No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
From Geopolitics To Post-Structuralism: Ontological Typology Of Region Formation In International Relations
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 March 2025
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Although there is a clear rise in academic interest in region formation, theoretical approaches to the topic vary greatly, stemming from geopolitical identifications of objective regional boundaries, through functionalist ideas of regional linkages, to post-structuralist ideas about fluid regional belonging. This article provides a typology of region formation approaches, based on the ontological assumptions of its authors. The typology is based on two main debates within contemporary international relations ontology: regarding the basic components of reality (material vs. ideational) and regarding the status of theories (transfactual vs. phenomenalist). The presented matrix provides an ideal-typical position for each of these four iterations and illustrates its viability in the case of region formation literature on the Asia-Pacific. Doing so, the text contributes to (meta) theoretical discussions of how regions are formed while at the same time illustrating the often-overlooked stories of region formation.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Authors 2024
References
Acharya, A. and Johnston, A. I.. 2007. Crafting Cooperation: Regional Institutions in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Acharya, A. and Stubbs, R.. 2006. “Theorizing Southeast Asian Relations: An Introduction.” The Pacific Review 19(2): 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acharya, A. 2000. Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Acharya, A. 2009. Whose Ideas Matter? Agency and Power in Asian Regionalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Acharya, A. 2018. The End of American World Order, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Beeson, M, and Lee-Brown, T.. 2017. “The Future of Asian Regionalism: Not What It Used to Be?” Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies 4: 195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beeson, M. 2014. Regionalism and Globalization in East Asia. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, T. U. 1998. Cultures of Antimilitarism. National Security in Germany and Japan. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Berenskoetter, F. 2010. “Identity in International Relations,” in The International Studies Encyclopedia Vol. VI, eds. Denemark, Robert A. and Marlin-Bennett, René?e, 3595–3611. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bilgin, P. and Futá?k-Campbell, B.. 2021. “Introduction: Globalizing (the Study of) Regionalism in International Relations,” In Globalizing Regionalisms and International Relations, ed. Futá?k-Campbell, Beatrix, 3–27. Bristol: Bristol University Press.Google Scholar
Blaney, D. L., and Tickner, A. B.. 2017. “Worlding, Ontological Politics and the Possibility of a Decolonial IR.” Millennium 45(3): 293–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borzel, T. A. and Risse, T.. 2016. The Oxford Handbook of Regionalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunner, C. 2021. “Conceptualizing epistemic violence: an interdisciplinary assemblage for IR.” International Politics Reviews 9: 193–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buzan, B. and Zhang, Y.. 2014. Contesting International Society in East Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buzan, B. and Wæ?ver, O.. 2003. Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buzan, B., Wæ?ver, O. and Wilde, J. De. 1997. Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buzan, B. 2012 “How regions were made, and the legacies for world politics: an English School reconnaissance,” in International Relations Theory and Regional Transformation, eds. by Paul, T.V., 22–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curaming, R. A. 2006. “Towards a Poststructuralist Southeast Asian Studies?” Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia 21(1): 90–112.Google Scholar
Gilpin, R. 1987. The Political Economy of International Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guillaume, X. 2011. International Relations and Identity: A Dialogical Approach. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hagstrom, L. and Gustafsson, K.. 2015. “Japan and Identity Change: Why It Matters in International Relations.” The Pacific Review 28(1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagströ?m, L. and Gustafsson, K.. 2019. “Narrative Power: How Storytelling Shapes East Asian International Politics.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 32(4): 387–406.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, T. and Togo, K.. 2008. East Asia’?s Haunted Present. Westport: Greenwood Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, B. and Inoguchi, T.. 2011. “Introduction to Ideas of Asian Regionalism.” Japanese Journal of Political Science 12(2): 165–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemmer, C. and Katzenstein, P. J.. 2002. “Why is There No NATO in Asia? Collective Identity, Regionalism, and the Origins of Multilateralism.” International Organization 56(3): 575–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hettne, B. and Sö?derbaum, F.. 2008. “The Future of Regionalism: Old Divides, New Frontiers,” In Regionalization and the Taming of Globalization, eds. Cooper, Andrew F., Hughes, Christopher W., and Lombaerde, Philippe De, 97–128. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. 1998. Masculinity and Femininity: The Taboo Dimension of National Cultures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Huntington, S. P. 1996. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York, Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Hurrell, A. 2005. “The Regional Dimension in International Relations Theory,” In Global Politics of Regionalism: Theory and Practice, eds. Farrell, Mary, Hettne, Bjö?rn, and Langenhove, Luk Van, 38–53. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, P. Thaddeus. 2011. The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations Philosophy of Science and its Implications for the Study of World Politics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jackson, P. A. 2003. “Mapping Poststructuralism’?s Borders: The Case for Poststructuralist Area Studies.” Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia 18(1): 42–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessop, B. 2003. “The Political Economy of Scale and the Construction of Cross-Border Regions,” In Theories of New Regionalism: A Paigrave Reader, eds. Sö?derbaum, Fredrik and Shaw, Tim M., 179–197. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, D. M. and Smith, M. L. R.. 2007. “Constructing Communities: The Curious Case of East Asian Regionalism.” Review of International Studies 33(1): 165–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, K. and Feng, H.. 2020. “The Institutionalization of the Indo-Pacific: Problems and Prospects.” International Affairs 96(1): 149–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katzenstein, P. J. and Okawara, N.. 1993. “Japan’?s National Security: Structures, Norms, and Policies.” International Security 17(4): 84–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katzenstein, P. J. 2005. A World of Regions: Asia and Europe in the American Imperium. