Sten Rynning (ed). South Asia and the Great Powers: International Relations and Regional Security

Asian Affairs ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 147-149
Author(s):  
Syed Badrul Ahsan
2020 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 344-360
Author(s):  
Sanjeev Kumar H. M.

The democratic peace hypothesis, which is embedded in the neo-Kantian romance of liberal cosmopolitan idealism, was framed in the spatiotemporal context of the Cold War bipolarity. Michael Doyle, who is one of its proponents, invoked the Kantian philosophical abstraction of ‘the perpetual peace’ by providing an intellectual defence and moral high ground for the values of the Liberal Capitalist world. In the post–Cold War setting, Francis Fukuyama re-casted the hypothesis and portrayed the triumph of liberal international order as ‘the end of history’. He attempted to reframe the democratic peace thesis, not only to celebrate liberal values as the normative exemplar for ordering a post–Cold War international system but also to provide an intellectual defence for the newly emerging space for American leadership in a post-hegemonic international system. This intellectual defence of the ethical supremacy of liberal idealism in the world, shaped by the leadership of the USA, was entrenched in the epistemological Imperialism of the West. Besides, it also reflected an exclusionary idea of the history of international relations that was heavily grounded in the chronology of the post-Westphalia international order. Situating ourselves in this framework, this article is an attempt to critique the epistemic foundations of the democratic peace hypothesis, by deconstructing its assertions in the geostrategic context of the regional security architecture in South Asia. The article criticizes the democratic peace thesis, using an analysis of the Kargil conflict (1999) between India and Pakistan, and by placing ourselves in the epistemological framework of the historical turn in international relations.


2021 ◽  
pp. 12-27
Author(s):  
Marina Glaser ◽  
P.E. Tomann ◽  
Nikolai Novik

In world history, 2020 will forever remain a year of serious humanitarian and economic upheavals that have further changed the geopolitical alignment of key actors in the system of international relations. In this regard, the concepts of Greater Eurasia and Greater Europe, which were held as two significant narratives present in the international academic and political discussion, are particularly interesting. The main questions of this research are whether consensus is possible and what are the prospects for geopolitical interaction between the projects of Greater Eurasia and Greater Europe, taking into account the interests of Russia, how will this affect the system of international relations and the environment of macro-regional security? The article discusses the opportunities for cooperation between Greater Eurasia and Greater Europe, as well as the key principles of internal interaction between the participants. Russia, being a key link in this context, can act as a guarantor of trade and economic, geostrategic and political stability. The authors conclude that Greater Eurasia and Greater Europe are geopolitical representations created by the key actors of the European and Eurasian space for various options for adapting their plans to reality, and conflicts and security challenges that arise on the periphery of these two associations and their great powers can jeopardize not only European but also the entire global security. To prevent this, countries need to review the existing Eurasian and European security architecture, based on the principles of mutual respect, cooperation and parity. The article is based entirely on qualitative analysis and does not refer to quantitative arguments or statistical data. The methodological platform for the research is the analysis based on the concept of geopolitics.


Author(s):  
Marwan Awni Kamil

This study attempts to give a description and analysis derived from the new realism school in the international relations of the visions of the great powers of the geopolitical changes witnessed in the Middle East after 2011 and the corresponding effects at the level of the international system. It also examines the alliances of the major powers in the region and its policies, with a fixed and variable statement to produce a reading that is based on a certain degree of comprehensiveness and objectivity.


Think India ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 535-546
Author(s):  
ABHISHEK CHOUDHARY

The paper analyses the concerns arising from a moral perspective in the context of a renewed arms race in South Asia. It challenges the idea that possession of nuclear power could in any way contribute to any sort of balance. The emulation of so-called great powers and expecting that balance would arrive as it did in the case of the US and the erstwhile-USSR during cold war is detrimental to the temporal and spatial uniqueness of South Asia. Deterrence, based on rational choice theory, does not apply to the South Asian context due to ambiguity owing to mutual mistrust especially in the case of India and Pakistan. Also, it no longer only sates that are sole actors in the international arena. One cannot expect the non-state actors to behave in a rational manner. Furthermore, the idea of ‘credible minimum deterrence’ itself is questionable as it is a flexible posture adjusted to relative prowess and ambiguity in policy further aggravates the situation. The paper argues from a consequentialist notion of ethics and argues that the principles of harm and equity ought be part of nuclear decision-making. Another aspect that the paper uncovers relates to the ‘reification’ of nuclear power. Using a neo-Marxist framework and concept of Lukács, the paper argues that it is no longer the state as a repository of power that decides the trajectory of nuclear development. Rather the nuclear technology has started to dictate the way states are looking at regional and international relations. This inverted relationship has been created due to neglect of any ethical toolkit. The paper thus proposes an ethical toolkit that focuses on the negative duties of not to harm and also the positive duties to create conditions that would avoid harm being done to people.


Author(s):  
Geir Lundestad

There are no laws in history. Realists, liberals, and others are both right and wrong. Although no one can be certain that military incidents may not happen, for the foreseeable future China and the United States are unlikely to favor major war. They have cooperated well for almost four decades now. China is likely to continue to focus on its economic modernization. It has far to go to measure up to the West. The American-Chinese economies are still complementary. A conflict with the United States or even with China’s neighbors would have damaging repercussions for China’s economic goals. The United States is so strong that it would make little sense for China to take it on militarily. There are also other deterrents against war, from nuclear weapons to emerging norms about international relations. It is anybody’s guess what will happen after the next few decades. History indicates anything is possible.


