Economics and Asia‐Pacific Region Territorial and Maritime Disputes: Understanding the Political Limits to Economic Solutions

Abstract

Territorial and maritime disputes are a visible part of the tapestry of Asia-Pacific Region (APR) international relations. They have provoked frictions between states, militarized conflict, and even war. Some believe interstate economic ties or economic inducements have the potential to mitigate and resolve the APR's territorial and maritime controversies.In this article, I analyze, in two primary ways, the potential for economics to calm or resolve the APR's territorial and maritime disputes. One is a theoretical evaluation, while the other is an empirical examination. As for the latter, this article analyzes two specific quarrels: the China-Japan controversy over the East China Sea and Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands and the Japanese-Soviet/Russian conflict over the Northern Territories. In both cases, the economic optimist case is proved wanting. This article shows that researchers must pay attention to political factors, domestic and international, to identify the factors that facilitate/hinder a settlement of territorial and maritime disputes.

East and South China Seas Maritime Dispute Resolution and Escalation: Two Sides of the Same Coin?

“…The friction, nationalist backlash and aggressive behaviour that economic relations engender weaken the assumption that economic relations can effectively resolve and temper current territorial and maritime clashes. Moreover, the idea that economic interdependencies generate gains that can outweigh those offered by disputed lands or waters cannot be taken as a prima facie evidence (Blanchard, 2009). The China-Japan rivalry over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, on the one hand, and the Russia-Japan contention over the Northern Territories, on the other, underline the failure of economics for resolving and settling critical territorial and maritime conflicts in the region (Blanchard, 2009;Valencia, 2007).…”

“…Moreover, the idea that economic interdependencies generate gains that can outweigh those offered by disputed lands or waters cannot be taken as a prima facie evidence (Blanchard, 2009). The China-Japan rivalry over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, on the one hand, and the Russia-Japan contention over the Northern Territories, on the other, underline the failure of economics for resolving and settling critical territorial and maritime conflicts in the region (Blanchard, 2009;Valencia, 2007). As far as the realists are concerned, such empirical cases illustrate the myopia (if not, naivety) driving the liberals' formulation of economic cures for maritime conflicts.…”

Contemplating Chinese Foreign Policy: Approaches to the Use of Historical Analysis

“…See Chris Ogden (in this issue) and Jean‐Marc F. Blanchard, “Economics and Asia‐Pacific Region Territorial and Maritime Disputes: Understanding the Political Limits to Economic Solutions,” Asian Politics & Policy , 1‐4 (October/December 2009), pp. 682–708; Zou Keyuan, “China and Maritime Boundary Delimitation: Past, Present, and Future,” in Ramses Amer and Keyuan Zou, Conflict Management and Dispute Settlement in East Asia (Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, 2011), pp.…”