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Knio, K. 2023. “Why and How Ontology Matters: A Cartography of Neoliberalism(s) and Neoliberalization(s).” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 53(2): 160–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koga, K. 2020. “Japan’?s ‘?Indo-Pacific’? Question: Countering China or Shaping a New Regional Order?” International Affairs 96(1): 49–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolmaš, M. 2020. “Identity Change and Societal Pressures in Japan: The Constraints on Abe Shinzo’?s Educational and Constitutional Reform.” The Pacific Review 33(2): 185–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolmaš, M. 2022. “Why is Japan shamed for whaling more than Norway? International Society and its barbaric others.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 22(2): 267–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolmaš?, M., Qiao-Franco, G. and Karmazin, A.. 2024. “Understanding Region Formation Through Proximity, Interests, and Identity: Debunking the Indo-Pacific as a Viable Regional Demarcation.” The Pacific Review (online first), 1–23.Google Scholar
Lake, D. A. 2011. “Why ‘?isms’? Are Evil: Theory, Epistemology, and Academic Sects as Impediments to Understanding and Progress.” International Studies Quarterly 55(2): 465–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lake, D. A. 2013. “Theory is Dead, Long Live Theory: The End of the Great Debates and the Rise of Eclecticism in International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 19(3): 567–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lake, D. A. and Morgan, P. P.. 1997. Regional Orders: Building Security in a New World. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
Mansfield, E. D. and Milner, H. V.. 1997. The Political Economy of Regionalism. New York: Colombia University Press.Google Scholar
Mearsheimer, J. J. 2010. “The Gathering Storm: China’?s Challenge to US Power in Asia.” The Chinese Journal of International Politics 3(4): 381–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitrany, D. 1966. A Working Peace System. Chicago: Quardrangle Books (first ed. 1946).Google Scholar
Moreira, A. C. 2021. “IR Theory and The Ontological Depth of the Material-Ideational Debate”, e-International Relations. https://www.e-ir.info/2021/05/31/ir-theory-and-the-ontological-depth-of-the-material-ideational-debate/. Accessed March 13, 2024.Google Scholar
Nair, D. 2009. “Regionalism in the Asia Pacific/East Asia: A Frustrated Regionalism?” Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs 31(1): 110–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumann, I. B. 1998. Uses of the Other: The “East” In European Identity Formation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Neumann, I. B. 2003. “The Region-building Approach,” In Theories of New Regionalism: A Palgrave Reader, eds. Sö?derbaum, Fredrik and Shaw, Tim M., 160–179. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumann, I. B. 2009. “Returning Practice to the Linguistic Turn: The Case of Diplomacy,” In Pragmatism in International Relations, eds. Bauer, Harry and Brighi, Elisabetta, 98–116. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Prys-Hansen, M., Burilkov, A. and Kolmaš, M.. 2023. “Regional Powers and the Politics of Scale.” International Politics 61(1): 13–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prys-Hansen, M. and Frazier, D.. 2024. “The Regional Powers Research Program: A New Way Forward.” International Politics 61(1): 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosamond, B. 2000. Theories of European Integration. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shin, G-W. and Schneider, D. C.. 2010. History Textbooks and the Wars in Asia. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Soderbaum, F. 2011. “Theories of Regionalism,” In The Routledge Handbook of Asian Regionalism, eds. Mark, Beeson and Stubbs, Richard, 11–21. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sö?derbaum, F. and Shaw, T. M.. 2003. Theories of New Regionalism: A Palgrave Reader. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solingen, E. 1998. Regional Order at Century’?s Dawn: Global and Domestic Influences and Grand Strategy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Spandler, K. 2018. Regional Organizations in International Society: ASEAN, the EU and the Politics of Normative Arguing. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Spivak, G. C. 2004. “Poststructuralism, Marginality, Postcoloniality and Value,” In Postcolonialism, ed. Brydon, Diana. 21–38, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Suzuki, S. 2015. “The Rise of the Chinese ‘?Other’? in Japan’?s Construction of Identity: Is China a Focal Point of Japanese Nationalism?” The Pacific Review 28(1): 95–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamaki, T. 2015. “The Persistence of Reified Asia as Reality in Japanese Foreign Policy Narratives.” The Pacific Review 28(1): 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tickner, A. B. 2013. “Core, Periphery and (neo)Imperialist International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 19(3): 627–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trownsell, T. 2022. “Recrafting Ontology.” Review of International Studies 48(5): 801–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Langenhove, L. 2011. Building Regions: Regionalization of World Order. Ashgate: Aldershot.Google Scholar
Wæ?ver, O. 2006. “The EU as a Security Actor: Reflections From a Pessimistic Constructivist on Post-sovereign Security Orders,” In International Relations Theory and the Politics of European Integration, eds, Kelstrup, Morten and Williams, Michael, 250–294. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltz, K. N. 1982. “The Central Balance and Security in Northeast Asia.” Asian Perspective 6(1): 88–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltz, K. N. 1999. “Globalization and Governance.” PS: Political Science 32(4): 693–700.Google Scholar
Wendt, A. E. 1987. “The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory.” International Organization 41(3): 335–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widmaier, W. W. and Park, S.. 2012. “Differences Beyond Theory: Structural, Strategic, and Sentimental Approaches to Normative Change.” International Studies Perspectives 13(2): 123–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widmaier, W. W., Blyth, M. and Seabrooke, L.. 2007. “Exogenous Shocks or Endogenous Constructions? The Meanings of Wars and Crises.” International Studies Quarterly 51(4): 747–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wight, C. 2006. Agents, Structures and International Relations Politics as Ontology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich, J-U. 2016. Regionalism, Globalisation and International Order. Europe and Southeast Asia, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zarakol, A. 2022. Before the West. The Rise and Fall of Eastern World Orders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You have
Access