Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The recent developments of multilateral security diplomacy in East Asia and Asia Pacific not only highlighted the pattern of multi-track policy communications and coordination on non-traditional security issues, but also prompted academic debates on the c

Publication Type: Proceeding

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Over the past two decades, numerous Asia-Pacific states have made the transition to democracy founded on basic political liberties and freely contested elections. A little-noticed consequence of this process has been strikingly congruent reforms to key political institutions such as electoral systems, political parties, and parliaments. I argue that, across the region, these reforms have been motivated by common aims of promoting government stability, reducing political fragmentation, and limiting the potential for new entrants to the party system. As a result, similar strategies of institutional design are evident in the increasing prevalence of ‘mixed-member majoritarian’ electoral systems, new political party laws favouring the development of aggregative party systems, and constraints on the enfranchisement of regional or ethnic minorities. Comparing the outcomes of these reforms with those of other world regions, I argue there has been an increasing convergence on an identifiable ‘Asian model’ of electoral democracy.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Bilateralism has been a dominant feature of the Asia-Pacific strategic landscape for more than half a century. The Bush administration has recently reaffirmed the centrality of these alliances to its regional security posture, insisting that are applicable to both Washington's 'global war on terror' (GWOT) and to more traditionally state-centric security considerations. Recent trends, however, point toward the relevance and applicability of these security arrangements coming under increased challenge. Growing regional apprehensions over the fate of the U.S.-led military intervention in Iraq, generational change and an intensification of the Asia-Pacific's multilateral politico-security community building all underscore the need to update, reconcile or even transform bilateralism with the dynamics of regional strategic change. This paper initially develops theoretical perspectives of bilateralism that are largely under-assessed in the international relations literature. It then cross-compares bilateralism's theoretical and empirical characteristics with multilateralism's increasingly appealing normative and strategic rationales as they apply to an Asia-Pacific context, applying notions of public good, inclusiveness and community-building into its analysis. Our central argument is that bilateralism can be effectively reconciled with multilateralism in the evolving Asia-Pacific security environment by pursuing policies that incorporate such factors.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: If deterrence was the buzzword of the cold war, nonproliferation appears to be the mantra of the post-cold war world. In comparison to deterrence, however, nonproliferation may be far more difficult and complex to maintain. Deterrence was based on symmetrical conflict between rational actors; nonproliferation, on the other hand, implies asymmetric conditions among mixed actors, rational and nonrational. The need to maintain the regime of deterrence, and the need to uphold the nonproliferation regime can be seen as essential to strategic stability in each of the respective periods. This paper focuses on the significance of nonproliferation to cooperative security, including the objectives of the G8 Global Partnership Initiative, and regional efforts in the Asia-Pacific. In strategic theory, the paper demonstrates that nonproliferation, as the fulcrum of global security, serves to change the context of the battlefield of the future. My paper deconstructs traditional concepts of the battlefield and conflict theory, characterizing the battlefield of the future not as a product of war but as a process founded on the ontology of the participants. Specifically, the analysis is both supported by Keegan, and departs significantly from his premises.