Pacific Community for Peace and Governance: Towards a Framework for Peace and Security in the Pacific

  • James D. BindenagelEmail author
Part of the Global Power Shift book series (GLOBAL)


The chapter outlines that China’s naval strategy in East Asia’s maritime areas has led to rising nationalisms in other countries neighboring the South and East China Sea, a development that amid overlapping territorial claims not only fuels the SCS conflict, but due to the region’s lack of historic reconciliation may help to escalate them into military encounters. Accordingly, Beijing and Washington—the region’s strongest powers—share a responsibility to manage the SCS disputes in a peaceful manner. The chapter argues that it is time to find a sustainable diplomatic solution before a trivial accident might trigger an escalation that cannot be contained. The author therefore proposes to begin regional discussions for creating a ‘Framework for Peace and Security in the Pacific’ that has to tackle important issues like trust and confidence building among neighboring countries, the establishment of new inclusive regional governance structures and the mitigation of historical grievances to meet the peace and governance challenges in Asia-Pacific. The chapter concludes that a sustainable long-term solution to SCS disputes can only be found if regional countries decide to work cooperatively in a peaceful manner, which not only would benefit all countries in an interconnected Asia-Pacific, but would also help to pivotally shape the order of the twenty-first century.


China Conflict Management South China Seas United States 


  1. Bader, J. A. (2014, February 6). The U.S. and China’s nine-dash line: Ending the ambiguity. The Brookings Institution.
  2. Brown, A. (2015, January 7). China takes a Gentler Tack to Hegemony in Asia. Wall Street Journal. Google Scholar
  3. Buzan, B. (2004). The United States and the great powers: World politics in the twenty-first century. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  4. Dosch, J. (2011, August 18). The Spratly Islands Dispute: Order-Building on China’s terms? Harvard International Review.
  5. Frost, F. (2009, December 1). Australia’s proposal for an ‘Asia Pacific Community’: Issues and prospects. Research Paper, Parliamentary Library, Foreign Affairs, Defense and Security Section, Parliament of Australia, no. 13.Google Scholar
  6. Kaplan, R. D. (2014). Asia’s Cauldron: The South China Sea and the End of a Stable Pacific. New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar
  7. Kreuzer, P. (2014, September 29). Gefährliches Souveränitätsspiel im Südchinesischen Meer. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte. p.18.Google Scholar
  8. Kuhn, R. L. (2013, June 6). Xi Jinping, a nationalist and a reformer. South China Morning Post. Google Scholar
  9. Stephens, P. (2014, April 3). How to avoid war in the East China Sea. The Financial Times.Google Scholar
  10. Talmon, S. (2014). The South China Sea Arbitration: Is there a case to answer? Bonn Research Papers on Public International Law, 2/2014.Google Scholar
  11. Timmermann, M. (2014). Tri-regional partnering on reconciliation in East Asia: Pivotal to shaping the order of the twenty-first century? AICGS Policy Report 59 (p. 10). American Institute for Contemporary German Studies, Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for International Security and GovernanceRheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-University BonnBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations