Asia’s New Institutional Architecture: Evolving Structures for Managing Trade, Financial, and Security Relations

Analysing Asian regionalism: what is an ‘architectural perspective’?

“…Despite all the criticism levelled at the United States, the prospect of a sharp reduction in America's security and economic guarantor role in Asia would be seen by many as a seismic upheaval in the region's geostrategic order*/ and thus promote new architectural work. Here, a new volume edited by Aggarwal and Koo (2008) is valuable, which uses an institutional bargaining approach to provide theoretical insights into the way 'external shocks' can 'create pressure for change' in regional institutions (14).…”

Power Politics in Asia’s Contested Waters

“…The differences between the 'traditional' BOT and the 'adjusted' one can be seen in Tables 21.1 and 21.2. According to BOT's 'traditional' approach, the three countries have different views about a potential Chinese threat. For a good analysis about the subject see Aggarwal and Koo (2008 Another issue regarding the application of the 'traditional' BOT to the present problem is the absence of US in the analysis. The only difference between India and Japan is that the joint membership in the BRICS helps constraining the Chinese-Indian border tensions regarding Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh (it is worth to note that apart from Pakistan China was the last country with which India went to war).…”

Rising China: Power and Reassurance

“…Others specify an overarching regional architecture, but see it as comprising two distinct economic and security 'pillars' or 'legs' (see, for example, Nanto 2006). Yet another perspective views trade and security arrangements as distinct components of a broader Asian institutional architecture, but also considers the 'strategic interaction' between them (Aggarwal and Koo 2008). Last, but not least, a number of analysts refer to the Asian security architecture as a separate and largely distinct construct (see, for example, Ball 2004:48;Desker 2008a).…”