New frontiers in international law: The Asian paradox (OUPblog, 20 February 2017)
Asia’s history offers a partial explanation of the current situation of its ongoing ambivalence towards international law and institutions, but this can also be attributed the absence of “push” factors driving greater integration or organization. There is some evidence that this is changing, but breathless talk of a new “Eastphalian” order seems overblown. Though the status quo appears unsustainable, the major powers of Asia have made clear that their preference is for evolution rather than revolution. China’s claims in the South China Sea and the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) might suggest a desire to set up new, parallel regimes — yet closer inspection reveals that China’s claims are more traditional than first feared, and that the AIIB is clearly modeled on other international financial institutions (though with China garnering similar special privileges to the US and Europe in the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund respectively). Asia’s rise is not, therefore, a “new frontier” in the strict sense of either word. Yet the growing importance of Asian states is suggesting the need for systemic change because the most populous and (soon) powerful region on the planet currently has the least stake in it.