4-Volume Set Regionalism in Asia CRITICAL ISSUES IN MODERN POLITICS Edited and with a new introduction by See Seng Tan, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Especially since the end of the Cold War, research on and around the international relations of Asia has grown exponentially and, to make sense of what is now a vast and unwieldly corpus of scholarly literature, this new four-volume collection from Routledge’s Critical Issues in Modern Politics series brings together the best and most influential work in the field. The first of the four volumes explores ASEAN and international relations theory. Volume II, meanwhile, focuses on the Association’s history and evolution from 1967 to the present day. Volume III examines pan-Asian intergovernmental regionalisms by collecting the most important thinking on the ‘new regionalism’. Vital questions addressed here include the nature of Asian intergovernmental institutions; the overall lack of strategic coherence; whether aims and agendas overlap; conflict or complement; and the implications for the region as a whole. Finally, Volume IV brings together crucial work on non-governmental or unofficial multilateral processes to examine the regionalization processes in Asia and the efficacy of these bottom-up processes in influencing policy and regional security discourse. With a full index, together with a comprehensive introduction newly written by the editor which places the collected material in its historical and intellectual context, this Routledge collection is an essential work of reference. It is destined to be valued by scholars, students, and researchers of Asian international relations, politics, history, and current affairs as a vital resource. Routledge Major Works Routledge June 2009 234x156: 1,564pp Set Hb: 978-0-415-47523-5
Transcript
4-Volume Set
Regionalismin AsiaCRITICAL ISSUES IN MODERN POLITICS
Edited and with a new introduction by See Seng Tan, NanyangTechnological University, Singapore
Especially since the end of the Cold War, research on and around theinternational relations of Asia has grown exponentially and, to make senseof what is now a vast and unwieldly corpus of scholarly literature, this newfour-volume collection from Routledge’s Critical Issues in Modern Politicsseries brings together the best and most influential work in the field.
The first of the four volumes explores ASEAN and international relationstheory. Volume II, meanwhile, focuses on the Association’s history andevolution from 1967 to the present day. Volume III examines pan-Asianintergovernmental regionalisms by collecting the most important thinkingon the ‘new regionalism’. Vital questions addressed here include the natureof Asian intergovernmental institutions; the overall lack of strategiccoherence; whether aims and agendas overlap; conflict or complement; andthe implications for the region as a whole. Finally, Volume IV brings togethercrucial work on non-governmental or unofficial multilateral processes toexamine the regionalization processes in Asia and the efficacy of thesebottom-up processes in influencing policy and regional security discourse.
With a full index, together with a comprehensive introduction newly writtenby the editor which places the collected material in its historical andintellectual context, this Routledge collection is an essential work ofreference. It is destined to be valued by scholars, students, and researchers ofAsian international relations, politics, history, and current affairs as a vitalresource.
1. Donald K. Emmerson, ‘“Southeast Asia”: What’s in a Name?’, Journalof Southeast Asian Studies, 1984, 15, 1, 1–21.
2. Tim Huxley, ‘Southeast Asia in the Study of International Relations:The Rise and Decline of a Region’, Pacific Review, 1996, 9, 2, 199–228.
3. David Martin Jones and Michael L. R. Smith, ‘Is There a Sovietology ofSouth-East Asian Studies?’, International Affairs, 2001, 77, 4, 843–65.
4. Alan Chong, ‘Southeast Asia: Theory Between Modernization andTradition’, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 2007, 7, 3,391–438.
Part 2. Explaining ASEAN: Competing/Congruent Theories
5. Michael Leifer, ASEAN’s Search for Regional Order (National Universityof Singapore, 1987).
6. Donald K. Emmerson, ‘ASEAN as an International Regime’, Journal ofInternational Affairs, 1987, 4, 4, 1–16.
7. Sheldon W. Simon, ‘Realism and Neoliberalism: InternationalRelations Theory and Southeast Asian Security’, Pacific Review, 1995, 8,1, 5–24.
