| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
074746
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2006.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper examines Japanese and South Korean host-nation support (HNS) policies toward American forces deployed in those two countries from a comparative perspective. It finds that both countries provide substantial support for US forces, contrary to the expectations of collective action theory and the assumptions of many international relations theorists about free-riding. Northeast Asian HNS support tends to be both quantitatively substantial and to involve an unusually elaborate range of common support programs, thus constituting a distinctive Northeast Asian model of “burden-sharing.” The specific programs supporting US forces in these two countries were generally designed by local politicians and bureaucrats, with only minimal input from the US, albeit under American pressure. They were implemented in discontinuous fashion, at critical junctures, as during the Gulf War and the first Korean nuclear crisis. These results thus provide useful elaboration of “reactive state” and “critical juncture” interpretations of how East Asian policymaking relates to domestic and international politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
074748
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2006.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The 1997 economic crisis and the ensuing political and social disorders not only have put regional security at stake, but also have seriously challenged the relevance of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in regional affairs. This article introduces a new institutional theory – institutional realism – to address the widely debated questions: Does ASEAN matter? If so, how? It argues that (1) ASEAN still matters in terms of coping with extra-regional threats through an institutional balancing strategy; (2) ASEAN's future depends on its institutional consolidation in dealing with intra-regional security problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
074747
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2006.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article critically reviews the literature on Track 2 security dialogue in the Asia?Pacific and suggests a number of possible avenues for further research. From almost a standing start, Track 2 security dialogue in this part of the world has burgeoned over the past decade and a half. As these institutions and activities have grown, so too has a body of scholarship grown around them which has striven to stay abreast of them and – at least in the case of some of the more prominent second track institutions and activities – to evaluate their influence and effectiveness. Just as viable second track processes must constantly adapt in response to changes in the regional and global security environment, however, this article contends that the scholarship on Track 2 security dialogue needs now to evolve beyond its heavy emphasis upon on the “success” of these institutions and activities. While this criterion remains vital, the article argues that greater analytical attention should also be given to differentiating between the many and varied Track 2 security processes that are currently active in the Asia-Pacific; to developing a closer understanding as to the operating modalities of these institutions and activities; and to better comprehending longitudinal trends in regional Track 2 security dialogue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|