Search

Begin New Search Author Amitav Acharya Publication Year within 25 Years

1. Why is there no Non-Western International Relations Theory? Ten years on

Author:
Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan
Publication Date:
09-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Relations of the Asia-Pacific
Institution:
Japan Association of International Relations
Abstract:
A decade ago in 2007 we published a forum in International Relations of the Asia-Pacific (IRAP) on ‘Why there is no non-Western IR theory?’. Now we revisit this project ten years on, and assess the current state of play. What we do in this article is first, to survey and assess the relevant literature that has come out since then; second, to set out four ways in which our own understanding of this issue has evolved since 2007; third to reflect on some ways in which Asian IR might contribute to the emergence of what we call ‘Global IR’; and fourth to look specifically at hierarchy as an issue on which East Asian IR scholars might have a comparative advantage. Our aim is to renew, and perhaps refocus, the challenge to Asian IR scholars, and our hope is that this will contribute to the building of Global IR.
Topic:
International Relations and Academia
Political Geography:
Asia and Asia-Pacific

2. After Liberal Hegemony: The Advent of a Multiplex World Order

Author:
Amitav Acharya
Publication Date:
09-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Institution:
Carnegie Council
Abstract:
“The dominance of a single great power,” wrote American scholar Robert Keohane in his widely acclaimed book After Hegemony, “may contribute to order in world politics, in particular circumstances, but it is not a sufficient condition and there is little reason to believe that it is necessary.”1 This proposition has never been put to a greater test as it is now. Since the election of Donald J. Trump as U.S. president in November 2016 there has been a vast outpouring of anxiety over the future of the liberal world order.2 But the myths, limitations, and decline of this order have been anticipated and forewarned for some time, even though its proponents have not acknowledged it. The “first myth” about the U.S.-led liberal hegemonic order, as I have written elsewhere, is “how far it extended for much of its history, especially during the Cold War period.” I pointed out that “the Soviet bloc, China, India, Indonesia, and a good part of the ‘third world’ were outside of it . . . . Despite the exalted claims about its power, legitimacy, and public goods functions, that order was little more than the US-UK-West Europe-Australasian configuration.”3 Noting that the liberal order was hardly benign for many countries in the developing world, I argued that it should be seen as a limited international order, rather than an inclusive global order. Joseph S. Nye, one of the staunchest champions of the liberal order, made a similar point when he wrote in the January/February 2017 issue of Foreign Affairs that the liberal order “was largely limited to a group of like-minded states centered on the Atlantic littoral” and “did not include many large countries such as China, India, and the Soviet bloc states, and . . . did not always have benign effects on nonmembers.”4 The liberal order did expand and strengthen with the economic reforms in China and India, and with the end of the cold war. And while the champions of that order celebrated its expansion, they still generally assumed that the main challenge to it would come from the rising powers, led by China. Their assumptions notwithstanding, precisely at a time when many of these powers today are not doing all that well, the liberal order appears to be imploding. Trump’s victory and Brexit suggest that the current challenge to the liberal order is as much, if not more, from within as from without. Precisely at a time when many of the rising powers are not doing all that well, the liberal order appears to be imploding. The domestic challenges to the liberal order led by Trump and his supporters could be overstated, however. After all, Hillary Clinton won a majority of the popular vote, and the Brexit referendum only passed by a slim margin. More importantly, however, the crisis of the liberal order has deeper roots, owing to long-term and structural changes in the global economy and politics. As such, Trump’s ascent to power is a consequence—not a cause—of the decline of the liberal order, especially of its failure to address the concerns of domestic constituents left behind by the global power shift. Given these factors, Trump is unlikely to reverse the decline of the liberal order even if he wanted to. Instead, he may well push it over the precipice. In what follows, I first describe the foundations of the liberal order, and show that the ground on which it was built has been eroding for some time, though Trump’s rhetoric and policies are also damaging. Next, I argue that for now the rising powers are not in a position to overturn the current order completely, and in fact they may wish to preserve some elements of it in the near and medium term. I describe a “multiplex world” in which elements of the liberal order survive, but are subsumed in a complex of multiple, crosscutting international orders. Finally, I offer some suggestions on how scholars and policymakers can manage the transition to such a multiplex world.
Topic:
International Cooperation, Hegemony, Reform, and Liberal Order
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3. Comparative Regionalism: A Field Whose Time has Come?

