Abstract
The end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s introduced profound changes in the structure as well as in the patterns of world politics.1 Most crucially, it marked the end of the familiar bipolar international system; consequently, the patterns of conflict and cooperation in international relations (IR) underwent significant alterations. A liberal euphoria and high hopes for a peaceful world, in which the rule of law, justice and international collaboration would define the pattern of IR, were the hallmark of the beginning of a new era.2 The outlook for a peaceful liberal world order appeared bright, as zones of democracy gradually expanded in various parts of the world and a rule-based trading system was consolidated with the establishment of the World Trade Organization.3
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Rey Koslowski and Friederick Kratochwil,’Understanding Change in International Relations: The Soviet Empire’s Demise and the International System’, International Organization, vol. 48, no. 2 (1994), pp. 215–248; Michael Hogan, ed., The End of the Cold War: Its Meaning and Implications (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); T. V. Paul and John H. Hall, eds, International Order and the Future of World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); Brad Roberts, Order and Disorder after the Cold War (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1995).
Charles W. Kegley, Jr., ‘The Neoliberal Moment in International Studies? Realist Myths and the New International Realities’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 37, no. 2 (June 1993), pp. 131–146; Eric A. Miller and Stev A. Yetiv, ‘The New World Order in Theory and Practice: The Bush Administration’s Worldview in Transition’, Presidential Studies Quarterly, vol. 31, no. 1 (March 2001), pp. 56–68.
Michael McFaul, ‘The Fourth Wave of Democracy and Dictatorship: Noncooperative Transition in the Postcommunist World’, World Politics, vol. 54, no. 2 (January 2002), pp. 212–244; Carl Gershman, ‘The Fourth Wave’, New Republic, 14 March 2011.
Shelton U. Kodikara, ‘The Security of South Asia in the 1990s: International Change and Domestic Dimension’, BIISS Journal, vol. 13, no. 2 (April 1992), pp. 168–169.
Basil Liddell Hart, Strategy (New York: Praeger, 1954); Glenn H. Snyder, Deterrence and Defense: Toward a Theory of National Security (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961); Glen H. Snyder, ‘The Balance of Power and the Balance of Terror’, in Paul Seabury, ed., The Balance of Power (San Francisco: Chandler, 1965), pp. 185–201; and Robert Jervis, The Illogic of American Nuclear Strategy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984). For the concept’s South Asian application, see Sumit Ganguly, ‘Indo-Pakistani Nuclear Issues and the Instability/Instability Paradox’, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, vol. 18, no. 4 (1995), pp. 325–334); Michael Krepon and Chris Gagne, eds, The Stability-Instability Paradox Nuclear Weapons and Brinkmanship in South Asia, Report no. 38 (Washington DC: Henry L. Stimson Center, 2001). For a diametrically opposed view, see Varun Sahni, ‘The Stability-Instability Paradox: A Less than Perfect Explanation’, in E. Sridharan, ed., The India-Pakistan Nuclear Relationship: Theories of Deterrence and International Relations (London: Routledge, 2007), pp. 185–207.
Robert D. Kaplan, ‘The Coming Anarchy’, The Atlantic, February 1994; John J. Mearsheimer, ‘Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War’, International Security, vol. 15, no. 1 (Summer 1990), pp. 5–56; Aaron Friedberg, ‘Will Europe’s Past Be Asia’s Future?, Survival, vol. 42, no. 3 (2000), pp. 147–160.
Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: The Free Press, 1992).
T. V. Paul, International Relations Theory and Regional Transformation(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), p. 5.
John R. Oneal, Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations (New York: W. W. Norton, 1997); John M. Owen IV, Liberal Peace, Liberal War: American Politics and International Security (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997).
Amitav Acharya, Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order(London: Routledge, 2001); Amitav Acharya, Whose Ideas Matter? Agency and Power in Asian Regionalism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2009); Craig Parsons, A Certain Idea of Europe (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003).
T. V. Paul, James Wirtz and Michael Fortmann, eds, Balance of Power Theory and Practice in the 21st Century (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004); Desmond Ball, Toward a New Balance of Power in Asia, Adelphi Paper, no. 295 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2014 Bhumitra Chakma
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chakma, B. (2014). Introduction: Regional Transformation and South Asia: A Framework of Analysis. In: Chakma, B. (eds) South Asia in Transition. International Political Economy Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137356642_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137356642_1
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-47056-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-35664-2
eBook Packages: Palgrave Intern. Relations & Development CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)