Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Power Politics in Asia’s Contested Waters pp 289–317Cite as

‘Coopetition’ and Risk Tolerance in the South China Sea: Indonesia and Malaysia’s Middle Power Strategies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 2176 Accesses

Part of the book series: Global Power Shift ((GLOBAL))

Abstract

Is conflict in the South China Sea inevitable? Structural conditions may point that way, as many authors have hinted. Others have pointed at two major impediments to conflict: the socialization process led by ASEAN; and a greater-than-ever interdependence among regional countries. This article tests these two conventional arguments by considering the collective and individual choices of ASEAN states. It resorts to rational choice institutionalism and middle power theory to model the environment in which ASEAN states operate strategically and considers Indonesia and Malaysia as case studies. The finding is that Indonesia and Malaysia, as regional middle powers, are more risk-tolerant than usually assumed vis-à-vis the rise of China and its repercussions in the South China Sea.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Till (2009).

  2. 2.

    Mearsheimer (2001). See also: Liff and Ikenberry (2014).

  3. 3.

    A view that separates the strategy of influence constructed by the Party’s elite—enshrined in official declarations and doctrines such as the “periphery diplomacy”—from its policy implementation, which can give way to inconsistencies, incoherencies or mishaps.

  4. 4.

    From the now famous expression coined by Friedberg (1993–1994).

  5. 5.

    Kaplan (2014), Holslag (2015).

  6. 6.

    See: Li (2012).

  7. 7.

    See for instance: Acharya (2014a).

  8. 8.

    Suffice it to mention Gilley and O’Neil’s (2014c) last book.

  9. 9.

    See: Zheng and Tok (2008).

  10. 10.

    Zhang (2010), Ding (2008).

  11. 11.

    Quoted in: Cheng (2013).

  12. 12.

    Kurlantzick (2007).

  13. 13.

    Valencia (2012).

  14. 14.

    See for instance: Satz and Ferejohn (1994), Hausman (1995).

  15. 15.

    Fiorina (1995).

  16. 16.

    Kamel (2009).

  17. 17.

    Peters (2000).

  18. 18.

    Shepsle (2006).

  19. 19.

    Hall and Taylor (1996).

  20. 20.

    Green and Shapiro (1996), Steinmo (2001).

  21. 21.

    da Cunha Rezende (2009).

  22. 22.

    Acharya (2009).

  23. 23.

    Odgaard (2003).

  24. 24.

    Goh (2005a).

  25. 25.

    Baviera (2013).

  26. 26.

    An argument previously made in: Hellendorff (2014).

  27. 27.

    Remarks of Ambassador Ong Keng Yong, former Secretary-General of ASEAN. Brussels, 10 February 2015.

  28. 28.

    See also: Green and Gill (2009a).

  29. 29.

    Keohane (1984). See also: Weber (1997).

  30. 30.

    Pempel (2010).

  31. 31.

    See for instance: Zhang (2012).

  32. 32.

    Acharya (2005).

  33. 33.

    Goh (2005b).

  34. 34.

    Khong (2004), Brooks and Wohlforth (2005).

  35. 35.

    Green and Gill (2009b).

  36. 36.

    On Asymmetry theory, see: Womack (2004).

  37. 37.

    See: Thayer (2012).

  38. 38.

    Mogato and Grudgings (2012).

  39. 39.

    Baruah (2014), Cao (2014), Haddick (2012), Farley (2014).

  40. 40.

    Cronin et al. (2014).

  41. 41.

    Cheng-Chwee (2008). For his definition, the author refers to such previous works as Munn et al. (1991).

  42. 42.

    Ibid.

  43. 43.

    The perception of threat is function, according to Walt, of (1) geographic proximity; (2) relative power; (3) offensive capabilities; and (4) offensive intentions. See: Walt (1987).

  44. 44.

    See: Johnston (2013).

  45. 45.

    Interview of the author with an Indonesian diplomat. Jakarta, March 2015.

  46. 46.

    For such argument, see: Kang (2010). For a critic of Kang’s selective use of historical facts and explanations, see for instance: Reid (2009).

  47. 47.

    O’Neil (2014).

  48. 48.

    Neak (1992).

  49. 49.

    See for instance: Cooper (1997).

  50. 50.

    Fels (2013, p. 165).

  51. 51.

    Evans (2011).

  52. 52.

    Fels (2013, p. 166).

  53. 53.

    Chapnick (1999); quoted in: Emmers and Teo (2015).

  54. 54.

