100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 8 out of 24 pages.
David Kang“Hierarchy and Stability in Asian International Relations”in G. John Ikenberry and Michael Mastunduno, eds., International Relations Theory and the Asia-Pacific (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003)pp. 163-189.Kaity Houk
3 Core ArgumentsThe logic of a hierarchic international or regional system,◦Showing only a slight modification of RealismExamining six centuries of Asian international relations,◦Showing that this system has successfully functioned in the pastA hierarchic perspective explains three puzzles from the current era that realism has difficulty explaining
Problems with Realist TheoryRealists see “wide disparities in economic and military power among nations in the region, the broad range of political systems that range from democracy to totalitarian, and the lack of international institutions” and predict intense rivalry and instability (163).Realism assumes EITHER anarchy OR hierarchy
Central Assumptions of ConstructivismSame Neorealist Assumptions:◦Nation-states are the unit of analysis◦Anarchic system◦Power & Geography determine Preferences & Position◦Relative position matters in hierarchy◦High mistrust in international system◦Primary concern is survival, secondary concern is economics
Central Assumptions of ConstructivismHowever…Constructivists see Asian nations “reverting to a pattern of hierarchy, [resulting in] increased stability”◦Also, “the absence of hierarchy leads to conflict”Constructivists recognize that nation-states are not equal on the international stage◦Equality and hierarchy can exist under