 460). The existing support system ought to be reviewed since it is unrealistic and inapplicable to the growing association activities.
ASEAN is faced with institutional challenges such as; the secretary general and the Secretariat do not have the directive to warrant compliance. There are also financial adversities within the ASEAN Secretariat (Caballero, 2005, 170). The situation is as a result of equal contribution from members which has been subsidized by the less developed states, and their reliance on foreign financial support. Another reason behind low institutionalism within ASEAN is the understaffing within the region regarding both quantity and quality. The key discussions in this paper include
Conclusion
This research paper examines the economic and political relationships as regards to regional integration. The main discussion in this article is the state of the ASEAN regional integration and the SCS dispute. It approaches the issue of economic interdependence from a theoretical perspective linking it to its likelihood to either maintain peace within the region or increase war according to the theories of realism and liberalism. The fact is the ASEAN region is becoming interdependent. The development of transnational relations has been discussed with regards to the South China Sea dispute. Theories such as the two-level game, constructivism and institutionalism have been used to elaborate the states behavior within the membership of ASEAN and the two conflicting stances. China and ASEAN established that the subtleties of SCS diplomacy ought not to impact the developments in economic relations negatively.
The dynamics of the South China Sea territorial clashes is an indication of ASEAN’s limited efficacy to resolve such wars. It is a great achievement to bring the claimants to negotiation though not enough since compliance and agreement are absent so far. The propensity of the applicant countries to resort to unilateral solutions without allowing ASEAN to intervene signifies contention notwithstanding the promotion of the ASEAN integration.

References
Ba, A.D., 2003. China and ASEAN: Renavigating relations for a 21st-century Asia. Asian Survey, 43(4), pp.622-647.
Caballero-Anthony, M. ed., 2005. Regional security in Southeast Asia: beyond the ASEAN way. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Ba, A.D., 2006. China-ASEAN Relations: The Significance of an ASEAN-China Free Trade Area. China Under Hu Jintao: Opportunities, Dangers and Dilemmas, World Scientific, Singapore, pp.311-349.
Acharya, A., 2014. Constructing a security community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the problem of regional order. Routledge.
ASD Reports, 17 July 2013. “Territorial Disputes with China Spur Military Modernization in Vietnam”, retrieved from https://www.asdreports.com/news.asp?pr_id=1678.
Buszynski, L., 2003. ASEAN, the declaration on conduct, and the South China Sea. Contemporary Southeast Asia, pp.343-362.
Peou, S., 2002. Realism and constructivism in Southeast Asian security studies today: a review essay. The Pacific Review, 15(1), pp.119-138.
Acharya, A., 2009. Realism, institutionalism, and the Asian economic crisis. Contemporary Southeast Asia, pp.1-29.
Eaton, S. and Stubbs, R., 2006. Is ASEAN powerful? Neo-realist versus constructivist approaches to power in Southeast Asia 1. The Pacific Review, 19(2), pp.135-155.
Batabyal, A., 2004. ASEAN’s Quest for Security: A Theoretical Explanation. International Studies, 41(4), pp.349-369.
Enia, J. S. (2009). Sequencing Negotiating Partners: Implications for the Two-Level Game? Negotiation Journal. 25, 357-383.
Cavusgil, S. T., Knight, G. A., Riesenberger, J. R., Rammal, H. G., & Rose, E. L. (2015). International business: the new realities.
Asia Times, 10 April 2013. “Psychological Warfare in the South China Sea”, retrieved from http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/SEA-01-100413.htmlFrancis, A., Popovski, V., & Sampford, C. J. G. (2012). Norms of protection: responsibility to protect, protection of civilians and their interaction. Tokyo, United Nations University Press. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=3039661.
Quayle, L. (2013). National and Regional Obligations, the Metaphor of Two-Level Games, and the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community. Asian Politics & Policy. 5, 499-521.
RüLand, J. (2015). The Rise of “Diminished Multilaterism:” East Asian and European Forum Shopping in Global Governance.
Drysdale, P., & Willis, S. (2014). International Institutions and the Rise of Asia. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies. 1, 455-469
Envall, H. D. P., & Hall, I. (2016). Asian Strategic Partnerships: New Practices and Regional Security Governance. Asian Politics & Policy. 8, 87-105.
Hamilton-Hart, N., 2013. The costs of coercion: modern Southeast Asia in comparative perspective. The Pacific Review, 26(1), pp.65-87.
He Shan, 15 November 2011. “China-ASEAN Cooperation 1991-2011”, Press Release of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China, retrieved from Xinhua English News, http://cn- ph.china.org.cn/2012-02/27/content_4837848.htm.
He, K., 2008. Institutional balancing and international relations theory: Economic interdependence and balance of power strategies in Southeast Asia. European Journal of International Relations, 14(3), pp.489-518.
Petri, P.A., 2006. Is East Asia becoming more interdependent?. Journal of Asian Economics, 17(3), pp.381-394.
Lau, E. and Po Lee, K., 2008. Interdependence of income between China and ASEAN-5 countries. Journal of Chinese Economic and Foreign Trade Studies, 1(2), pp.148-161.
Thayer, C.A., 2013. ASEAN, China and the code of conduct in the South China Sea. SAIS Review of International Affairs, 33(2), pp.75-84.
Lamy, S.L., 2011. Contemporary Mainstream Approaches Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism.

Get quality help now

Thomas Rangel

5,0 (438 reviews)

Recent reviews about this Writer

I couldn't be happier with the essay provided by AnyCustomWriting. The writer's expertise and dedication shone through every paragraph. Truly exceptional work!

View profile

Related Essays