    See: Medcalf and Mohan (2014).

  55. 55.

    Tow and Rigby (2011).

  56. 56.

    Mares (1988).

  57. 57.

    See: Emmers and Teo (2015).

  58. 58.

    Lai (2013).

  59. 59.

    Acharya (2014b).

  60. 60.

    See: Beeson and Lee (2014).

  61. 61.

    See for instance: Gilley and O’Neil (2014b).

  62. 62.

    Emmers and Teo (2015).

  63. 63.

    “Transforming Malaysia’s Diplomacy Towards 2020 and Beyond”, Keynote Address By Yab Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib Tun Haji Abdul Razak, Prime Minister of Malaysia, at the Eighth Heads of Mission Conference, 24 February 2014, Kuala Lumpur.

  64. 64.

    Ping (2005), Manicom and Reeves (2014).

  65. 65.

    Freedman (2014).

  66. 66.

    Gilley and O’Neil (2014a).

  67. 67.

    Marque (2011, p. 16).

  68. 68.

    Wilson (1975).

  69. 69.

    See: Parameswaran (2015), Cheng-Chwee (2013).

  70. 70.

    Salleh et al. (2009, p. 108).

  71. 71.

    Buszynski (2010).

  72. 72.

    Emmers (2013, p. 54).

  73. 73.

    Available at: www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations.htm (last accessed 30 May 2015).

  74. 74.

    Roach (2014).

  75. 75.

    See, among others: Joyner (1999), Hong (2012). According to Roach, Malaysia’s claim to the low-tide elevations Dallas Reef and Ardasier Reef, and to the submerged features James Shoal, North Luconia Shoals and South Luconia Shoals is, for its part, solid. See: Roach (2014).

  76. 76.

    For a detail, see: Valencia et al. (1997).

  77. 77.

    Saravanamuttu (2010).

  78. 78.

    Tønnesson (2001).

  79. 79.

    Salleh et al. (2009).

  80. 80.

    Chan and Li (2014).

  81. 81.

    Yep and Hall (2014).

  82. 82.

    International Crisis Group (2012).

  83. 83.

    A fact highlighted by Emmers (2013, p. 64).

  84. 84.

    Note Verbale CML/17/2009. Available here: www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/mysvnm33_09/chn_2009re_mys_vnm_e.pdf

  85. 85.

    Djalal (2000, p. 13).

  86. 86.

    Snyder et al. (2001).

  87. 87.

    Richardson (1995).

  88. 88.

    Djalal (2000, p. 12).

  89. 89.

    Various interviews of the author with high-ranking officials, Jakarta, March 2015.

  90. 90.

    Parameswaran (2014).

  91. 91.

    “New U.S. Base in RI’s Backyard”, The Jakarta Post, 17 November, 2011

  92. 92.

    See: Moeldoko (2014).

  93. 93.

    Oegroseno (2014).

  94. 94.

    See Hellendorff and Kellner (2014).

  95. 95.

    “RI, China’s navy to hold joint military exercise”, Antara News, 16 December 2013.

  96. 96.

    See for instance: Hellendorff (2015).

  97. 97.

    Chen (2013).

  98. 98.

    Thayer (2014).

  99. 99.

    Chen (2013).

  100. 100.

    Discussion of the author with a Malaysian analyst, 2014.

  101. 101.

    Valencia (2009, 2011).

References

  • Acharya, A. (2005). Do norms and identity matter? Community and power in Southeast Asia’s regional order. The Pacific Review, 18(1), 95–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acharya, A. (2009). The strong in the world of the weak. Southeast Asia in Asia’s regional architecture. In M. Green & B. Gill (Eds.), Asia’s new multilateralism: Cooperation, competition, and the search for community (pp. 172–190). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acharya, A. (2014a). Power shift or paradigm shift? China’s rise and Asia’s emerging security order. International Studies Quarterly, 58, 158–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acharya, A. (2014b). Indonesia matters. Asia’s emerging democratic power. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baruah, D. M. (2014, March 21). South China Sea: Beijing’s ‘Salami Slicing’ strategy. RSIS Commentaries.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baviera, A. (2013). China-ASEAN conflict and cooperation in the South China Sea: Managing power asymmetry. National Security Review (The Study of National Security at 50: Re-awakenings), pp. 202–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beeson, M., & Lee, W. (2014, May). Indonesia and the democratic middle powers: A new basis for collaboration? ANU National Security College Issue Brief No 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, S., & Wohlforth, W. (2005). Hard times for soft balancing. International Security, 30(1), 72–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buszynski, L. (2010). Rising tensions in the South China Sea: Prospects for a resolution of the issue. Security Challenges, 6(2), 85–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cao, J. (2014, June 16). CAO: China’s salami-slicing strategy. The Washington Times.

