Error message
Rethinking Security in East Asia is the first book in theStudies in Asian Security series sponsored by the East-West Center and published by Stanford University Press. This book offers a new theoretical approach to the study of Asian security. Throughout the 1990s, conventional wisdom among U.S. scholars of international relations held that institutionalized cooperation in Europe fosters peace, while its absence from East Asia portends conflict. Developments in Europe and Asia in the 1990s contradict the conventional wisdom without discrediting it. Explanations thatderive from only one paradigm or research program have shortcomings beyond their inability to recognize important empirical anomalies. International relations research is better served by combining explanatory approaches from differentresearch traditions.
Calling it "analytical eclecticism," the authors demonstrate the failure of the prevailing paradigms in international relations theory to anticipate or explain how events have unfolded in Asia using case studies of China, Japan, the alliance between the U.S. and South Korea, and Southeast Asia. They conclude that the prospects for peace in East Asia look less dire than conventional -- in many cases Eurocentric -- theories of international relations suggest. At the same time, they point to a number of potentially destabilizing political developments. | Details and ordering information at Stanford University Press
|
Rethinking Security in East Asia is the first book in theStudies in Asian Security series sponsored by the East-West Center and published by Stanford University Press. This book offers a new theoretical approach to the study of Asian security. Throughout the 1990s, conventional wisdom among U.S. scholars of international relations held that institutionalized cooperation in Europe fosters peace, while its absence from East Asia portends conflict. Developments in Europe and Asia in the 1990s contradict the conventional wisdom without discrediting it. Explanations thatderive from only one paradigm or research program have shortcomings beyond their inability to recognize important empirical anomalies. International relations research is better served by combining explanatory approaches from differentresearch traditions.
Calling it "analytical eclecticism," the authors demonstrate the failure of the prevailing paradigms in international relations theory to anticipate or explain how events have unfolded in Asia using case studies of China, Japan, the alliance between the U.S. and South Korea, and Southeast Asia. They conclude that the prospects for peace in East Asia look less dire than conventional -- in many cases Eurocentric -- theories of international relations suggest. At the same time, they point to a number of potentially destabilizing political developments. | Details and ordering information at Stanford University Press
|
