Preview

Outlines of global transformations: politics, economics, law

Advanced search

The Transformation of International Relations in East Asia at the End of the XX – Early XXI Centuries

Abstract

The author examines the role of various institutions and countries in the transformation of the world order in East Asia during the period of the late XX – early XXI centuries. The work notes that at the end of the XX century, the American model of the regionalization process, carried out within the framework of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), dominated. However, due to the changes in the US foreign policy doctrine and the Asian economic crisis of 1997–1998, APEC, in the early 2000s, began to give way to ASEAN+, where Japan occupied the leading position. Since the mid-2000s, China has been strengthening due to successfully carried out economic reforms and the use of various integration platforms. As a result, China began to promote its own model of globalization and regionalization in the region, which challenged the American order not only in East Asia, but also in the Asia-Pacific region. In the late 2000s, Washington sought to regain lost positions in the region by promoting the Trans-Pacific Partnership integration project, which intensified the struggle between the leading powers for dominance in the region. As a result, in the 2010s. ASEAN+ and Japan are developing the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) project, China is beginning to promote the Belt and Road international cooperation organization. As a result of the transformation of international relations caused by the movement of the world from unipolar to multipolar, there is a change in the transformation of the geopolitical situation in East Asia. The United States returned to the «traditional» methods of confrontation, increasing tension in the region and the world

About the Author

S. A. Verkholomov
Komsomolsk-na-Amure State University
Russian Federation

Sergey A. VERKHOLOMOV, Senior Lecturer, History and Cultural Study Department

Lenin Street, 27, Komsomolsk-on-Amur, 681013



References

1. Altfather E. (2008). The food crisis. Skepticism. Available at: http://scepsis.net/library/id_2042.html, accessed 12.10.2016.

2. Amirov V.B. (2010). The origins and evolution of the Chiang Mai Initiative. International Affairs. No. 10, pp. 49–55 (in Russian).

3. ASEAN-China… (2012). Flick K.E., Kemburi (eds.). ASEAN-China free trade area. Challenges, opportunities and the road ahead. Singapore: Nanyang Technological University, 133 pp.

4. Asia-Pacific … (2023). Asia-Pacific regional security assessment 2023. Кey developments and trends. London: International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), 165 pp.

5. Camroux D. (2015). Regionalism in Asia as disguised multilateralism: a critical analysis of the East Asia summit and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The International Spectator: Italian Journal of International Affairs. Vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 97–115. DOI: 10.1080/03932729.2012.655010.

6. Carter A. (2016). The Rebalance and Asia-Pacific security: building a principled security network. Foreign Affairs. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2016-10-17/rebalance-and-asia-pacific-security, accessed 13.10.2022.

7. Chow C., Sheldon I., McGuire W. (2018). How the United States withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific partnership benefits China. Journal of Law & Public Affairs. Vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 37–80. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3228007.

8. Ciorciari J.D. (2011). Chiang Mai initiative multilateralization: international politics and institution-building in Asia. Asian Survey. Vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 926–952. DOI: 10.1525/as.2011.51.5.926.

9. Dikötter F. (2022). China after Mao. The rise of a superpower. London: Bloomsbury, 396 pp.

10. Hsieh P.L. (2013). Reassessing APEC’s role as a trans-regional economic architecture: legal and policy dimensions. Journal of International Economic Law. Vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 119–158. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2101759.

11. Oba M. (2022). Japan and the regional comprehensive economic partnership (RCEP). ERIA. Discussion Paper Series. No. 461, pp. 1–31.

12. Pant H.V., Joshi Y. (2016). The US pivot and Indian foreign policy: Asia’s evolving balance of power. London: Palagave Macmillan, 163 pp.

13. The struggle… (2020). Bitounis L., Price J. (eds.). The struggle for power U.S. – China relation in the 21st century. Washington: Aspen institute, 173 pp.

14. Tselishchev I.S. (2012). East Asia: a new wave of growth and structural transformation. Moscow: IMEMO RAS, 118 pp. (in Russian).

15. Vinod K.A., Min G.K. (2005). The evolution of APEC and ASEM: implication of the new East Asian bilateralism. European Journal of East Asian Studies. Vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 233–262.

16. Zhang Y., Wang Y. (2016). ASEAN in China’s grand strategy. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, 18 pp. Available at: https://www.eria.org/ASEAN_at_50_4A.9_Zhang_and_Wang_final.pdf, accessed 12.10.2023.


Review

For citations:


Verkholomov S.A. The Transformation of International Relations in East Asia at the End of the XX – Early XXI Centuries. Outlines of global transformations: politics, economics, law. 2024;17(2):121-134. (In Russ.)

Views: 303


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2542-0240 (Print)
ISSN 2587-9324 (Online)