  • Chan, I., & Li, M. (2014). Political will and joint development in the South China Sea. In S. Wu & N. Hong (Eds.), Recent developments in the South China Sea dispute: The prospect of a joint development regime (p. 184). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapnick, A. (1999). Middle power. Canadian Foreign Policy, 7(2), 73–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S. (2013, August 29). Malaysia splits with ASEAN claimants on China Sea threat. Bloomberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, J. (2013). China’s regional strategy and challenges in East Asia. China Perspectives, 2, 55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng-Chwee, K. (2008). The essence of hedging: Malaysia and Singapore’s response to a rising China. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 30(2), 163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng-Chwee, K. (2013). Making sense of Malaysia’s China policy: Asymmetry, proximity, and elite’s domestic authority. Chinese Journal of International Politics, 6, 429–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, A. (Ed.). (1997). Niche diplomacy: Middle powers after the Cold War. London: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, P., et al. (2014). Tailored coercion: Competition and risk in maritime Asia. Washington, DC: CNAS Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • da Cunha Rezende, F. (2009). Analytical challenges for neoinstitutional theories of institutional change in comparative political science. Brazilian Political Science Review (Online), 4(se). http://socialsciences.scielo.org/scielo.php?pid=1981-382120090001&script=sci_issuetoc

  • Ding, S. (2008). To build a “harmonious world”: China’s soft power wielding in the global south. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 13(2), 193–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Djalal, H. (2000). South China Sea Island disputes. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Suppl. No. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmers, R. (2013). Resource management and contested territories in East Asia. Basingstoke: Palgrave Pivot.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Emmers, R., & Teo, S. (2015). Regional security strategies of middle powers in the Asia-Pacific. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific. doi:10.1093/irap/lcu020

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, G. (2011, June 29). Middle power diplomacy. Inaugural Edgardo Boeninger Memorial Lecture, Chile Pacific Foundation, Santiago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farley, R. (2014, December 26). A holiday primer on Salami Slicing. The Diplomat.

  • Fels, E. (2013). Dancing with the dragon: Indonesia and its relations to a rising China. In M. Heise & K. Rucktäschel (Eds.), Indonesia’s search for democracy. Political, economic, and social developments. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorina, M. (1995). Rational choice and the new(?) institutionalism. Polity, 28(1), 107–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, A. L. (2014). Malaysia, Thailand and the ASEAN middle power way. In B. Gilley & A. O’Neil (Eds.), Middle powers and the rise of China (pp. 104–125). Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedberg, A. (1993–1994). Ripe for rivalry: Prospects for peace in a multipolar Asia. International Security, 18(3), 5–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilley, B., & O’Neil, A. (2014a). China’s rise through the prism of middle powers. In B. Gilley & A. O’Neil (Eds.), Middle powers and the rise of China (p. 3). Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilley, B., & O’Neil, A. (2014b). Middle powers and the rise of China. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilley, B., & O’Neil, A. (Eds.). (2014c). Middle powers and the rise of China. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goh, E. (2005a). Meeting the China challenge: The US in Southeast Asian regional security strategies (Policy Studies, Vol. 16). Washington, DC: East-West Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goh, E. (2005b). Great powers and Southeast Asian regional security strategies: Omni-enmeshment, complex balancing and hierarchical order. Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, M. J., & Gill, B. (Eds.). (2009a). Asia’s new multilateralism: Cooperation, competition, and the search for community. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, M. J., & Gill, B. (2009b). Unbundling Asia’s new multilateralism. In M. J. Green & B. Gill (Eds.), Asia’s new multilateralism: Cooperation, competition, and the search for community (p. 13). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, D., & Shapiro, I. (1996). Pathologies of rational choice theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haddick, R. (2012, August 3). Salami Slicing in the South China Sea. Foreign Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P., & Taylor, R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, D. (1995). Rational choice and social theory: A comment. Journal of Philosophy, 92(2), 96–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellendorff, B. (2014). Hiding behind the tribute: Status, symbol, and power in Sino-Southeast Asian relations, past and present. In B. Dessein (Ed.), Interpreting China as a regional and global power: Nationalism and historical consciousness in world politics (pp. 142–168). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellendorff, B. (2015, January 12). L’industrie de défense indonésienne: la clef de la puissance? Note d’analyse du GRIP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellendorff, B., & Kellner, T. (2014, July 9). Indonesia: A bigger role in the South China Sea? The Diplomat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holslag, J. (2015). China’s coming war with Asia. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, N. (2012). UNCLOS and ocean dispute settlement: Law and politics in the South China Sea. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Crisis Group. (2012, April 23). Stirring up the South China Sea (I). Crisis Group Asia Report N°223.

