Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T21:16:53.641Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Elusive East Asia: Methodological Suggestions for the Study of East Asian Security

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 August 2016

YONG-SOO EUN
YONG-SOO EUN*
Affiliation:
Hanyang University [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article attempts to fill a gap in International Relations (IR) literature on East Asian security. ‘East Asia’ appears to be mostly an indeterminate conceptual construct, allowing scholars to look selectively at those aspects and areas that could justify their security thesis, albeit security dynamics in the region are all too difficult to comprehend and predict. This problem has been frequently pointed out in IR literature, but its methodological implications and suggestions have neither been appropriately illuminated nor been systematically offered, and the main solution commonly found in the literature was the tautological one of ‘better defining’ the region. As an alternative, this article suggests that one needs to tighten geographical focus and differentiate the subjects of analysis. When it comes to the study of East Asian security, one needs to aim to develop specific and differentiated generalizations as opposed to generalizations of a broad character. To showcase the fact that research outcomes can be more determinate when the target of analysis is more focused and specified, this article takes Northeast Asian security as an example and challenges the so-called ‘peaceful East Asia’ thesis, one of the mainstream perspectives on East Asian security. This article ultimately argues that while apprehending East Asian security dynamics through delimiting the scope of analysis and circumscribing the subjects of investigation is often deemed to be a modest enterprise―in particular, in terms of generalizability―the merits are substantial: research outcomes will be able not only to give us a truer mapping of the real world, but also bring us closer to building knowledge which satisfies the scientific criterion of ‘falsifiability.’

Type
Research Article
Information
Japanese Journal of Political Science , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , September 2016 , pp. 451 - 467
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acharya, Amitav (2004), ‘Will Asia's Past Be Its Future?’, International Security, 28 (3): 149–64.Google Scholar
Acharya, Amitav (2008), ‘The Imagined Community of East Asia’, in Kim, Hyung-Kook, Kim, Myongsob, and Acharya, Amitav (eds.), Northeast Asia and the Two Koreas: Metastability, Security and Community, Seoul: Yonsei University Press.Google Scholar
Alagappa, Muthiah (ed.) (1998), Asian Security Practice: Material and Ideational Influences Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alagappa, Muthiah (2003), Asian Security Order: Instrumental and Normative Features, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Ba, Alice D. (2009), (Re)Negotiating East and Southeast Asia: Region, Regionalism, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Beeson, Mark (2007), Regionalism and Globalisation in East Asia: Politics, Security, and Economic Development, Basingstoke, England, and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bessho, Koro (1999), Identities and Security in East Asia, Adelphi Paper No. 325, Oxford: International Institute for Strategic Studies.Google Scholar
Betts, Richard K (1993/94), ‘Wealth, Power, and Instability: East Asia and the United States after the Cold War’, International Security, 18 (3): 34–77.Google Scholar
Bracken, Paul (1999), Fire in the East, New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Breslin, Shaun (2007), ‘Theorising East Asian regionalism(s): New Regionalism and Asia's Future(s)’, in Melissa, Curley and Nicholas, Thomas (eds.), Advancing East Asian Regionalism, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brzezinski, Zbigniew and Mearsheimer, John J. (2005), ‘The Clash of the Titans’, Foreign Policy, No. 146: 46–50.Google Scholar
Bueno De Mesquita, Bruce (1985), ‘Toward a Scientific Understanding of International Conflict: A Personal View’, International Studies Quarterly, 29 (2): 121–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buzan, Barry and Segal, Gerald (1994), ‘Rethinking East Asian Security’, Survival, 36 (2): 3–21.Google Scholar
