印太地区的州际边界争端管理

IF 1.2 4区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Stephen P. Westcott
{"title":"印太地区的州际边界争端管理","authors":"Stephen P. Westcott","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0288","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Indo-Pacific region stretches from Japan in the north to Pakistan in the west to Australia in the south and the Micronesian islands in the east. When the various colonial empires withdrew from the region, they left numerous volatile interstate border disputes (IBDs) in their wake. With the balance of power shifting away from the Northern Atlantic and into the Indo-Pacific, the IBDs in the region are gaining more salience. Yet, within academic and public circles, the IBDs in the region have often been overshadowed by discussions over the military balance of power, nuclear brinkmanship, and political economy concerns such as trade route flows or resource competition. While these are unquestionably important issues, this focus on “high politics” tends to trivialize IBDs. This is problematic because, as numerous studies have demonstrated, IBDs have proven to be a leading cause of war and a primary source of international tension during peace. Indeed, many of the IBDs in the Indo-Pacific region are right at the center of the often-volatile region, fueled in part by a growing sense of nationalism within the region, by regional rivalries, and by the competition for strategic resources. Hence, developing a strong understanding of the IBDs that are, if not at the foundation of, the flint and tinder for international conflict is important. In the Indo-Pacific region, there are a number of highly diverse IBDs, ranging in size, salience, and type (territory and maritime). Some of these IBDs are major sources of tension in the region, such as the five-nation claim over the South China Sea at the heart of the Indo-Pacific or the notably bitter and fractious dispute between India and Pakistan over Jammu and Kashmir. The Indo-Pacific region also hosts some of the few remaining divided nations, namely, China’s claim of sovereignty over Taiwan and the two Koreas’ claims over each other. Others are relatively minor IBDs, such as Japan’s dispute with Korea over the Takeshima/Dokdo Island, which sees occasional demonstrations but otherwise has little impact on the two states’ bilateral relations. In between, there exist an array of IBDs of varying importance, ranging from the Sino-Indian border dispute, which often causes tension between the region’s rising nuclear armed superpowers, to the Thai-Cambodian dispute over the Preah Vihear temple complex, to the grossly under-researched Durand Line dispute between Afghanistan and Pakistan. This contribution to Oxford Bibliographies takes stock of the burgeoning literature on all of these issues.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interstate Border Dispute Management in the Indo-Pacific\",\"authors\":\"Stephen P. Westcott\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0288\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Indo-Pacific region stretches from Japan in the north to Pakistan in the west to Australia in the south and the Micronesian islands in the east. When the various colonial empires withdrew from the region, they left numerous volatile interstate border disputes (IBDs) in their wake. With the balance of power shifting away from the Northern Atlantic and into the Indo-Pacific, the IBDs in the region are gaining more salience. Yet, within academic and public circles, the IBDs in the region have often been overshadowed by discussions over the military balance of power, nuclear brinkmanship, and political economy concerns such as trade route flows or resource competition. While these are unquestionably important issues, this focus on “high politics” tends to trivialize IBDs. This is problematic because, as numerous studies have demonstrated, IBDs have proven to be a leading cause of war and a primary source of international tension during peace. Indeed, many of the IBDs in the Indo-Pacific region are right at the center of the often-volatile region, fueled in part by a growing sense of nationalism within the region, by regional rivalries, and by the competition for strategic resources. Hence, developing a strong understanding of the IBDs that are, if not at the foundation of, the flint and tinder for international conflict is important. In the Indo-Pacific region, there are a number of highly diverse IBDs, ranging in size, salience, and type (territory and maritime). Some of these IBDs are major sources of tension in the region, such as the five-nation claim over the South China Sea at the heart of the Indo-Pacific or the notably bitter and fractious dispute between India and Pakistan over Jammu and Kashmir. The Indo-Pacific region also hosts some of the few remaining divided nations, namely, China’s claim of sovereignty over Taiwan and the two Koreas’ claims over each other. Others are relatively minor IBDs, such as Japan’s dispute with Korea over the Takeshima/Dokdo Island, which sees occasional demonstrations but otherwise has little impact on the two states’ bilateral relations. In between, there exist an array of IBDs of varying importance, ranging from the Sino-Indian border dispute, which often causes tension between the region’s rising nuclear armed superpowers, to the Thai-Cambodian dispute over the Preah Vihear temple complex, to the grossly under-researched Durand Line dispute between Afghanistan and Pakistan. This contribution to Oxford Bibliographies takes stock of the burgeoning literature on all of these issues.