对冲与东南亚外交政策的大战略

IF 1.7 3区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
D. Jones, Nicole Jenne
{"title":"对冲与东南亚外交政策的大战略","authors":"D. Jones, Nicole Jenne","doi":"10.1093/IRAP/LCAB003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article examines recent interest in hedging as a feature of international politics in the Asia Pacific. Focusing on the small states of Southeast Asia, we argue that dominant understandings of hedging are misguided for two reasons. Despite significant advances in the literature, hedging has remained a vague concept rendering it a residual category of foreign policy behavior. Moreover, current accounts of hedging tend to overstate the strategic intentions of ostensible hedgers. This article proposes that a better understanding of Southeast Asia’s foreign policy behavior needs to dissociate hedging from neorealist concepts of international politics. Instead, we locate the concept in the context of classical realism and the diplomatic practice of second-tier states. Exploring Southeast Asia’s engagement with more powerful actors from this perspective reveals the strategic limitations of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the dilemma that Southeast Asian states face from a rising China challenging the status quo in the western Pacific.","PeriodicalId":51799,"journal":{"name":"International Relations of the Asia-Pacific","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"21","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hedging and grand strategy in Southeast Asian foreign policy\",\"authors\":\"D. Jones, Nicole Jenne\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/IRAP/LCAB003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This article examines recent interest in hedging as a feature of international politics in the Asia Pacific. Focusing on the small states of Southeast Asia, we argue that dominant understandings of hedging are misguided for two reasons. Despite significant advances in the literature, hedging has remained a vague concept rendering it a residual category of foreign policy behavior. Moreover, current accounts of hedging tend to overstate the strategic intentions of ostensible hedgers. This article proposes that a better understanding of Southeast Asia’s foreign policy behavior needs to dissociate hedging from neorealist concepts of international politics. Instead, we locate the concept in the context of classical realism and the diplomatic practice of second-tier states. Exploring Southeast Asia’s engagement with more powerful actors from this perspective reveals the strategic limitations of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the dilemma that Southeast Asian states face from a rising China challenging the status quo in the western Pacific.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51799,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Relations of the Asia-Pacific\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"21\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Relations of the Asia-Pacific\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/IRAP/LCAB003\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Relations of the Asia-Pacific","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/IRAP/LCAB003","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

摘要

本文考察了最近对对冲作为亚太地区国际政治特征的兴趣。关注东南亚小国,我们认为对对冲的主流理解是错误的,原因有两个。尽管在文献上取得了重大进展,但对冲仍然是一个模糊的概念,使其成为外交政策行为的残余类别。此外,对冲的经常账户往往夸大了表面上的对冲者的战略意图。本文提出,要更好地理解东南亚的外交政策行为,需要将对冲与新现实主义的国际政治概念分离开来。相反,我们将这一概念置于古典现实主义和二线国家外交实践的背景下。从这一角度探讨东南亚与更强大的参与者的接触,揭示了东南亚国家联盟的战略局限性,以及东南亚国家面临的中国崛起挑战西太平洋现状的困境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Hedging and grand strategy in Southeast Asian foreign policy
This article examines recent interest in hedging as a feature of international politics in the Asia Pacific. Focusing on the small states of Southeast Asia, we argue that dominant understandings of hedging are misguided for two reasons. Despite significant advances in the literature, hedging has remained a vague concept rendering it a residual category of foreign policy behavior. Moreover, current accounts of hedging tend to overstate the strategic intentions of ostensible hedgers. This article proposes that a better understanding of Southeast Asia’s foreign policy behavior needs to dissociate hedging from neorealist concepts of international politics. Instead, we locate the concept in the context of classical realism and the diplomatic practice of second-tier states. Exploring Southeast Asia’s engagement with more powerful actors from this perspective reveals the strategic limitations of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the dilemma that Southeast Asian states face from a rising China challenging the status quo in the western Pacific.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
7.10%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: International Relations of the Asia-Pacific is an exciting journal that addresses the major issues and developments taking place in the Asia-Pacific. It provides frontier knowledge of and fresh insights into the Asia-Pacific. The journal is a meeting place where various issues are debated from refreshingly diverging angles, backed up by rigorous scholarship. The journal is open to all methodological approaches and schools of thought, and to ideas that are expressed in plain and clear language.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信