8. Amitav Acharya, ‘Realism, Institutionalism and the Asian FinancialCrisis’, Contemporary Southeast Asia, 1999, 21, 1, 1–29.
9. Nikolas Busse, ‘Constructivism and Southeast Asian Security’, PacificReview, 1999, 12, 1, 39–60.
10. Jürgen Haacke, ‘ASEAN’s Diplomatic and Security Culture: AConstructivist Assessment’, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific,2003, 3, 1, 57–87.
11. Shaun Narine, ‘The English School and ASEAN’, Pacific Review, 2006,19, 2, 199–218.
Part 3. Is ASEAN a Security Community?
12. Amitav Acharya, ‘A Regional Security Community in Southeast Asia?’,Journal of Strategic Studies, 1995, 18, 3, 175–200.
13. David Martin Jones and Michael L. R. Smith, ‘ASEAN’s ImitationCommunity’, Orbis, 2002, 46, 1, 93–109.
14. Nicholas Khoo, ‘Deconstructing the ASEAN Security Community: AReview Essay’, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 2004, 4, 1,35–46.
Part 4. Rationalism vs. Constructivism
15. Sorpong Peou, ‘Realism and Constructivism in Southeast AsianSecurity Studies Today: A Review Essay’, Pacific Review, 2002, 15, 1,119–38.
16. Sarah Eaton and Richard Stubbs, ‘Is ASEAN Powerful? Neo-RealistVersus Constructivist Approaches to Power in Southeast Asia’, PacificReview, 2006, 19, 2, 135–55.
17. See Seng Tan, ‘Rescuing Constructivism from the Constructivists: ACritical Reading of Constructivist Interventions in Southeast AsianSecurity’, Pacific Review, 2006, 19, 2, 239–60.
Part 5. ASEAN Evolution: From ‘Pre-birth’ to ‘Adolescence’ to ‘YoungAdulthood’ to ‘Mid-Life’
18. Philip Charrier, ‘ASEAN’s Inheritance: The Regionalization ofSoutheast Asia, 1941–61’, Pacific Review, 2001, 14, 3, 313–38.
19. Poon Kim Shee, ‘A Decade of ASEAN, 1967–1977’, Asian Survey, 1977,XVII, 8, 753–70.
20. Richard Stubbs, ‘ASEAN at Twenty: The Search for a New Consensus’,Behind the Headlines, 1988, 45, 3, Jan./Feb.
21. Kusuma Snitwongse, ‘Thirty Years of ASEAN: Achievements throughPolitical Cooperation’, Pacific Review, 1998, 11, 2, 183–94.
22. Amitav Acharya, ‘ASEAN at 40: Mid-Life Rejuvenation?’,foreignaffairs.org, 15 Aug. 2007.
Part 6. ASEAN Regionalism: The ASEAN Way
23. Teik Soon Lau, ‘ASEAN Diplomacy: National Interest andRegionalism’, Journal of Asian and African Studies, 1990, XXV, 1/2,114–27.
24. Shaun Narine, ‘Institutional Theory and Southeast Asia: The Case ofASEAN’, World Affairs, 1998, 161, 1, 33–47.
25. Hiro Katsumata, ‘Reconstruction of Diplomatic Norms in SoutheastAsia: The Case for Strict Adherence to the “ASEAN Way”’, ContemporarySoutheast Asia, 2003, 25, 1, 104–21.
26. Lorraine Elliot, ‘ASEAN and Environmental Cooperation: Norms,Interests and Identity’, Pacific Review, 2003, 16, 1, 29–52.
Part 7. ASEAN Enlargement: Challenges and Prospects
27. Sukhumbhand Paribatra, ‘From ASEAN Six to ASEAN Ten: Issues andProspects’, Contemporary Southeast Asia, 1994, 16, 3, 243–58.