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20275,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0288\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0288","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

印度-太平洋地区从北部的日本到西部的巴基斯坦,再到南部的澳大利亚和东部的密克罗尼西亚群岛。当各个殖民帝国撤出该地区时,他们留下了许多动荡的州际边界争端。随着力量平衡从北大西洋转移到印太地区,该地区的IBD越来越突出。然而,在学术界和公众圈子里,该地区的IBD经常被关于军事力量平衡、核边缘政策和政治经济问题(如贸易路线流动或资源竞争)的讨论所掩盖。尽管这些无疑是重要的问题,但这种对“高级政治”的关注往往会淡化IBD。这是有问题的,因为正如许多研究所表明的那样,IBD已被证明是战争的主要原因,也是和平期间国际紧张局势的主要来源。事实上,印太地区的许多IBD正处于这个经常动荡的地区的中心,部分原因是该地区日益强烈的民族主义意识、地区竞争和战略资源的竞争。因此,对IBD有一个深刻的理解是重要的,IBD即使不是国际冲突的基础,也是火石和火种。在印度-太平洋地区,IBD有许多高度多样性,其规模、显著性和类型(领土和海洋)各不相同。其中一些IBD是该地区紧张局势的主要来源,例如五国对印度-太平洋中心的南中国海的主权主张,或者印度和巴基斯坦之间在查谟和克什米尔问题上的激烈争端。印度洋-太平洋地区也有一些剩下的分裂国家,即中国对台湾的主权主张和朝韩对彼此的主权主张。其他则是相对较小的IBD,例如日本与韩国在竹岛/独岛问题上的争端,偶尔会发生示威活动,但对两国的双边关系几乎没有影响。在这两者之间,存在着一系列不同重要性的IBD,从中印边界争端到泰柬关于柏威夏寺建筑群的争端,再到阿富汗和巴基斯坦之间研究严重不足的杜兰德线争端,中印边界争端经常导致该地区崛起的核武装超级大国之间的紧张关系。这篇对《牛津书目》的贡献总结了关于所有这些问题的新兴文献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Interstate Border Dispute Management in the Indo-Pacific
The Indo-Pacific region stretches from Japan in the north to Pakistan in the west to Australia in the south and the Micronesian islands in the east. When the various colonial empires withdrew from the region, they left numerous volatile interstate border disputes (IBDs) in their wake. With the balance of power shifting away from the Northern Atlantic and into the Indo-Pacific, the IBDs in the region are gaining more salience. Yet, within academic and public circles, the IBDs in the region have often been overshadowed by discussions over the military balance of power, nuclear brinkmanship, and political economy concerns such as trade route flows or resource competition. While these are unquestionably important issues, this focus on “high politics” tends to trivialize IBDs. This is problematic because, as numerous studies have demonstrated, IBDs have proven to be a leading cause of war and a primary source of international tension during peace. Indeed, many of the IBDs in the Indo-Pacific region are right at the center of the often-volatile region, fueled in part by a growing sense of nationalism within the region, by regional rivalries, and by the competition for strategic resources. Hence, developing a strong understanding of the IBDs that are, if not at the foundation of, the flint and tinder for international conflict is important. In the Indo-Pacific region, there are a number of highly diverse IBDs, ranging in size, salience, and type (territory and maritime). Some of these IBDs are major sources of tension in the region, such as the five-nation claim over the South China Sea at the heart of the Indo-Pacific or the notably bitter and fractious dispute between India and Pakistan over Jammu and Kashmir. The Indo-Pacific region also hosts some of the few remaining divided nations, namely, China’s claim of sovereignty over Taiwan and the two Koreas’ claims over each other. Others are relatively minor IBDs, such as Japan’s dispute with Korea over the Takeshima/Dokdo Island, which sees occasional demonstrations but otherwise has little impact on the two states’ bilateral relations. In between, there exist an array of IBDs of varying importance, ranging from the Sino-Indian border dispute, which often causes tension between the region’s rising nuclear armed superpowers, to the Thai-Cambodian dispute over the Preah Vihear temple complex, to the grossly under-researched Durand Line dispute between Afghanistan and Pakistan. This contribution to Oxford Bibliographies takes stock of the burgeoning literature on all of these issues.
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
Political Science
Political Science POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: Political Science publishes high quality original scholarly works in the broad field of political science. Submission of articles with a regional focus on New Zealand and the Asia-Pacific is particularly encouraged, but content is not limited to this focus. Contributions are invited from across the political science discipline, including from the fields of international relations, comparative politics, political theory and public administration. Proposals for collections of articles on a common theme or debate to be published as special issues are welcome, as well as individual submissions.
×
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