A Liberal Peace in Asia?

Drawing on recent liberal peace and Asian security research, this article assesses the relevance of prominent 'Kantian' hypotheses for understanding the international politics of Asia. While there is some evidence that the dynamics of war and peace are different in Asia than in other parts...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of peace research 2007-01, Vol.44 (1), p.5-27
1. Verfasser: Goldsmith, Benjamin E.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 27
container_issue 1
container_start_page 5
container_title Journal of peace research
container_volume 44
creator Goldsmith, Benjamin E.
description Drawing on recent liberal peace and Asian security research, this article assesses the relevance of prominent 'Kantian' hypotheses for understanding the international politics of Asia. While there is some evidence that the dynamics of war and peace are different in Asia than in other parts of the world, this does not mean that liberal theories are irrelevant. There is at best weak support for the pacific effects of democracy or international institutions in Asia. But liberal expectations, and those of some Asia analysts, about the importance of economic interdependence for reducing conflict in Asia are robustly confirmed. This result obtains even with a control for the simultaneous trade-dampening effect of conflict using structural equations. But the strong intra-Asian effect of trade interdependence does not translate into a robust pacific effect between Asian states and those outside the region. A more nuanced picture emerges; the democratic peace appears most relevant for interactions between Asian states and the rest of the world. The findings show that analysts can rely neither on beliefs that Asia is sui generis nor on purely realist models as guides to Asian security issues. Kantian and realist theories are both relevant. The results also indicate that some common assumptions of analysts, especially regarding the importance of alliances and institutions, are not in accord with the regularities of conflict and peace in Asia.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/0022343307072427
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_60126193</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>27640450</jstor_id><sage_id>10.1177_0022343307072427</sage_id><sourcerecordid>27640450</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c451t-afc7d9d12f4884c8a928980210d48bfb140b479ecbcf6c70cc58adeb5c09af63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqF0E1LAzEQBuAgCtbqvRdhUfC2OpNk83GSUuoHFPTQe8hmE9my7dakPfjv3WVFpFA8zWGe94UZQiYI94hSPgBQyjhjIEFSTuUJGSEXkLNCqlMy6td5vz8nFymtAEBogBGZTLNFXfpom-zdW-ezepNNU20fL8lZsE3yVz9zTJZP8-XsJV-8Pb_Opovc8QJ3uQ1OVrpCGrhS3CmrqdIKKELFVRlK5FByqb0rXRBOgnOFspUvCwfaBsHG5G6o3cb2c-_Tzqzr5HzT2I1v98kIQCpQs38hE6Kzmnfw5gCu2n3cdDcYigwRGfTo9hjC7gJFKde0UzAoF9uUog9mG-u1jV8GwfRfN4df7yL5EEn2w_8pPe6vB79Kuzb-9lMpOPAC2DdL8IYA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1928822492</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Liberal Peace in Asia?</title><source>Access via SAGE</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Goldsmith, Benjamin E.</creator><creatorcontrib>Goldsmith, Benjamin E.</creatorcontrib><description>Drawing on recent liberal peace and Asian security research, this article assesses the relevance of prominent 'Kantian' hypotheses for understanding the international politics of Asia. While there is some evidence that the dynamics of war and peace are different in Asia than in other parts of the world, this does not mean that liberal theories are irrelevant. There is at best weak support for the pacific effects of democracy or international institutions in Asia. But liberal expectations, and those of some Asia analysts, about the importance of economic interdependence for reducing conflict in Asia are robustly confirmed. This result obtains even with a control for the simultaneous trade-dampening effect of conflict using structural equations. But the strong intra-Asian effect of trade interdependence does not translate into a robust pacific effect between Asian states and those outside the region. A more nuanced picture emerges; the democratic peace appears most relevant for interactions between Asian states and the rest of the world. The findings show that analysts can rely neither on beliefs that Asia is sui generis nor on purely realist models as guides to Asian security issues. Kantian and realist theories are both relevant. The results also indicate that some common assumptions of analysts, especially regarding the importance of alliances and institutions, are not in accord with the regularities of conflict and peace in Asia.