Why is There No NATO in Asia? Collective Identity, Regionalism, and the Origins of Multilateralism

  title={Why is There No NATO in Asia? Collective Identity, Regionalism, and the Origins of Multilateralism},
  author={Christopher M. Hemmer and Peter J. Katzenstein},
  journal={International Organization},
  pages={575 - 607}
In this paper, we explain why the U.S. government chose multilateral security arrangements in Europe and bilateral ones in Asia in the 1940s and 1950s. After reviewing the inadequacies of a number of universal and indeterminate explanations, we put forward three explanations—great power status, efficient responses to threats, and regional identity—which rely on the combination of material and social forces for their explanatory power. Starting with common rationalist explanations that focus on… 
The Future of Asian Regionalism: Not What it Used to Be?
The largely unexpected election of Donald Trump as President of the United States has overturned many assumptions and expectations about the future of Australia's regional relationships. Even before
The United States and Asian Regionalism: The Politics of Reactive Leadership
The United States faces a central dilemma in its Asia policy. On the one hand, the U.S. has played a leading role in the region since the end of the Pacific War. It has been the “indispensable
Regionalism for Realists? The Evolution of the Indo-Pacific
Neoliberal institutionalists frequently see regional organisations such as the EU, ASEAN or the EAS as expressions of the desire for economic integration, political cooperation and the resolution of
Historical Antecedents and Post-World War II Regionalism in the Americas
After World War II, the US-led international security order exhibited substantial regional variation. Explaining this variation has been central to the debate over why is there no nato in Asia. But
Building Asian Security Institutions Under the Triple Shocks: Competitive, Complementary or Juxtaposed?
Asia presents scholars of international security institutions with a bewildering variety of arrangements to examine. This chapter provides a broad overview of the regional institutions that Asian
Neither Empire nor Republic: American Power and Regional Order in the Asia-Pacific
How to make sense of the singular power of the United States and the distinctive role it now plays in world politics has become a pressing challenge to scholars and analysts of international
Recalcitrance and initiative: US hegemony and regional powers in Asia and Europe after World War II
This paper challenges the conventional wisdom that US power and preferences following World War II led to bilateralism in Asia and multilateralism in Western Europe. It argues that the challenges
Managing Rivalries – Regional Security Institutions and Democracy in Western Europe, South America, Southeast Asia and East Asia
The absence of war between democracies is regarded as one of the few law-like correlations in international relations. The causation of this empirical phenomenon, however, remains contested; and
Powerplay: Origins of the U.S. Alliance System in Asia
  • V. Cha
  • Political Science
    International Security
  • 2010
In East Asia the United States cultivated a hub and spokes system of discrete, exclusive alliances with the Republic of Korea, the Republic of China, and Japan, a system that was distinct from the
State sovereignty, political legitimacy and regional institutionalism in the Asia-Pacific
Abstract Regional institutions in the Asia-Pacific have been of limited efficacy. Asian members of organizations such as ASEAN and APEC have insisted that these institutions not infringe upon their


Shaping the postwar balance of power: multilateralism in NATO
At the end of the 1940s, the United States and several West European states allied to defend themselves against invasion by the Soviet Union. Balance-ofpower theory predicts the recurrent formation
Multilateralism Matters: The Theory and Praxis of an Institutional Form
Part 1 THE CONCEPT: John Gerard Ruggie, Multilateralism: The Anatomy of an Institution. Part 2 THEORETICAL DEBATES: James A. Caporaso, International Relations Theory and Multilateralism: The Search
Why is there no APTO? Why is there no OSCAP?: Asia-Pacific security institutions in comparative perspective
Since the end of the Cold War, the security of the Asia-Pacific region has been the subject of considerable scholarly attention. One reason for this interest is the area’s heightened strategic
Whence American Internationalism
One of the most important puzzles of twentieth-century international relations is why the American conception of security vis-à-vis the European Powers shifted from unilateralism to internationalism
Third Try at World Order? America and Multilateralism after the Cold War
Times of change are also times of confusion. Words lose their familiar meaning, and our footing becomes unsure on what was previously firm terrain. Today, political leaders and commentators alike
The Past as Prologue? Interests, Identity, and American Foreign Policy
As a nation, the United States was not only born free, Robert Keohane once remarked, it was also “born lucky.”’ It found itself far removed from the continuous jostling of European power politics,
Multilateralism: the anatomy of an institution
  • J. Ruggie
  • History, Political Science
    International Organization
  • 1992
In 1989, peaceful change, which a leading realist theorist had declared a very low-probability event in international politics less than a decade before, accommodated the most fundamental
International Organization
Sectoral analyses reveal an emerging tension between a global market and an anarchic political system and oblige scholars to examine the dynamic and reciprocal relationship between states and
Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalisation
Introduction, I: International Organization 1. The New Institutionalism in International Relations 2. Embedded Liberalism and the Postwar Economic Regimes 3. Epistemology, Ontology, and the study of
Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy
This new edition of Michael H. Hunt's classic reinterpretation of American diplomatic history includes a preface that reflects on the personal experience and intellectual agenda behind the writing of