Download pdf
The Struggle for Autonomy of Weak States under Asymmetric Alliances: Based on the Case Comparison Between Philippines and South Korea
- 1 Sun Yat-sen University
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
The need for diplomatic autonomy of weaker states in asymmetric alliances rises as their power increases, leading to a struggle for autonomy. In the U.S. Asia-Pacific alliance system, both the Philippines and South Korea are advancing the struggle for autonomy, but the effects of the struggle are showing differences. So why is the Philippines’ struggle for autonomy relatively more effective while South Korea’s struggle is less effective when it is the same U.S. Asia-Pacific ally? This study mainly applies the case comparison method to analyze the main factors that cause the different effects of the autonomy struggle between the two countries by comparing the autonomy struggle in the Philippines after Duterte came to power and in South Korea after Moon Jae-in came to power. This paper argues that the factors that contribute to the different effects of autonomous struggle are mainly strategic dependence and the degree of interest bundling and acquisition at the external level, the degree of sovereign security and domestic political preference at the internal level, and the effective conditions for the autonomous struggle of weak states are also related to this. This study will provide insights into the struggle for autonomy of weak states in asymmetric relations and offer new perspectives for predicting the direction of the U.S. alliance system and the positioning of Korean-Philippine policy.
Keywords
asymmetric alliance, struggle for autonomy, weak state diplomacy, U.S. Asia-Pacific alliance system
[1]. Levine, E. P. (1974) Unity and disintegration in international alliances: Comparative studies.Ole R. Holsti, P. Terrence Hopmann, John D. Sullivan. The Journal of Politics, 36(1), 244–245.
[2]. Stephen M.Walt. (1987) The Origin of Alliance. New York: Cornell University Press. (12).
[3]. Tang Shiping, Long Shirui.(2011) American Military Interventionism: An Evolutionary Interpretation of Society. World Politics and Economy, (09),84-111+159.
[4]. Dong Xiangrong.(2009) Asymmetric Alliance and Anti-Americanism in South Korea. Contemporary Asia Pacific,(06),132-146.
[5]. Waltz, K. N. (1993) The emerging structure of international politics. International Security, 18(2), 44.
[6]. George F. Liska. (1968) Nations in Alliance: The Limits of Interdependence. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press. (12).
[7]. Altfeld, M. F. (1984) The decision to ally: A theory and test. Western Political Quarterly, 37(4), 523–544.
[8]. Schweller, R. L. (1994) Bandwagoning for profit: Bringing the revisionist state back in. International Security, 19(1), 72-107.
[9]. Han Xiandong.(2010). Interest differences, strategic differences and Readjustment of US-South Korea alliance. Northeast Asia Forum,(01),19-30+114.
[10]. Charles W. Kegley, Gregory A. Raymond. (1990). When Trust Breaks Down: Alliance Norms and World Politics. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
[11]. Zuo Xiying.(2019) Will the American Asia-Pacific Alliance System collapse? World Economics and Politics,(10),48-73+157-158.
[12]. Pyle, K. B. (2006) Profound forces in the making of modern Japan. The Journal of Japanese Studies, 32(2), 393–418.
[13]. Siverson, R. M., & Starr, H. (1994) Regime change and the restructuring of alliances. American Journal of Political Science, 38(1), 145-161.
[14]. Leeds, B. A., & Savun, B. (2007) Terminating alliances: Why do states abrogate agreements? The Journal of Politics, 69(4), 1118–1132.
[15]. Zhu Lumin.(2017) Study on the diplomatic adjustment and influence of the Duterte Administration in the Philippines and China’s countermeasures. United front studies, (01), 91-112.
[16]. Luo Xiao.(2021) Duterte Administration’s South China Sea Strategy and Logic. Nanyang studies, (03), 57-71.
[17]. Yang Chao.(2017) Analysis on the adjustment of Philippine foreign policy after Duterte took office. Cross Southeast Asia, (05),56-61.
[18]. Yang Xia. (2022) Motivation and Hindrance Analysis of the Moon Jae-in Government’s Pursuit of Autonomy under the US-South Korea Alliance (Master Dissertation, Yanbian University).
[19]. Jeon, J. (2018) South Korea and the U.S. established a joint artillery brigade. Retrieved from http: / /cnnews.chosun.com/client/news/viw. asp? cate = C01&mcate = M1001&nNewsNumb = 20180850245&nidx=50246.
[20]. Putnam, R. D. (1988) Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization, 42(3), 427–460.
[21]. National Security Agency. (2017) The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. Retrieved from https://www.nsa.gov/.
[22]. National Security Agency. (2022) The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. Retrieved from https://www.nsa.gov/.
[23]. Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China. (2022) China-Philippines economic and trade cooperation has yielded fruitful results and is full of vitality. Retrieved from http://tradeinservices.mofcom.gov.cn/article/news/gjxw/202208/136517.html.
[24]. Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation, Ministry of Commerce, Economic and Commercial Counselor’s Office of the Chinese Embassy in South Korea, Department of Foreign Investment and Economic Cooperation, Ministry of Commerce. (2017) Guidelines for Foreign Investment Cooperation by Country (region): The Republic of Korea (2017 edition). Retrieved from http://fec.mofcom.gov.cn/article/gbdqzn/upload/hanguo.pdf.
[25]. Hu Fangxin, Zhang Lihua. (2019) Reasons for the success or failure of Japan’s Independence struggle against the United States. International political science, 3, 125-154.
Cite this article
Cao,Y. (2023). The Struggle for Autonomy of Weak States under Asymmetric Alliances: Based on the Case Comparison Between Philippines and South Korea. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media,15,254-263.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer/Publisher's Note
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s). EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
About volume
Volume title: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Educational Innovation and Philosophical Inquiries
© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who
publish this series agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this
series.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published
version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial
publication in this series.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and
during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See
Open access policy for details).