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-3433</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1460-3578</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0022343307072427</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JPERB6</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications</publisher><subject>Analysts ; Asia ; Balance of Power ; Conflict ; Contiguity ; Data analysis ; Democracy ; Democratic peace ; Democratic peace theory ; Deterrence ; Dyadic relations ; Economic Factors ; Economic interdependence ; Expectations ; Hypotheses ; Institutions ; Interdependence ; Intergovernmental organizations ; International politics ; International Relations ; International Trade ; Liberalism ; Modeling ; National security ; Peace ; Peace research ; Peacetime ; Regional security ; Trade ; Trade relations ; War ; War conflict</subject><ispartof>Journal of peace research, 2007-01, Vol.44 (1), p.5-27</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2007 International Peace Research Institute</rights><rights>Copyright Sage Publications Ltd. Jan 2007</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c451t-afc7d9d12f4884c8a928980210d48bfb140b479ecbcf6c70cc58adeb5c09af63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c451t-afc7d9d12f4884c8a928980210d48bfb140b479ecbcf6c70cc58adeb5c09af63</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27640450$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/27640450$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,21819,27866,27924,27925,43621,43622,58017,58250</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Goldsmith, Benjamin E.</creatorcontrib><title>A Liberal Peace in Asia?</title><title>Journal of peace research</title><description>Drawing on recent liberal peace and Asian security research, this article assesses the relevance of prominent 'Kantian' hypotheses for understanding the international politics of Asia. While there is some evidence that the dynamics of war and peace are different in Asia than in other parts of the world, this does not mean that liberal theories are irrelevant. There is at best weak support for the pacific effects of democracy or international institutions in Asia. But liberal expectations, and those of some Asia analysts, about the importance of economic interdependence for reducing conflict in Asia are robustly confirmed. This result obtains even with a control for the simultaneous trade-dampening effect of conflict using structural equations. But the strong intra-Asian effect of trade interdependence does not translate into a robust pacific effect between Asian states and those outside the region. A more nuanced picture emerges; the democratic peace appears most relevant for interactions between Asian states and the rest of the world. The findings show that analysts can rely neither on beliefs that Asia is sui generis nor on purely realist models as guides to Asian security issues. Kantian and realist theories are both relevant. The results also indicate that some common assumptions of analysts, especially regarding the importance of alliances and institutions, are not in accord with the regularities of conflict and peace in Asia.</description><subject>Analysts</subject><subject>Asia</subject><subject>Balance of Power</subject><subject>Conflict</subject><subject>Contiguity</subject><subject>Data analysis</subject><subject>Democracy</subject><subject>Democratic peace</subject><subject>Democratic peace theory</subject><subject>Deterrence</subject><subject>Dyadic relations</subject><subject>Economic Factors</subject><subject>Economic interdependence</subject><subject>Expectations</subject><subject>Hypotheses</subject><subject>Institutions</subject><subject>Interdependence</subject><subject>Intergovernmental organizations</subject><subject>International politics</subject><subject>International Relations</subject><subject>International Trade</subject><subject>Liberalism</subject><subject>Modeling</subject><subject>National security</subject><subject>Peace</subject><subject>Peace research</subject><subject>Peacetime</subject><subject>Regional security</subject><subject>Trade</subject><subject>Trade relations</subject><subject>War</subject><subject>War conflict</subject><issn>0022-3433</issn><issn>1460-3578</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><recordid>eNqF0E1LAzEQBuAgCtbqvRdhUfC2OpNk83GSUuoHFPTQe8hmE9my7dakPfjv3WVFpFA8zWGe94UZQiYI94hSPgBQyjhjIEFSTuUJGSEXkLNCqlMy6td5vz8nFymtAEBogBGZTLNFXfpom-zdW-ezepNNU20fL8lZsE3yVz9zTJZP8-XsJV-8Pb_Opovc8QJ3uQ1OVrpCGrhS3CmrqdIKKELFVRlK5FByqb0rXRBOgnOFspUvCwfaBsHG5G6o3cb2c-_Tzqzr5HzT2I1v98kIQCpQs38hE6Kzmnfw5gCu2n3cdDcYigwRGfTo9hjC7gJFKde0UzAoF9uUog9mG-u1jV8GwfRfN4df7yL5EEn2w_8pPe6vB79Kuzb-9lMpOPAC2DdL8IYA</recordid><startdate>20070101</startdate><enddate>20070101</enddate><creator>Goldsmith, Benjamin E.</creator><general>Sage Publications</general><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20070101</creationdate><title>A Liberal Peace in Asia?