http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
Realistic Relations? How the Evolving Bilateral Relationship is Understood in China and Australia
Mark Beeson,jinghan Zeng 인하대학교 국제관계연구소 2017 Pacific Focus Vol.32 No.2
China’s remarkable economic development has had profound domestic and international effects. Among the most important of these is China’s growing impact on the region of which it is an increasingly important and influential part. For countries such as Australia, which has rapidly become deeply economically integrated with – even dependent on – China, this presents a major and much‐discussed challenge as it tries to balance economic and strategic priorities. Australia provides an important and revealing illustration of how China’s elites view key states in its region, which have assumed a growing economic and even strategic importance. This paper aims to develop a more comprehensive overview of the way the strategic, economic and political dimensions of the Sino–Australia relationship are understood in both countries. It also highlights the importance of realist thinking in both Australia and China.
DEVELOPMENTAL STATES IN EAST ASIA: A COMPARISON OF THE JAPANESE AND CHINESE EXPERIENCES
Mark Beeson 경남대학교 극동문제연구소 2009 ASIAN PERSPECTIVE Vol.33 No.2
In the aftermath of the East Asian crisis and Japan’s prolonged economic downturn, many observers considered that East Asia’s distinctive model of state-led development had become redundant and irrelevant. And yet not only have aspects of this model persisted in Japan despite attempts to reform it, but China is actively embracing elements of neomercantilism and state interventionism that owe much to the Japanese exemplar. Even more strikingly, China’s success and the influence of the “Beijing consensus” are encouraging other countries to follow suit. This article explores the trajectory of East Asian forms of developmentalism and suggests that reports of their death may prove premature. In the aftermath of the East Asian crisis and Japan’s prolonged economic downturn, many observers considered that East Asia’s distinctive model of state-led development had become redundant and irrelevant. And yet not only have aspects of this model persisted in Japan despite attempts to reform it, but China is actively embracing elements of neomercantilism and state interventionism that owe much to the Japanese exemplar. Even more strikingly, China’s success and the influence of the “Beijing consensus” are encouraging other countries to follow suit. This article explores the trajectory of East Asian forms of developmentalism and suggests that reports of their death may prove premature.
Living with Giants: ASEAN and the Evolution of Asian Regionalism
Mark Beeson 서강대학교 동아연구소 2013 TRaNS(Trans –Regional and –National Studies of Sou Vol.1 No.2
From its inception, ASEAN has been shaped by the evolving structure of the international system and the activities of more powerful external actors. This is still the case. What is different now is that the nature of the region of which ASEAN is a part has changed in significant ways. Indeed, the entire structure of the international system has undergone a number of profoundly important changes which have forced ASEAN to adjust and recalibrate its own policies. This paper explores this adjustment process and maps the most important forces and actors that are compelling change. By placing the ASEAN experience in a comparative conceptual framework, it becomes possible to identify the key drivers ofchange and to speculate about their future impact on an organisation that has proved remarkably resilient thus far. The nature of contemporary regional developments and the continuing evolution of the wider international system mean that ASEAN is currently facing major new challenges and questions about its relevance in an era when other regional organisations are emerging to challenge its authority and role.
Mark Beeson,Nathan Watson 경남대학교 극동문제연구소 2019 ASIAN PERSPECTIVE Vol.43 No.2
In recent years much attention has been given to the ongoing rise of China and its potential consequences for the extant international order. Less attention, however, has been given to the possibility of a US withdrawal from its role at the center of the order it helped to create. Since the election of Donald Trump, however, the prospect of a “leadership vacuum,” caused by American policies that seek to dismantle, weaken, or ignore various international institutions, has become an increasingly important issue. In this article we explore the historical nature of US hegemony and the factors that may be encouraging the Trump administration to abandon America’s leadership role. We also consider the factors that may inhibit China from offering an alternative. Consequently, we argue that international order in the near future may be defined by a lack of leadership rather than a hegemonic transition.