28. John Funston, ‘Challenges Facing ASEAN in a More Complex Age’,Contemporary Southeast Asia, 1999, 21, 2, 205–19.
Part 8. ASEAN Conflict Prevention: The Search for Peace
29. Russell H. Fifield, ‘ASEAN: Image and Reality’, Asian Survey, 1979, 19,12, 1199–208.
30. Amitav Acharya, ‘Regional Military-Security Cooperation in the ThirdWorld: A Conceptual Analysis of the Association of Southeast AsianNations’, Journal of Peace Research, 1992, 29, 1, 7–21.
31. Timo Kivimäki, ‘The Long Peace of ASEAN’, Journal of Peace Research,2001, 38, 1, 5–25.
32. Michael Leifer, ‘The ASEAN Peace Process: A Category Mistake’, PacificReview, 1999, 12, 1, 25–38.
Part 9. ASEAN Extra-regionalism: Engaging the Great Powers
33. Hans H. Indorf, ‘ASEAN in Extra-Regional Perspective’, ContemporarySoutheast Asia, 1987, 9, 2, 86–105.
34. Evelyn Goh, ‘Great Powers and Hierarchical Order in Southeast Asia:Analyzing Regional Security Strategies’, International Security, 2007, 32,3, 113–57.
VOLUME I International Relations Theory andASEAN
VOLUME IIASEAN and Regional Security ofSoutheast Asia
Regionalism in Asia CRITICAL ISSUES IN MODERN PO
Routledge Major Works
Part 10. Regional Environment of Asia
35. Barry Buzan, ‘Security Architecture in Asia: The Interplay of Regionaland Global Levels’, Pacific Review, 2003, 16, 2, 143–73.
36. David C. Kang, ‘Getting Asia Wrong: The Need for New AnalyticalFrameworks’, International Security, 2003, 27, 4, 57–85.
37. Amitav Acharya, ‘Will Asia’s Past Be its Future?’, International Security,2003, 28, 3, 149–64.
38. John Ravenhill, ‘A Three Bloc World? The New East AsianRegionalism’, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 2002, 2, 2,167–95.
Part 11. Multilateral Ideas and Institutions in Asia
39. David B. Dewitt, ‘Common, Comprehensive, and CooperativeSecurity’, Pacific Review, 1994, 7, 1, 1–15.
40. Amitav Acharya, ‘Ideas, Identity, and Institution-Building: From the”ASEAN Way” to the “Asia-Pacific Way”’, Pacific Review, 1997, 10, 3,319–46.
41. Ron Huisken, ‘Civilizing the Anarchical Society: Multilateral SecurityProcesses in the Asia-Pacific’, Contemporary Southeast Asia, 2002, 24, 2,187–202.
42. Joseph Camilleri, ‘East Asia’s Emerging Regionalism: Tensions andPotential in Design and Architecture’, Global Change, Peace andSecurity, 2005, 17, 3, 253–61.
Part 12. Debating the ARF
43. Michael Leifer, ‘The ASEAN Regional Forum’, Adelphi Paper, 1996, No.302 (Oxford University Press/IISS).
44. Yuen Foong Khong, ‘Making Bricks without Straw in the Asia-Pacific?’,Pacific Review, 1997, 10, 2, 289–300.
45. Ralf Emmers, ‘The Influence of the Balance of Power Factor within theASEAN Regional Forum’, Contemporary Southeast Asia, 2002, 23, 2,275–91.
46. Alastair Iain Johnston, ‘The Myth of the ASEAN Way? Explaining theEvolution of the ASEAN Regional Forum’, in Helga Haftendorn,Robert O. Keohane, and Celeste A. Wallander (eds.), Imperfect Unions:Security Institutions Over Time and Space (Oxford University Press,1999), pp. 287–324.
47. Hiro Katsumata, ‘Establishment of the ASEAN Regional Forum:Constructing a “Talking Shop” or a “Norm Brewery”?’, Pacific Review,2006, 19, 2, 181–98.
Part 13. Debating the AFTA, APEC, and ASEAN+3
48. Helen Nesadurai, ‘Attempting Developmental Regionalism throughAFTA: The Domestic Sources of Regional Governance’, Third WorldQuarterly, 2003, 24, 2, 235–53.
