An overview of theoretical perspective in Realism and Liberalism under the concept of Multilateral Security Architecture in the Asia Pacific

1. Theoretical Perspectives on Asia Pacific Multilateral
Security Architecture (I): Realism and Liberalism
IR6042: Multilateral Security Architecture in the Asia Pacific
[Week 2]
Lecturer: Dr Sarah Teo (islsteo@ntu.edu.sg)

2. Outline
• Realist perspectives
• Liberal perspectives
• A synthesis
2/18

3. Realism
3/18
Machiavelli
Thucydides Thomas Hobbes
Hans Morgenthau E. H. Carr Kenneth Waltz
John Mearsheimer
Stephen Walt

4. Assumptions of realism
(Acharya, 2014; Joseph, 2015;
Mearsheimer, 1994/5;
Peou, 2002)
4/18
• States are the main
(unitary) actors in
international relations.
• States are rational and
driven by self-interest;
core driver of state
behaviour is survival.
• International system is
anarchic (i.e. no
supranational authority
beyond the state).
• Focus on relative gains;
international relations is a
zero-sum game.
Competition and conflict
are enduring and
fundamental features in
international relations.

5. Realist view of cooperation
“Two factors inhibit cooperation:
relative-gains considerations, and
concern about cheating. …[States are]
motivated primarily by relative gains
concerns when considering
cooperation. While each state wants to
maximize its absolute gains, it is more
important to make sure that it does
better, or at least no worse, than the
other state in any agreement. … States
are often reluctant to enter into
cooperative agreements for fear that
the other side will cheat on the
agreement and gain a relative
advantage.”
(Mearsheimer, 1994/5, pp. 12-13)
5/18

6. Asia Pacific multilateral security
architecture: A realist view
1) Realism is insufficient to account for the evolution of
multilateral security cooperation in the Asia Pacific.
Alliance(s) / common external threat(s).
Balance against rising power.
Force of peace in the region.
Leadership by great powers.
6/18

7. Asia Pacific multilateral security
architecture: A realist view
2) Realism can explain the development of the regional
multilateral security architecture.
 Balance through diplomatic/political means rather than
military measures.
- Formation of ASEAN.
- Formation of ASEAN Regional Forum.
- Formation of East Asia Summit.
7/18

8. Liberalism
8/18
Robert Keohane G. John Ikenberry
Immanuel Kant Woodrow Wilson
John Ruggie
Kenneth Oye
John Locke

9. Liberalism
Commercial liberalism:
economic interdependence
Republican liberalism:
democratic peace
(Neo)liberal institutionalism
9/18

10. The role of economic
interdependence
oEconomic
interdependence
driving security
cooperation…
10/18
… or the other
way around?

11. Neoliberal institutionalism
 Anarchic international system.
 States are primary actors in international relations.
 International institutions promote cooperation which
helps to overcome destabilising effects of anarchy.
‐ Focus on absolute gains and alignment of interests.
‐ Sharing information; reducing transaction costs; agreeing
on behavioural rules; offering channels to peacefully
manage and resolve conflicts.
11/18

12. Neoliberal institutionalism
12/18

13. 13/18
(Today, 19/10/2018)

14. Neoliberal institutionalism:
Critiques
• Regional multilateral institutions have been relatively
ineffective in reducing the negative effects arising from
international anarchy and realist power politics.
• More for economic/non-traditional security matters
than traditional security/military.
• Measurement of institutionalisation: commonality;
specificity; autonomy. (Keohane, 1989, p. 4)
14/18

15. A synthesis: Institutional balancing
15/18
(He, 2008)

16. Thank you
16/18

17. References
Acharya, Amitav. 2014. “Thinking Theoretically About Asian IR”. In International Relations of Asia, edited by
David Shambaugh and Michael Yahuda, pp. 59-89. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Bowles, Paul. 1997. “ASEAN, AFTA and the ‘New Regionalism’." Pacific Affairs 70 (2): 219-33.
Emmers, Ralf. 2001. “The Influence of the Balance of Power Factor within the ASEAN Regional Forum.”
Contemporary Southeast Asia 23 (2): 275-91.
Ikenberry, G. John, and Michael Mastanduno. 2003. “International Relations Theory and the Search for
Regional Stability.” In International Relations Theory and the Asia-Pacific, edited by G. John Ikenberry
and Michael Mastanduno, pp. 1-21. New York: Columbia University Press.
He, Kai. 2008. “Institutional Balancing and International Relations Theory: Economic Interdependence and
Balance of Power Strategies in Southeast Asia.” European Journal of International Relations 14 (3): 489-
518.
Joseph, Jonathan. 2015. Realism and Neorealism in International Relations Theory. In The Encyclopedia of
Political Thought, edited by Michael T. Gibbons, pp. 1-9. John Wiley & Sons.
Keohane, Robert. O. 1989. International Institutions and State Power. London: Westview Press.
17/18

18. References
Keohane, Robert O. 1998. “International Institutions: Can Interdependence Work?” Foreign Policy 110: 82-
96.
Leifer, Michael. 1989. ASEAN and the Security of South-East Asia. London: Routledge.
Mearsheimer, John J. 1994-1995. “The False Promise of International Institutions.” International Security 19
(3): 5-49.
Peou, Sorpong. 2002. “Realism and Constructivism in Southeast Asian Security Studies Today: A Review
Essay.” The Pacific Review 15 (1): 119-38.
Ravenhill, John. 1995. "Economic Cooperation in Southeast Asia: Changing Incentives." Asian Survey 35 (9):
850-66.
Schellhorn, Kai M. 1992. "Asia after the End of the Cold War." In Southeast Asian Affairs 1992, edited by
Daljit Singh, pp. 58-70. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Simon, Sheldon W. 1995. “Realism and Neoliberalism: International Relations Theory and Southeast Asian
Security.” The Pacific Review 8 (1): 5-24.
Sterling-Folker, Jennifer. 2013. Neoliberalism. In International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity,
3rd ed., edited by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith, pp. 114-31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18/18