  • Johnston, A. I. (2013). How new and assertive is China’s new assertiveness? International Security, 37(4), 7–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joyner, C. C. (1999). The Spratly Islands dispute in the South China Sea: Problems, policies, and prospects for diplomatic accommodation. In Singh, R. (Ed.), Investigating confidence building measures on the Asia Pacific region. Report No. 28. Washington, DC: Henry Stimson Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamel, L. (2009). Rational choice and new institutionalism, a critical analysis. Eurostudium3W, 10(1), 72–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang, D. (2010). East Asia before the West: Five centuries of trade and tribute. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R. (2014). Asia’s cauldron: The South China Sea and the end of a stable Pacific. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khong, Y. F. (2004). Coping with strategic uncertainty: The role of institutions and soft balancing in Southeast Asia’s post-cold war strategy. In J. J. Suh, P. Katzenstein, & A. Carlson (Eds.), Rethinking security in East Asia: Identity, power, and efficiency (pp. 172–208). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurlantzick, J. (2007). Charm offensive: How China’s soft power is transforming the world. New York: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lai, H. B. (2013, August 30). Smaller countries can be ‘middle power’ in East Asia, says S. Korean diplomat. The Straits Times.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, M. (2012). Chinese debates of south china sea policy: Implications for future developments (RSIS Working Paper, No. 239). Singapore: Nanyang Technological University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liff, A., & Ikenberry, J. (2014). Racing toward tragedy? China’s rise, military competition in the Asia Pacific, and the security dilemma. International Security, 39(2), 52–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manicom, J., & Reeves, J. (2014). Locating middle powers in international relations theory and power transitions. In B. Gilley & A. O’Neil (Eds.), Middle powers and the rise of China (pp. 23–44). Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mares, D. (1988). Middle powers under regional hegemony: To challenge or acquiesce in hegemonic enforcement. International Studies Quarterly, 32(4), 453–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marque, B. (2011). Nouveau paradigme stratégique des puissances moyennes. Louvain-la-Neuve: Chaire Inbev-Baillet Latour.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medcalf, R., & Mohan, R. (2014, August 8). Responding to Indo-Pacific rivalry: Australia, India and middle power coalitions. Lowy Institute Analysis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moeldoko. (2014, April 24). China’s dismaying new claims in the South China Sea. The Wall Street Journal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mogato, M., & Grudgings, S. (2012, July 17). ‘ASEAN way’ founders in South China Sea storm. Reuters.

  • Munn, G., Woelfel, C., & Garcia, F. (1991). Encyclopedia of banking and finance (9th ed., p. 485). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neak, L. (1992). Empirical observations on ‘Middle State’ behavior at the start of a new international system. Pacific Focus, 7(1), 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neil, A. (2014, July 9). Middle powers in Asia: The limits of realism. The Lowy Interpreter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odgaard, L. (2003). The South China Sea: ASEAN’s security concerns about China. Security Dialogue, 34(1), 11–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oegroseno, A. H. (2014, April 15). Indonesia, South China Sea and the 11/10/9-dashed lines. PacNet #26R.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parameswaran, P. (2014). Indonesia avoids open territorial dispute, despite concerns. China Brief, 14(13), 13–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parameswaran, P. (2015, February). Playing it safe: Malaysia’s approach to the South China Sea and implications for the United States. CNAS Maritime Strategy Series.

  • Pempel, T. J. (2010). Soft balancing, hedging, and institutional Darwinism: The economic-security nexus and East Asian regionalism. Journal of East Asian Studies, 10(2), 209–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, G. (2000). Institutional theory: Problems and prospects (Reihe Politikwissenschaft, Vol. 69). Vienna: Institut für Höhere Studien und Wissenschaftliche Forschung Wien.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ping, J. (2005). Middle power statecraft: Indonesia, Malaysia and the Asia-Pacific. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, A. (2009). Negotiating asymmetry: Parents, brothers, friends and enemies. In A. Reid & Y. Zheng (Eds.), Negotiating asymmetry: China’s place in Asia (p. 6). Honolulu: Hawaii University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, M. (1995, April 12). Indonesia rebuffs China’s claims to vast natural gas field. The New York Times.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roach, J. A. (2014, August). Malaysia and Brunei: An analysis of their claims in the South China Sea. CNA Occasional Paper.