49. Richard Stubbs, ‘ASEAN Plus Three: Emerging East AsianRegionalism?’, Asian Survey, 2002, 42, 3, May/June, 440–55.
50. Markus Hund, ‘ASEAN Plus Three: Towards a New Age of Pan-EastAsian Regionalism? A Skeptic’s Appraisal’, Pacific Review, 2003, 16, 3,383–418.
51. Helen Nesadurai, ‘APEC: A Tool for US Regional Domination?’, PacificReview, 1996, 9, 1, 31–57.
52. Mark Beeson and Iyanatul Islam, ‘Neoliberalism and East Asia:Resisting the Washington Consensus’, Journal of Development Studies,2005, 41, 2, 197–219.
Part 14. Regional Security Discourse in Asia
53. Paul M. Evans, ‘Between Regionalism and Regionalization: PolicyNetworks and the Nascent East Asian Institutional Identity’, in T. J.Pempel (ed.), Remapping East Asia: The Construction of a Region(Cornell University Press, 2005), pp. 195–215.
54. Pauline Kerr, ‘The Security Dialogue in the Asia-Pacific’, Pacific Review,1994, 7, 4, 397–409.
55. Graeme Cheeseman, ‘Asia-Pacific Security Discourse in the Wake ofthe Asian Economic Crisis’, Pacific Review, 1999, 12, 3, 333–56.
Part 15. ‘Track 2’ Contributions to Regional Security
56. Lawrence T. Woods, ‘Learning from NGO Proponents of Asia-PacificRegionalism: Success and its Lessons’, Asian Survey, 1995, 35, 9,812–27.
57. Sheldon W. Simon, ‘Evaluating Track II Approaches to SecurityDiplomacy in the Asia-Pacific: The CSCAP Experience’, Pacific Review,2002, 15, 2, 167–200.
58. Hiro Katsumata, ‘The Role of ASEAN Institutes of Strategic andInternational Studies in Developing Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific Region’, Asian Journal of Political Science, 2003, 11, 1, 93–111.
59. Charles E. Morrison, ‘Track 1/Track 2 Symbiosis in Asia-PacificRegionalism’, Pacific Review, 2004, 17, 4, 547–65.
60. Desmond Ball, Anthony Milner, and Brendan Taylor, ‘Track 2 SecurityDialogue in the Asia-Pacific: Reflections and Future Directions’, AsianSecurity, 2006, 2, 3, 174–88.
Part 16. ‘Track 3’ Contributions to Regional Security
61. Amitav Acharya, ‘Democratization and the Prospects for ParticipatoryRegionalism in Southeast Asia’, Third World Quarterly, 2003, 24, 2,375–90.
62. Mely Caballero-Anthony, ‘Non-State Regional Governance Mechanismfor Economic Security: The Case of the ASEAN Peoples’ Assembly’,Pacific Review, 2004, 17, 4, 567–85.
63. Alexander C. Chandra, ‘Indonesian Non-State Actors in ASEAN: ANew Regionalism Agenda for Southeast Asia?’, Contemporary SoutheastAsia, 2004, 26, 1, 155–74.
Part 17. State: Civil Society Dilemmas
64. Herman Joseph S. Kraft, ‘The Autonomy Dilemma of Track 2Diplomacy in Southeast Asia’, Security Dialogue, 2000, 31, 3, 357–73.
65. See Seng Tan, ‘Nonofficial Diplomacy in Southeast Asia: “CivilSociety” or “Civil Service”?’, Contemporary Southeast Asia, 2005, 27, 3,370–87.
66. Mohamad Maznah, ‘Towards a Human Rights Regime in SoutheastAsia: Charting the Course of State Commitment’, ContemporarySoutheast Asia, 2002, 24, 2, 214–35.
67. David Martin Jones, ‘Democratization, Civil Society, and IlliberalMiddle Class Culture in Pacific Asia’, Comparative Politics, 1998, 30, 2,147–69.
VOLUME IIIRegional Order and Architecture in Asia
VOLUME IVNon-official Diplomacy and Activism in Asia
