Asia's competing multilateral initiatives: quality versus quantity

Beeson, M

Asia's competing multilateral initiatives: quality versus quantity

Beeson, M

Permalink

Publisher:: ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Pacific Review, 2019, 32, (2), pp. 245-255
Issue Date:: 2019-03-04

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	Asia s competing multilateral initiatives quality versus quantity.pdf	Published version	595.38 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Beeson, M https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8659-262X
dc.date.accessioned	2022-09-27T05:42:52Z
dc.date.available	2022-09-27T05:42:52Z
dc.date.issued	2019-03-04
dc.identifier.citation	Pacific Review, 2019, 32, (2), pp. 245-255
dc.identifier.issn	0951-2748
dc.identifier.issn	1470-1332
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/162136
dc.description.abstract	East Asia has many distinctive features that set it apart from other comparable regions, not least attitudes to regional development and cooperation. Despite a growing number of regional initiatives in East Asia, however, they are generally distinguished by their ineffectiveness. It is entirely possible that ‘institutional balancing’, like its more well-known power balancing counterpart, is designed not to facilitate but to prevent something from happening. The sort of ‘multilateralism 1.0’ developed by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has a lot to answer for in this regard: having established its own pattern of institutional effectiveness ASEAN's ‘leadership’ has caused it to be replicated under the new wave of ‘multilateralism 2.0’. Consequently, I suggest that not only is China very comfortable with the idea of a rather feeble and ineffective institutional architecture, but the USA is also unlikely to do anything to change this picture, especially under a Trump administration that is highly skeptical about the efficacy of multilateral institutions at the best of times.
dc.language	English
dc.publisher	ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
dc.relation.ispartof	Pacific Review
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1080/09512748.2018.1470556
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subject	1605 Policy and Administration, 1606 Political Science, 2001 Communication and Media Studies
dc.subject.classification	International Relations
dc.title	Asia's competing multilateral initiatives: quality versus quantity
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	32
utslib.for	1605 Policy and Administration
utslib.for	1606 Political Science
utslib.for	2001 Communication and Media Studies
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/DVC (International)
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/DVC (International)/Australia-China Relations Institute
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access	*
dc.date.updated	2022-09-27T05:42:48Z
pubs.issue	2
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	32
utslib.citation.issue	2

Abstract:

East Asia has many distinctive features that set it apart from other comparable regions, not least attitudes to regional development and cooperation. Despite a growing number of regional initiatives in East Asia, however, they are generally distinguished by their ineffectiveness. It is entirely possible that ‘institutional balancing’, like its more well-known power balancing counterpart, is designed not to facilitate but to prevent something from happening. The sort of ‘multilateralism 1.0’ developed by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has a lot to answer for in this regard: having established its own pattern of institutional effectiveness ASEAN's ‘leadership’ has caused it to be replicated under the new wave of ‘multilateralism 2.0’. Consequently, I suggest that not only is China very comfortable with the idea of a rather feeble and ineffective institutional architecture, but the USA is also unlikely to do anything to change this picture, especially under a Trump administration that is highly skeptical about the efficacy of multilateral institutions at the best of times.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/162136