Changes on the Asian Order of the Interstate System in the Era of US Hegemony Building

Asia Review ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 37-83
Author(s):  
Seung-wook Baek
1998 ◽  
Vol 1624 (1) ◽  
pp. 180-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Weissmann ◽  
Rob Harrison

The impact of a 44 000-kg (97,000-lb) tridem semitrailer truck on bridges on the urban and rural U.S. Interstate system is examined. The impacts are determined using a suite of models developed for FHWA policy use, and both agency and user costs are estimated. Bridges on the Interstate system that are already deficient at current loads are excluded from this analysis, which utilizes the National Bridge Inventory database and reports results for the rural and urban Interstate systems.


Author(s):  
Yale H. Ferguson ◽  
Richard W. Mansbach

This chapter addresses the erosion of the postwar liberal global order and the accompanying disorder in global politics. It describes the perceptions of declining US hegemony during the Obama administration of American decline and the return of geopolitical and economic rivalries that are undermining the liberal order. The election of President Donald Trump in 2016 in the United States was the most significant manifestation of national populism that has emerged in recent years in Europe and elsewhere. The profile of supporters of national populism are much the same globally. They oppose so-called elites and immigrants (especially minorities) whom they blame for the loss of manufacturing jobs. After defining national populism, the chapter describes how it fosters isolationism and malignant nationalism and focuses on national interests rather than global cooperation. Such policies threaten the movement of goods and people, multinational global organizations, and the postwar order in which globalization thrives.


Author(s):  
Timothy Doyle ◽  
Dennis Rumley

In the twenty-first century, the Indo-Pacific region has become the new centre of the world. The concept of the ‘Indo-Pacific’’, though still under construction, is a potentially pivotal site, where various institutions and intellectuals of statecraft are seeking common ground on which to anchor new regional coalitions, alliances, and allies to better serve their respective national agendas. This book explores the Indo-Pacific as an ambiguous and hotly contested regional security construction. It critically examines the major drivers behind the revival of classical geopolitical concepts and their deployment through different national lenses. The book also analyses the presence of India and the US in the Indo-Pacific, and the manner in which China has reacted to their positions in the Indo-Pacific to date. It suggests that national constructions of the Indo-Pacific region are more informed by domestic political realities, anti-Chinese bigotries, distinctive properties of twenty-first century US hegemony, and narrow nation-statist sentiments rather than genuine pan-regional aspirations. The book argues that the spouting of contested depictions of the Indo-Pacific region depend on the fixed geostrategic lenses of nation-states, but what is also important is the re-emergence of older ideas—a classical conceptual revival—based on early to mid-twentieth century geopolitical ideas in many of these countries. The book deliberately raises the issue of the sea and constructions of ‘nature’, as these symbols are indispensable parts of many of these Indo-Pacific regional narratives.


Author(s):  
Harold A. Trinkunas

Latin America has long aspired for an interstate system based on the principles of nonintervention and adherence to international law. Over time, the region has become increasingly free of war, and interstate disputes are frequently settled via diplomacy or by international courts. But it has achieved a largely “negative” peace as peaceful relations in the region are neither the result of nor have produced deeper commercial integration, effective regional organizations, or epistemic security communities. This chapter examines realist, liberal, and constructivist explanations to explain the sources of peace and peaceful change in Latin America, as well as how structural changes in the international system have affected the region. In particular, it analyzes how Latin America’s relative weakness in terms of material capabilities has led it to rely on diplomacy, “soft balancing,” and norms entrepreneurship in international law to secure its interest in a progressively more peaceful and rule-bound international order.


Author(s):  
Beverley Loke

Abstract China's rise has raised important questions about the durability of US hegemony in East Asia. Much of the debate, however, has generally been cast in fairly simplistic terms, suggesting the durability or end of US regional hegemony. Such framings nevertheless fail to fully capture regional dynamics and complexity. Advancing an English School conception of hegemony, this paper examines the politics, contestation, and renegotiation of the post–Cold War US hegemonic order in East Asia. It maps out four logics of hegemonic ordering in the existing literature, outlines their shortfalls and advances a twofold argument. First, although regional order will not disintegrate into binary “order versus disorder” or “US versus Chinese hegemony” scenarios, the politics of hegemonic ordering—the interactive discourses, processes, relations, and practices that underpin hegemony—will intensify as the United States and China continue to both cooperate and compete for power, position, and influence in East Asia. Second, I argue that the East Asian regional order will evolve in ways that resemble hybrid forms of hegemony in a complex hierarchy. Specifically, I develop a new logic—“coalitional and collaborative hegemonies in a complex hierarchy”—that is anchored in assertiveness, fluidity, and compartmentalization. It demonstrates that Washington and Beijing will not only form coalitional hegemonies, seeking legitimation from multiple and often overlapping constituencies, but also engage in a collaborative hegemony on shared interests. This better reflects evolving regional dynamics and yields theoretical insights into examining hegemonic transitions less as clearly delineated transitions from one distinct hegemonic order to the next, and more as partial and hybrid ones.


2001 ◽  
pp. 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fareed Mohamedi ◽  
Yahya Sadowski
Keyword(s):  

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 ◽  
pp. 193-199
Author(s):  
Sean D. Murphy ◽  
Claudio Grossman

Our conversation might begin by looking backward a bit. The human rights movement from 1945 onward has been one of the signature accomplishments of the field of international law, one that refocused our attention from a largely interstate system to a system where the individual moved in from the periphery to the center. Human rights champions point to numerous landmark treaties, numerous institutions, and the rise of NGOs as a critical vehicle for developing and monitoring human rights rules. Yet others look at the international human right system and still see the state as overly central, tolerating and paying lip service to human rights, but too easily discarding them when they prove to be inconvenient. The persistence of racism comes to mind. As a general matter, how would you assess the strengths and weaknesses of the system that was built essentially during your lifetime?


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 131-156
Author(s):  
Ömer Turan

Abstract The student movement of ’68 was both a major source of inspiration and subject of research for the social movement scholars. One persistent disagreement about studying ’68 lies between the world-system theory—Wallerstein views the movement as “a single revolution”—and the contentious politics approach—McAdam, Tarrow, and Tilly refuse to consider ’68 “one grand movement.” Expanding this theoretical debate, this article overviews Turkey’s ’68 movement and discusses its divergence from the global movement. Wallerstein summarizes “the single revolution” of ’68 with five points: challenging US hegemony, working-class solidarity, demanding education reform, counter-culture, and challenging the old left. This article revisits these points and cross-reads them with insights of the contentious politics approach to evaluate Turkey’s ’68 movement. It then focuses on mobilizing structures, framing processes, and repertoires of contention that have shaped student activism.


2021 ◽  
pp. 375-395
Author(s):  
Kathryn Weathersby

This paper examines some of the ways the US-centric framework of Anglophone Korean studies has distorted scholarship on post-colonial Korean history. First, an over-emphasis on the American role in the division of Korea has exaggerated the possibility that the US and USSR could have compromised to create a unified government for the peninsula. The Soviet documentary record reveals that Moscow was determined to obstruct such an outcome if it endangered Soviet security. Second, by focusing on the serious damage the American occupation inflicted on the South, scholars have understated the control Soviet occupation authorities exercised in the North.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document