Theories of International Balancing, the Rise of China, and Political Alignments in the Asia Pacific

Grieco, Joseph M.

doi:10.14731/kjis.2014.05.12.s.16

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As a consequence, we argue that role-taking by lesser powers in Asia have a high potential to constrain future antagonistic alliance formation by both the 1 Hence our analysis does not only supplement Grieco's earlier findings that Asian nations both draw closer and move away from a rising China (Grieco 2014). We also do find substantial differences between U.S. allies and alliances diversification of these very allies beyond the U.S. -both trends which Grieco's analysis misses to identify.…”

supporting

confidence: 55%

“…Rather, the roles those two powers play are co-determined by the reactions of several other states, most notably allies, partners and rivals. Past scholarship on emerging security dilemmas in Asia has focused on material capacities and information and how these may (or may not) ameliorate growing uncertainties (Glaser 2010;Lindley 2007;Grieco 2014). Based on this literature, we argue that in security dilemmas, particularly in those where material asymmetries will remain substantial in the foreseeable future, much is determined by social factors, such as the identities and role conceptions of the leading power and its competitor, but also the social structure they inhabit.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Alliances Rebalanced? The Social Meaning of the U.S. Pivot and Allies’ Responses in Northeast Asia

Harnisch¹,

Friedrichs²

2017

kjis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

supporting

confidence: 55%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Alliances Rebalanced? The Social Meaning of the U.S. Pivot and Allies’ Responses in Northeast Asia

Harnisch¹,

Friedrichs²

2017

kjis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Violent conflict, such as wars, would still be unlikely despite the shift in power dynamics between the US and China (Grieco 2014). However, there are signs that strategic competition and rivalry between the two great powers are increasing recently over fields such as technology and economy or regions such as the South China Sea, Taiwan Strait, and the Korean Peninsula (MH Kim 2019; Zhao 2019; Wu 2020).…”

Section: China Factor (I): Rok's Increasing Economic Dependence On Chinamentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors Weakening the Strength and Solidarity of ROK-US Alliance Necessary to Deter DPRK’s Provocations

Chung¹

2022

kjis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite having few allies and experiencing economic hardship, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) continues to conduct military provocations, destabilizing peace on the Korean Peninsula. However, the Republic of Korea (ROK) and the United States (US), the two partners who are superior in terms of national capabilities, are having difficulty deterring the DPRK's aggression. In this context, this article examines the domestic and international factors that reduce the ROK-US alliance's ability to hinder DPRK from conducting belligerent actions that especially threaten the ROK's national security. The first three factors are the DPRK's nuclear weapons, the ROK's domestic politics, and the increasing China-ROK economic ties. Additionally, the rise of China and its potential impact on the ROK-US alliance to deter the DPRK's provocations will be discussed as the fourth factor. By shifting the power dynamics in East Asia and the solidarity of the ROK-US alliance simultaneously, these factors are working as obstacles to the ROK and the US from collaborating for peace on the Korean Peninsula. Thus, unless the ROK and the US find ways to restore their dominance in the region and strengthen their alliance relationship, the DPRK's provocations could become more and more difficult to deter, leading to increased conflict on the Korean Peninsula.

show abstract

“…Which way to go? Domestic debates have centered on four choices: muddling through, balancing, bandwagoning, and transcending (Chung, 2007: 111–115; Grieco, 2013; Han, 2008a: 335–351; Hundt, 2009; Kang, 2009: 1–9; Moon, forthcoming; Ross, 2006: 355–395). 2…”

Section: China’s Rise and South Korea’s Strategic Adjustment: Contendmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coping with China’s rise

Moon

Boo

2016

Asian Journal of Comparative Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The new emerging hegemonic rivalry between China and the US has placed South Korea in serious adjustment dilemma. Being sandwiched between the two giants, Seoul has been trying to muddle through their conflicting interests. This article aims to explore how China’s rise and rivalry with the US have influenced Seoul’s domestic politics and resulted in policy choices, through the examination of three cases: THAAD (the Terminal High Altitude Air Defense System), the AIIB (Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank), and the South China Sea. Our findings show that South Korea’s adjustment behavior has varied across issue areas. On the issue of security, the Seoul government has taken a pro-American balancing strategy by allowing the deployment of the US THAAD, whereas it has chosen a reluctant pro-China bandwagoning position by joining the AIIB. And it has taken a rather neutral position on the South China Sea dispute. Such variations can be explained by the changing interests and underlying domestic politics and leadership choices in South Korea.

show abstract

Theories of International Balancing, the Rise of China, and Political Alignments in the Asia Pacific

Cited by 6 publications

References 12 publications

Alliances Rebalanced? The Social Meaning of the U.S. Pivot and Allies’ Responses in Northeast Asia

Alliances Rebalanced? The Social Meaning of the U.S. Pivot and Allies’ Responses in Northeast Asia

Factors Weakening the Strength and Solidarity of ROK-US Alliance Necessary to Deter DPRK’s Provocations

Coping with China’s rise

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About