Buzan, Barry and Ole, Wæver (2003), Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Calder, Kent E. and Ye, Min (2010), The Making of Northeast Asia, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Choi, Jong Kun (2006), ‘Predictions of Tragedy vs. Tragedy of Predictions in Northeast Asian Security’, The Korean Journal of Defence Analysis, 18 (1): 7–33.Google Scholar
Choi, Jong Kun and Moon, Chung-in (2010), ‘Understanding Northeast Asian Regional Dynamics: Inventory Checking and New Discourses on Power, Interest, and Identity’, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 10 (2): 343–72.Google Scholar
Christensen, Thomas J. (1999), ‘China, the US–Japan Alliance, and the Security Dilemma in East Asia’, International Security, 23 (4): 49–80.Google Scholar
Cossa, Ralph A. and Khanna, Jane (1997), ‘East Asia: Economic Interdependence and Regional Security’, International Affairs, 73 (2): 219–34.Google Scholar
Dupont, Alan (1999), ‘Transnational Crime, Drugs, and Security in East Asia’, Asian Survey, 39 (3): 433–55.Google Scholar
Evans, Paul (2005), ‘Between Regionalism and Regionalisation: Policy Networks and the Nascent East Asian Institutional Identity’, in Pempel, T. J. (ed.), Remapping East Asia: The Construction of a Region, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Eun, Yong-Soo (2012), ‘Why and How Should We Go for a Multicausal Analysis in the Study of Foreign Policy?: (Meta-)Theoretical Rationales and Methodological Rules’, Review of International Studies, 38 (4): 763–83.Google Scholar
Fairbank, John K., Reischauer, Edwin O., and Craig, Albert M. (1978), East Asia: Tradition and Transformation, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Farley, Robert (2015), ‘3 Ways China and the U.S. Could Go to War in the South China Sea’, The National Interest available at http://nationalinterest.org/feature/3-ways-china-the-us-could-go-war-the-south-china-sea-13055 (accessed 18 June 2016).Google Scholar
Friedberg, Aaron L. (1993), ‘Ripe for Rivalry: Prospects for Peace in a Multipolar Asia’, International Security, 18 (3): 5–33.Google Scholar
Friedberg, Aaron L. (2005), ‘The Future of US–China Relations: Is Conflict Inevitable?’, International Security, 30 (2): 7–45.Google Scholar
Friedberg, Aaron L. (2011), A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia, New York: W.W.Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Goh, Evelyn (2008), ‘Power, Interest, and Identity: Reviving the Sinocentric Hierarchy in East Asia’, Asia Policy, No. 6: 148–53.Google Scholar
Haggard, Stephan (2004), ‘The Balance of Power, Globalization, and Democracy: International Relations Theory in Northeast Asia’, Journal of East Asian Studies, 4 (1): 1–38.Google Scholar
Hagstrom, Linus (2012), ‘“Power Shift” in East Asia? A Critical Assessment of Narratives on the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands Incidence 2010’, Chinese Journal of International Politics, 5 (3): 267–97.Google Scholar
Hellmann, Donald C. (1969), ‘The Emergence of an East Asian International Subsystem’, International Studies Quarterly, 13 (4): 421–34.Google Scholar
Higgott, Richard (1994), ‘APEC–A Sceptical View’, in Andrew, Mack and John, Ravenhill (eds.), Pacific Cooperation: Building Economic and Security Regimes in the Asia-Pacific Region, St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Hughes, Christopher W. (2004), Japan's Security Agenda: Military, Economic and Environmental Dimensions, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Iida, Keisuke (2015), ‘What is the Point of the Ikenberry–Acharya Debate’, Japanese Journal of Political Science, 16 (3): 429–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, Ikenberry G. and Mastanduno, Michael (eds.) (2003), International Relations Theory and the Asia-Pacific, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Jervis, Robert (1985) ‘Pluralistic Rigor: A Comment on Bueno de Mesquita’, International Studies Quarterly 29: 145–149.Google Scholar
Kang, David C. (2003), ‘Getting Asia Wrong: The Need for New Analytical Frameworks’, International Security, 27 (4): 57–85.Google Scholar
Kang, David C. (2003/04), ‘Hierarchy, Balancing, and Empirical Puzzles in Asian International Relations’, International Security, 28 (3): 165–80.Google Scholar
Kang, David C. (2013), ‘International Relations Theory and East Asian History’, Journal of East Asian Studies, 13 (2): 181–205.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Robert D. (2011), ‘The South China Sea is the Future of Conflict’, Foreign Policy, 188 (September/October): 78–85.Google Scholar