  • Salleh, A., Che Mohd Razali, C. H., & Jusoff, K. (2009). Malaysia’s policy towards its 1963–2008 territorial disputes. Journal of Law and Conflict Resolution, 1(5), 108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saravanamuttu, J. (2010). Malaysia’s foreign policy: The first fifty years. Alignment, neutralism, islamism (p. 277). Singapore: ISEAS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Satz, D., & Ferejohn, J. (1994). Rational choice and social theory. Journal of Philosophy, 91(2), 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepsle, K. A. (2006). Rational choice institutionalism. In S. A. Binder, R. A. W. Rhodes, & B. A. Rockman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political institutions (pp. 23–38). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, S., Glosserman, B., & Cossa, R. A. (2001, August). Confidence building measures in the South China Sea. Issues & Insights No. 2-01. Pacific Forum CSIS Honolulu, Hawaii. Available at http://csis.org/files/publication/issuesinsightsv01n02.pdf

  • Steinmo, S. (2001). The new institutionalism. In B. Clark & J. Foweraker (Eds.), The encyclopedia of democratic thought. London: Routlege.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thayer, C. (2012). ASEAN’S code of conduct in the South China Sea: A litmus test for community-building? The Asia-Pacific Journal, 10(34), 4. www.japanfocus.org/-Carlyle_A_-Thayer/3813

  • Thayer, C. (2014, February 28). ‘Speak softly and carry a big stick’: What is Malaysia playing at? The Diplomat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Till, G. (2009). The South China Sea dispute: An international history. In S. Bateman & R. Emmers (Eds.), Security and international politics in the South China Sea: Towards a cooperative management regime (pp. 26–41). Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tønnesson, S. (2001). An international history of the dispute in the South China Sea. EAI Working Paper No. 71, p. 21. Available at www.cliostein.com/documents/2001/01%20rep%20eai.pdf

  • Tow, W., & Rigby, R. (2011). China’s pragmatic security policy: The middle-power factor. The China Journal, 65, 169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valencia, M. (2009). The impeccable incident: Truth and consequences. China Security, 5(2), 22–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valencia, M. (2011, May). Foreign military activities in Asian EEZs: Conflict ahead? NBR Special Report #27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valencia, M. (2012). High-stakes drama: The South China Sea disputes. Global Asia, 7(3), 64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valencia, M., Van Dyke, J., & Ludwig, N. (1997). Sharing the resources of the South China Sea. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walt, S. (1987). The origins of alliances. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, K. (1997). Hierarchy amidst anarchy: A transaction costs approach to international security cooperation. International Studies Quarterly, 41(2), 321–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D. (1975). The neutralization of Southeast Asia. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Womack, B. (2004). Asymmetry theory and China’s concept of multipolarity. Journal of Contemporary China, 13(39), 351–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yep, E., & Hall, S. (2014, June 24). Malaysia, China keep low profile on conflicting sea claims. Wall Street Journal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, W. (2010). China’s cultural future: From soft power to comprehensive national power. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 16(4), 383–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J. (2012). ASEAN plus three (APT) as a socializing environment: China’s approach to the institutionalization of APT (Asian regional integration review, Vol. 4). Tokyo: Global Institute for Asian Regional Integration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, Y., & Tok, S. K. (2008). Intentions on trial: ‘Peaceful Rise’ and Sino-ASEAN relations. In G. Wu & H. Lansdowne (Eds.), China turns to multilateralism. Foreign policy and regional security (pp. 175–197). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Group for Research and Information on Peace and Security, Chaussée de Louvain, 467, 1030, Brussels, Belgium

    Bruno Hellendorff

Authors
  1. Bruno Hellendorff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruno Hellendorff .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Global Studies, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Enrico Fels

  2. and Humanities, University of Social Sciences, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

    Truong-Minh Vu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hellendorff, B. (2016). ‘Coopetition’ and Risk Tolerance in the South China Sea: Indonesia and Malaysia’s Middle Power Strategies. In: Fels, E., Vu, TM. (eds) Power Politics in Asia’s Contested Waters. Global Power Shift. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26152-2_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation