This article argues that in the 21st century, international order has not only become unstable but also short-term in nature and issue-based, which has led to the emergence of a number of alliances whose functionality can be questioned. A number of alliances are being formed and are in existence but without any clear goals and objectives. This hypothesis is applied to understand the nature of the recently formed AUKUS—Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States’ alliance in the Indo-Pacific region. The paper, taking the framework of international order, argues that AUKUS would be one such alliance that has started with a lot of promises but its fundamental proposition to counter the rise of China in the Indo-Pacific region—although it does not mention the name of the country—is impractical. Given the economic rise of China as well as the example of the Five Eyes (FVEY) of intelligence sharing mechanism of the Anglophone countries formed during the early years of the Cold War, the AUKUS may survive the test of time but it also may exist as an example of the patterns of the current international order—that is another alliance without a clear path. This article also takes into account of the reaction of the Southeast Asian nations and criticisms against AUKUS in Australia. It points out how Australia’s security should be viewed more comprehensively.
The discipline of International Relations (IR) started its journey in 1919, to understand why wars occur, reflecting the concerns arising out of World War I. The origin of the discipline thus has carried a Western bias since its inception and often remained oblivious to investigate the concerns of non-Western countries. In this context, the aim is to locate the centers of learning about the development of institutional IR in South Asia, by probing into the academic development of IR in different countries of the region. While doing so, it is necessary to emphasize how the concept of “international” emerged in South Asia much before the ideas of international relations in modern sense made their ways in the region. While there is a rich heritage of “international” in South Asia, the modern statehood often juggled between the old and the new. The institutional development shows that South Asian IR, despite a rise in local contribution to global IR, still yearns to follow Western path in educating about IR.
The investigations on South Asian IR and its institutional set ups take two broad views into concern. First, it elaborates on the root and the expanse of the idea of “international” indigenously prior to the idea of modern statehood penetrated South Asia. This discussion also highlights on how the region building itself has gone through transformation and finally the political region emerged through institutionalization of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). The institutional expanse of IR in South Asia, its rise, location and development of IR in different countries of the region are worth a serious study. It should be noted here that the first institutional beginning of IR took place in modern day Bangladesh, established by the British colonial ruler in 1947, right before the partition of the subcontinent. However, one must take into account of the trend in South Asian IR of how the concept of “international” is imbued in the teaching and research of IR. In the case of Afghanistan, very few academic resources are available to ascertain if this is the case, like in other South Asian countries. Bhutan is seeing a development in the understanding of “international” as well as expanding on research in this area except it has not institutionalized the study of IR like other South Asian countries. The discussion concludes by arguing that while South Asian IR has made its distinct contribution in developing IR as a discipline, it is yet to create its own foothold as it is influenced by Western traditions in its teachings.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.