Katsumata, Hiro (2009), ASEAN's Cooperative Security Enterprise: Norms and Interests in the ASEAN Regional Forum, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter J. and Okawara, Nobuo (2001/2), ‘Japan, Asian-Pacific Security, and the Case for Analytical Eclecticism’, International Security, 26 (3): 153–85.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter J. and Takashi, Shiraishi (eds.) (1997), Network Power: Japan and Asia, London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Robert O., Keohane, and Sidney, Verba. (1994) Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University.Google Scholar
Kivimäki, Timo (2008), ‘ASEAN and the East Asian Peace’, paper presented at the Annual Convention for the International Studies Association, San Diego: ISA.Google Scholar
Kivimäki, Timo (2014), The Long Peace of East Asia, London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1977), The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kurki, Milja (2006), ‘Causes of a Divided Discipline: Rethinking the Concept of Cause in International Relations Theory’, Review of International Studies, 32 (2): 189–216.Google Scholar
Lam, Willy (2007), ‘Chinese Politics in the Hu Jintao Era: New Leaders, New Challenges’, Foreign Affairs, 86 (2): 1–2.Google Scholar
Layne, Christopher (1996), ‘Less is More: Minimal Realism in East Asia’, National Interest, No. 43: 64–77.Google Scholar
Lee, Soekwoo (2011), ‘Dokdo: the San Francisco Peace Treaty, International Law on Disputes, and Historical Criticism’, Asian Perspectives, 35 (3): 361–80.Google Scholar
Mearsheimer, John J. (2001), The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, New York: W.W. Norton, 2001.Google Scholar
Mearsheimer, John J. (2010), ‘The Gathering Storm: China's Challenge to US Power in Asia’, The Chinese Journal of International Politics, No. 3: 381–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pempel, T. J. (1997), ‘Transpacific Torii: Japan and the Emerging Asian Regionalism’, in Katzenstein, Peter J. and Takashi, Shiraishi (eds.), Network Power: Japan and Asia, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Pempel, T. J. (2005), Remapping East Asia: The Construction of a Region, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. ([1959], 2002), The logic of Scientific Discovery, London: Routledge Classics.Google Scholar
Ross, Robert S. (1999), ‘The Geography of the Peace: East Asia in the Twenty-First Century’, International Security, 23 (4): 81–118.Google Scholar
Roy, Denny (1994), ‘Hegemon on the Horizon? China's Threat to East Asian Security’, International Security, 19 (1): 149–68.Google Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni (1970), ‘Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics’, American Political Science Review, 64 (4): 1033–53.Google Scholar
Segal, Gerald (1996), ‘East Asia and the ‘Constrainment’ of China’, International Security, 20 (4): 107–35.Google Scholar
Shimizu, Kosuke and Bradley, William S. (eds.) (2014), Multiculturalism and Conflict Reconciliation in the Asia-Pacific: Migration, Language and Politics, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Snyder, Richard C., Bruck, H. W., and Sapin, Burton (eds.) (1962), Foreign Policy Decision-Making: An Approach to the Study of International Politics, Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
Suh, J. J., Katzenstein, Peter J., and Allen, Carlson (eds.) (2004), Rethinking Security in East Asia: Identity, Power, and Efficiency, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Stockwin, J.A.A. (1995), ‘Foreword’, in Jain, P.C. (ed.), Distant Asian Neighbours: Japan and South Asia, New Delhi: Sterling Publishers Private Limited.Google Scholar
Taleb, Nassim Nicholas (2007), The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, London: Random House.Google Scholar
Tønnesson, Stein (2009), ‘What Is It that Best Explains the East Asian Peace since 1979? A Call for a Research Agenda’, Asian Perspective, No. 33: 111–36.Google Scholar
Weber, Max (1999), ‘Die ‘Objektivität’ Sozialwissenschaftlicher Und Sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis’, quoted in Patrick Thaddeus Jackson (2015), ‘Must International Studies Be a Science?’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 43 (3): 942–65.Google Scholar
Yan, Xuetong (2008), ‘Decade of Peace in East Asia’, available at http://learn.tsinghua.edu.cn:8080/2000990147/paper/Decade_Peace.htm (accessed 14 January 2015).Google Scholar