scholarly journals The rise of china and the future of east asian integration

2004 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 18-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Byung-Joon Ahn
2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Syed Muhammad Saad Zaidi ◽  
Adam Saud

In contemporary times, the geo-political agenda and geo-economic strategy of the world is being dominated by the ongoing US-China hegemonic competition. Where the United States is trying to prolong the ‘unipolar moment’ and deter the rise of China; China is trying to establish itself as the hegemon in the Eastern hemisphere, an alternate to the US. The entirely opposite interests of the two Great Powers have initiated a hostile confrontational competition for domination. This paper seeks to determine the future nature of the US-China relations; will history repeat itself and a bloody war be fought to determine the leader of the pack? or another prolonged Cold War will be fought, which will end when one side significantly weakens and collapses? Both dominant paradigms of International Relations, Realism and Liberalism, are used to analyze the future nature of the US-China relations.


Author(s):  
Randall L. Schweller

This chapter works within the neoclassical realist tradition to examine the role of nationalism in foreign policymaking and the implication for the international politics of East Asia. Whereas the rise of China is an important structural factor necessarily affecting states' security policies throughout East Asia, China's rise does not determine these states' security policies. Rather, domestic politics ultimately determines how a state responds to changing security circumstances. In particular, nationalism can drive states to adopt more belligerent policies than warranted by their strategic environment, thus contributing to heightened bilateral conflicts and regional tension. The chapter argues that, in contemporary East Asia, rising China sets the context of policymaking, but domestic politics has been the primary factor shaping policy.


Ekonomika ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 93 (3) ◽  
pp. 7-24
Author(s):  
Karina Jędrzejowska

The main goal of the paper is to examine the key features of the current international monetary system and provide an overview of scenarios for the future global monetary arrangements. It is noted that just a few years back there seemed to be a bipolar monetary system based on the U.S. dollar and the euro in the making. The rise of China and the possible emergence of the Chinese renminbi as an international currency gave way to a debate on a tripolar monetary system. Today, the future of the international monetary system is still open. It needs reforming in order to meet the requirements of the new global order with multiple growth centers, the growing role of transnational actors, and the increasing global influence of the major emerging economies.The analysis reveals that the relations among the major international currencies are changing, and today at least three scenarios for the future monetary order seem possible. These are the maintenance of the U.S. dollar domination, a shift towards a multipolar currency order, and the gradual regionalization of the currency order. The concept of a single currency – though theoretically attracting – seems impossible to be implemented in the foreseeable future. The analysis is based on monetary and economic theories, historical patterns of the development of monetary regimes, and an extensive literature overview backed by the data provided by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). 


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bentley Allan ◽  
Srdjan Vucetic ◽  
Ted Hopf

Existing theories predict that the rise of China will trigger a hegemonic transition and the current debate centers on whether or not the transition will be violent or peaceful. This debate largely sidesteps two questions that are central to understanding the future of international order: how strong is the current Western hegemonic order and what is the likelihood that China can or will lead a successful counter-hegemonic challenge? We argue that the future of international order is shaped not only by material power but also by the distribution of identity across the great powers. We develop a constructivist account of hegemonic transition that theorizes the role of the distribution of identity in international order. In our account, hegemonic orders depend on a legitimating ideology that must be consistent with the distribution of identity at both the level of elites and masses. We map the distribution of identity across nine great powers and assess how this distribution supports the current Western neoliberal democratic hegemony. We conclude that China is unlikely to become the hegemon in the near-term. First, the present order is strongly supported by the distribution of identity in both Western states and rising powers like India and Brazil. Second, China is unlikely to join the present order and lead a transition from within because its authoritarian identity conflicts with the democratic ideology of the present order. Finally, China is unlikely to lead a counter-hegemonic coalition of great powers because it will be difficult to build an appealing, universal ideology consistent with the identities of other great powers.


2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Weizhan Meng ◽  
Weixing Hu

AbstractThe rise of China and how other countries respond to China’s rising is widely studied. But little has been done on how other countries reacted to the rise of China throughout history and how China strategically interacted with them. The conventional wisdom holds East Asian international relations did not operate in the Westphalian way and China’s rising in history did not trigger regional balancing actions. In this article, we challenge that view. We argue East Asian international relations were not exceptional to basic rules of the Westphalian system. Each time China rose up, it triggered balancing actions from neighboring regimes, including nomadic empires and settled kingdoms. The neighboring regimes would accommodate China only after they were defeated by China or pro-China regimes propped up in these countries. The Chinese hegemony in East Asian history could not be taken for granted. Over last 2,000 plus years, only during three periods of time (the Qin-Han 秦汉, Sui-Tang 隋唐, and Ming-Qing 明清 dynasties) China could successfully overpower regional resistance and enjoyed a stable tributary relationship with neighboring states. In the rest of time, the Chinese state could not retain hegemony in East Asia.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document