Theoretical and methodological foundations for studying the impact of the Asia-Pacific region on contemporary globalization processes
Keywords:
Asia-Pacific region, global international relations, international relations theories, globalization, polycentrism, Eurocentrism, multiplex worldAbstract
The article examines the application of the global international relations paradigm, developed by A. Acharya and B. Buzan, to analyze the transformative impact of the Asia-Pacific region on contemporary globalization processes. It is argued that traditional theoretical approaches of Western international relations studies proves methodologically limited and conceptually inadequate for examining the qualitative specifics of the Asia-Pacific region due to ingrained Eurocentrism, materialist reductionism, and a legalistic bias. The heuristic limitations of classical international relations theories regarding the study of the Asia-Pacific region are analyzed. Specifically, the article demonstrates that the structural and offensive realism of K. Waltz and J. Mearsheimer, as well as R. Gilpin’s theory of systemic change, reduce the region to a passive arena for great-power confrontation, thereby denying the agency of non-Western actors. Rationalist liberal institutionalism (R. Keohane and J. Nye), A. Moravcsik’s liberal intergovernmentalism, J. Ikenberry’s "Liberal Leviathan" theory, and P. Katzenstein’s concept of regions characterize the Asian security architecture as weak due to the absence of supranational legalism, while artificially confining it within the American imperium. Furthermore, the article examines the economic determinism of I. Wallerstein’s world-systems analysis, the static essentialism of S. Huntington’s "clash of civilizations" theory, and the Eurocentric "learning bias" found in A. Wendt’s systemic constructivism. The author concludes that the conceptual core of global international relations (comprising the principles of pluralistic universalism, A. Acharya’s theory of constitutive localization and norm subsidiarity, the concept of soft institutionalism, and the multiplex world paradigm) provides relevant understanding of the APR as an active co-creator of a polycentric global order. Methodological arguments are presented to demonstrate that the APR’s influence manifests in the decentralization of globalization, the formation of hybrid economic and technological ecosystems, and the establishment of deep pluralism in contemporary international relations.
References
Acharya, A. (2003). Constructing a security community in Southeast Asia. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203393345
Acharya, A. (2014). The end of American world order. Polity Press.
Acharya, A. (2004). How ideas spread: Whose norms matter? Norm localization and institutional change in Asian regionalism. International Organization, 58(2). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818304582024
Acharya, A. (2025). The once and future world order. Basic Books.
Acharya, A. (2009). Whose ideas matter? Agency and power in Asian regionalism. Cornell University Press.
Buzan, B. (2021). Re-imagining international relations: World orders in the thought and practice of Indian, Chinese, and Islamic civilizations. Cambridge University Press.
Buzan, B., & Acharya, A. (2019). The making of global international relations: Origins and evolution of IR at its centenary. Cambridge University Press.
Gilpin, R. (1981). War and change in world politics. Cambridge University Press.
Huntington, S. P. (1997). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. Touchstone.
Ikenberry, G. J. (2011). Liberal Leviathan: The origins, crisis, and transformation of the American world order. Princeton University Press.
Katzenstein, P. J. (2005). A world of regions: Asia and Europe in the American imperium. Cornell University Press.
Keohane, R. O. (2005). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton University Press.
Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S., Jr. (2012). Power and interdependence. Longman.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2003). The tragedy of great power politics. W. W. Norton & Company.
Moravcsik, A. (1998). The choice for Europe: Social purpose and state power from Messina to Maastricht. Taylor & Francis Group.
Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-systems analysis: An introduction. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822399018
Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Waveland Press.
Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge University Press.
