| Summary/Abstract |
Why do weaker states perceive the liberal international order (LIO) with ambivalence? This article argues that in the case of small states like Malaysia, historical memories, structural realities and domestic imperatives combine to explain their conceptions of and responses to the LIO. The article traces the features and unpacks the factors underpinning the paradoxes of small-state pragmatism vis-à-vis international order: a) rejecting power hierarchy but recognizing (and leveraging) power asymmetry; b) acknowledging its smallness but actively punching above its weight whenever possible; and c) promoting co-existence through principled contradictions. Such paradoxical pragmatism is quintessentially an act of hedging aimed at mitigating and off-setting multiple risks amid increasing uncertainties. This article makes three contributions. First, it contributes to the literature on international order by presenting a small-state perspective on the LIO, highlighting that small-state responses are more about ‘struggle for survival’, rather than ‘struggle for power’. Second, the notion of ‘paradoxical pragmatism’ engages the ongoing debate on ‘hedging’ in international relations. Third, the article's findings suggest that, theoretically, hedging and its dualistic elements are attributable to both structural and domestic-level factors. While structural conditions drive states to hedge, domestic factors determine the extent and manner in which states hedge.
|