</title><author>Goldsmith, Benjamin E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c451t-afc7d9d12f4884c8a928980210d48bfb140b479ecbcf6c70cc58adeb5c09af63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Analysts</topic><topic>Asia</topic><topic>Balance of Power</topic><topic>Conflict</topic><topic>Contiguity</topic><topic>Data analysis</topic><topic>Democracy</topic><topic>Democratic peace</topic><topic>Democratic peace theory</topic><topic>Deterrence</topic><topic>Dyadic relations</topic><topic>Economic Factors</topic><topic>Economic interdependence</topic><topic>Expectations</topic><topic>Hypotheses</topic><topic>Institutions</topic><topic>Interdependence</topic><topic>Intergovernmental organizations</topic><topic>International politics</topic><topic>International Relations</topic><topic>International Trade</topic><topic>Liberalism</topic><topic>Modeling</topic><topic>National security</topic><topic>Peace</topic><topic>Peace research</topic><topic>Peacetime</topic><topic>Regional security</topic><topic>Trade</topic><topic>Trade relations</topic><topic>War</topic><topic>War conflict</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Goldsmith, Benjamin E.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>Journal of peace research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Goldsmith, Benjamin E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Liberal Peace in Asia?</atitle><jtitle>Journal of peace research</jtitle><date>2007-01-01</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>44</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>5</spage><epage>27</epage><pages>5-27</pages><issn>0022-3433</issn><eissn>1460-3578</eissn><coden>JPERB6</coden><abstract>Drawing on recent liberal peace and Asian security research, this article assesses the relevance of prominent 'Kantian' hypotheses for understanding the international politics of Asia. While there is some evidence that the dynamics of war and peace are different in Asia than in other parts of the world, this does not mean that liberal theories are irrelevant. There is at best weak support for the pacific effects of democracy or international institutions in Asia. But liberal expectations, and those of some Asia analysts, about the importance of economic interdependence for reducing conflict in Asia are robustly confirmed. This result obtains even with a control for the simultaneous trade-dampening effect of conflict using structural equations. But the strong intra-Asian effect of trade interdependence does not translate into a robust pacific effect between Asian states and those outside the region. A more nuanced picture emerges; the democratic peace appears most relevant for interactions between Asian states and the rest of the world. The findings show that analysts can rely neither on beliefs that Asia is sui generis nor on purely realist models as guides to Asian security issues. Kantian and realist theories are both relevant. The results also indicate that some common assumptions of analysts, especially regarding the importance of alliances and institutions, are not in accord with the regularities of conflict and peace in Asia.</abstract><cop>Thousand Oaks, CA</cop><pub>Sage Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/0022343307072427</doi><tpages>23</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0022-3433
ispartof Journal of peace research, 2007-01, Vol.44 (1), p.5-27
issn 0022-3433
1460-3578
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_60126193
source Access via SAGE; PAIS Index; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing
subjects Analysts
Asia
Balance of Power
Conflict
Contiguity
Data analysis
Democracy
Democratic peace
Democratic peace theory
Deterrence
Dyadic relations
Economic Factors
Economic interdependence
Expectations
Hypotheses
Institutions
Interdependence
Intergovernmental organizations
International politics
International Relations
International Trade
Liberalism
Modeling
National security
Peace
Peace research
Peacetime
Regional security
Trade
Trade relations
War
War conflict
title A Liberal Peace in Asia?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T09%3A58%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Liberal%20Peace%20in%20Asia?&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20peace%20research&rft.au=Goldsmith,%20Benjamin%20E.&rft.date=2007-01-01&rft.volume=44&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=5&rft.epage=27&rft.pages=5-27&rft.issn=0022-3433&rft.eissn=1460-3578&rft.coden=JPERB6&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0022343307072427&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E27640450%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1928822492&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=27640450&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0022343307072427&rfr_iscdi=true