Author:
Amitav Acharya
Publication Date:
03-2012
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The International Spectator
Institution:
Istituto Affari Internazionali
Abstract:
Is comparative regionalism a field whose time has come? While the contemporary interest in comparing regions and regionalisms may be not completely new, it is different from older approaches. Our understanding of what makes regions has changed with social constructivist and critical theoretical approaches that have led to a less behavioural and more nuanced, complex, contested and fluid understanding of regions. Moreover, the globalisation phenomenon has deeply affected all social sciences and radically redefined the relative autonomy of regions. In keeping with the rapid growth and development of regionalism and institutions in the non-Western world, including in regions which were relatively late starters, such as Asia, there have emerged new ways of looking at regional cooperation, including claims about distinctive approaches and even 'models' that are not only different from those identified with the EU, but also supposedly more appropriate and thus 'workable' for non-Western regions than the EU straightjacket.
Political Geography:
Asia

4. Can Asia lead? Power ambitions and global governance in the twentyfirst century

Author:
Amitav Acharya
Publication Date:
07-2011
Content Type:
Journal Article
Institution:
Chatham House
Abstract:
Is the much hyped 'rise of Asia' translating into global public good? The leading Asian powers, China, India and Japan, demand a greater share of the decisionmaking and leadership of global institutions. Yet, they seem to have been more preoccupied with enhancing their national power and status than contributing to global governance, including the management of global challenges. This is partly explained by a realpolitik outlook and ideology, and the legacies of India's and China's historical identification with the 'Third World' bloc. Another key factor is the continuing regional legitimacy deficit of the Asian powers. This article suggests that the Asian powers should increase their participation in and contribution to regional cooperation as a stepping stone to a more meaningful contribution to global governance.
Topic:
Governance
Political Geography:
Japan, China, India, and Asia

5. Obstinate or obsolete? The US alliance structure in the Asia-Pacific

Author:
William T. Tow and Amitav Acharya
Publication Date:
12-2007
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Australian National University Department of International Relations
Abstract:
The longstanding US security network of bilateral alliances in the Asia–Pacific, also known as the 'San Francisco System', has reached a historical crossroads. Its purpose is becoming more questionable as the United States, its allies and friends and other key Asian security actors engage in an increasingly complex set of regional security relationships. This paper argues that while the San Francisco System will not be dissolved over the near-term, it must adapt to rapidly changing structural and politico-economic conditions in the region if its utility is to be sustained and its eventual conversion into a more relevant and effective network of Asia–Pacific order-building. It argues that 'alliance mutuality' is the essential element in any such conversion process.
Topic:
International Relations and Diplomacy
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, United States, Iraq, South Asia, and Australia/Pacific

6. Multilateralism, Sovereignty And Normative Change In World Politics

Author:
Amitav Acharya
Publication Date:
05-2005
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies
Abstract:
This paper examines the role of multilateralism in fostering and managing normative change in world politics, with specific regard to the fundamental norms of state sovereignty. Post-war multilateralism helped to define, extent, embed and legitimize a set of sovereignty norms, including territorial integrity, equality of states and nonintervention. Today, multilateral institutions are under increasing pressure to move beyond some of the very same principles, especially nonintervention, as part of a transformative process in world politics. Without multilateralism, it is highly doubtful that the post-war international order would have been so tightly and universally built upon the norms of sovereignty. And without multilateralism, argues this paper, transition from this normative order now would be difficult and chaotic, as may be already happening as a result of the Bush administrations's challenge to the current multilateral system
Topic:
International Relations, Politics, Sovereignty, and Treaties and Agreements

7. Global views on the European Union

Author:
Amitav Acharya, Toshiya Hoshino, Marcel F. Biato, Babacar Diallo, Francisco E. González, Terence O'Brien, Gerrit Olivier, and Yi Wang
Publication Date:
11-2004
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
European Union Institute for Security Studies
Abstract:
Over the last 25 years, the European regional integration process has advanced very quickly on four different fronts. During the 1980s, the Common Market and its associated freedoms (free movement of goods and of persons, the right to establish and freedom to provide services) were completed. The Maastricht Treaty on European Union (TEU) of 1992 added a second dimension, when it set up a monetary union and established a European Central Bank and shared budgetary rules–a development that was eventually confirmed by the introduction of the euro in January 2002. Also in the 1990s, as a result of the creation of the European Union, which was born on 1 November 1993, a third, political dimension was developed. The Union entailed inter alia a leading role for the European Council and the various councils of ministers, some coordination of member states' foreign policies through a CFSP, and the growing importance of the European Parliament, which gradually enlarged its areas of competence.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, and Defense Policy
Political Geography:
Europe and Balkans