Author(s):  
David G. Haglund

Interstate relations among the North American countries have been irenic for so long that the continent is often assumed to have little if anything to contribute to scholarly debates on peaceful change. In good measure, this can be attributed to the way in which discussions of peaceful change often become intertwined with a different kind of inquiry among international relations scholars, one focused upon the origins and denotative characteristics of “pluralistic security communities.” Given that it is generally (though not necessarily accurately) considered that such security communities first arose in Western Europe, it is not difficult to understand why the North American regional-security story so regularly takes an analytical back seat to what is considered to be the far more interesting European one. This article challenges the idea that there is little to learn from the North American experience, inter alia by stressing three leading theoretical clusters within which can be situated the scholarly corpus of works attempting to assess the causes of peaceful change on the continent. Although the primary focus is on the Canada–US relationship, the article includes a brief discussion of where Mexico might be said to fit in the regional-security order.


Author(s):  
Karsten Friis

Abstract How can we best analyze security subregions? The most commonly used theory of regional security in the discipline of international relations, the regional security complex theory, focuses on large regions, such as Europe, Asia, or the Middle East. It pays less attention to smaller regions within these. This is unfortunate, because the security dynamics of these subregions often are a result of more than their place in the larger region. At the same time, the security of subregions cannot be reduced to a function of the policies of the states comprising them either. In short, security subregions are a level of analysis in their own right, with their own material, ideational, economic, and political dynamics. To capture and understand this, we need an analytical framework that can be applied to security regions irrespective of where and when in time they occur. The aim of this article is to offer such an analytical framework that helps us theorize the forces forging regional security cooperation, by combining external push and pull forces with internal forces of pull and resistance. The utility of the framework is illustrated through the case of Nordic security cooperation. It allows for a systematic mapping of the driving forces behind it and the negative forces resisting it. The Nordic region thus becomes a meeting point between global and national forces, pushing and pulling in different directions, with Nordic Defense Cooperation being formed in the squeeze between them. Extrait Comment pouvons-nous analyser au mieux les sous-régions de sécurité? La théorie de sécurité régionale la plus communément exploitée dans la discipline des relations internationales, celle du complexe de sécurité régionale, se concentre sur de grandes régions, telles que l'Europe, l'Asie ou le Moyen-Orient. Elle accorde moins d'attention aux plus petites régions qui les constituent. Cela est regrettable, car les dynamiques de sécurité de ces sous-régions résultent souvent de bien d'autres facteurs que leur place dans la région. Dans le même temps, la sécurité des sous-régions ne peut pas non plus être réduite à une fonction des politiques des États qui les composent. En bref, les sous-régions de sécurité sont un niveau d'analyse à part entière, avec ses propres dynamiques matérielles, idéationnelles, économiques et politiques. Pour capturer et comprendre cela, nous avons besoin d'un cadre analytique pouvant être appliqué aux régions de sécurité, quels que soient le moment et le lieu où elles interviennent. Le but de cet article est de proposer un tel cadre analytique qui nous aide à théoriser les forces forgeant la coopération régionale de sécurité en alliant des forces externes de poussée et de traction à des forces internes de traction et de résistance. L'utilité de ce cadre est illustrée par le cas de la coopération de sécurité nordique. Il permet une cartographie systématique des forces motrices sur lesquelles elle repose et des forces négatives qui y résistent. La région nordique devient ainsi un point de rencontre entre forces nationales et internationales qui poussent et tirent dans différentes directions, la coopération de défense nordique se formant dans l'intervalle ainsi constitué. Resumen ¿Cuál es la mejor forma de analizar las subregiones de seguridad? La teoría sobre seguridad regional de uso generalizado en la disciplina de relaciones internacionales, la llamada Teoría de Complejos de Seguridad Regional, se centra principalmente en grandes regiones como Europa, Asia y el Medio Oriente y presta menos atención a regiones más pequeñas dentro ellas. Este aspecto es desafortunado, ya que la dinámica de seguridad de estas subregiones suele ser el resultado de otros factores además del lugar que ocupan dentro de estas regiones más grandes. Asimismo, la seguridad subregional tampoco puede reducirse a una función de las políticas de los estados que integran. En conclusión, las subregiones de seguridad merecen un nivel de análisis propio, con sus propias dinámicas materiales, conceptuales, económicas y políticas. Para captar y comprender esto, es necesario un marco analítico que pueda aplicarse a regiones de seguridad independientemente del lugar y el momento en el que suceden. Este artículo tiene como objetivo ofrecer ese marco analítico que ayude a teorizar los factores que forjan la cooperación de seguridad nacional al combinar factores externos de tensión y conciliación con factores internos de conciliación y resistencia. La utilidad del marco se explica a través del caso de la cooperación de seguridad nórdica. Permite realizar un mapeo sistemático de los factores subyacentes de impulso y los factores negativos de resistencia. La región nórdica, por tanto, se convierte en un punto de encuentro de los factores internacionales y nacionales de tensión y conciliación en distintas direcciones, y en el cual que se forma la cooperación nórdica de defensa.


Author(s):  
Steven Colatrella

This article investigates some of the reasons behind the events that led to a recent shift in international relations towards the global geopolitical and a renewed competition between the great powers. The aim is to point out important ideas of authors and put them to dialogue between each other. It calls attention to the possibility of an alternative political and economic bloc being built around China against a decline of US power. These points are deepened when it is identified other key features of the current system that involves the discussion about classes. The current configuration of class alliances and states involves the complex dynamics of the working classes in the Global South, the use of debt as a means of domination by the economic and financial world, as well as the new professional middle class - that give values to knowledge, technology and democracy. It is these relationships and their interface with the existing political power that permeate the revival of the global geopolitics, influencing not only current events, but also any possibility of thinking an alternative for governance and international framework - or even the failure of this and a consequent and possible new conflict worldwide.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document