The Pacific Review

ISSN: 0951-2748 (Print) 1470-1332 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpre20

Theorizing Southeast Asian Relations: an

introduction

Amitav Acharya & Richard Stubbs

To cite this article: Amitav Acharya & Richard Stubbs (2006) Theorizing Southeast Asian
Relations: an introduction, The Pacific Review, 19:2, 125-134, DOI: 10.1080/09512740500473106

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09512740500473106

Published online: 16 Aug 2006.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1972

View related articles

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpre20
The Pacific Review, Vol. 19 No. 2 June 2006: 125–134

Theorizing Southeast Asian Relations:

an introduction

Amitav Acharya and Richard Stubbs

Abstract In the introduction, the editors discuss the emergence of a new body of lit-
erature on Southeast Asia’s regional relations that is both theoretically informed and
stimulating. One element of this literature features a constructivist challenge to real-
ism, traditionally the dominant perspective on Southeast Asian International Rela-
tions. Constructivist writings have helped to broaden the understanding of Southeast
Asia’s regional order by capturing its ideational determinants (norms and identity),
the agency role of local actors, and the possibility of transformation through so-
cialization and institution building. But constructivism itself has been challenged by
other perspectives, including neo-liberal, English School and critical approaches. The
essays in this special issue of The Pacific Review capture this emerging debate. The
editors argue that the articles in this special issue are a good indicator of the theo-
retical pluralism that marks the study of Southeast Asia’s regional relations today.
Southeast Asian studies need not be dominated by either realism or constructivism,

Professor Amitav Acharya is Deputy Director and Head of Research at the Institute of Defence
and Strategic Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He has previous academic
appointments at York University, Toronto; Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore;
Harvard Asia Center; the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University;
and the National University of Singapore. He has published extensively on Asian security
and international relations. Among his latest books is Constructing a Security Community in
Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order (Routledge, 2001); he has co-edited
Asia-Pacific Security Cooperation: National Interest with Regional Order (M. E. Sharpe, 2004)
and Reassessing Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (MIT Press, 2005).
Address: Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Block
S4, Level B4, Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798. E-mail: [email protected]
Richard Stubbs is a Professor of Political Science in the Department of Political Science,
McMaster University. He has published widely on the political economy and security of East
and Southeast Asia. His most recent book is entitled Rethinking Asia’s Economic Miracle: The
Political Economy of War, Prosperity and Crisis (Palgrave, 2005). He has also co-edited (with
Geoffrey R. D. Underhill) Political Economy and the Changing Global Order, 3rd edn (Oxford
University Press, 2005).
Address: Department of Political Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4M4,
Canada. E-mail: [email protected]

The Pacific Review

ISSN 0951-2748 print/ISSN 1470-1332 online
C 2006 Taylor & Francis

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/09512740500473106
126 The Pacific Review

but can accommodate a diversity that vastly enriches our understanding of regional
conflict and order.

Keywords Realism; constructivism; English School; rationalist institutionalism;

critical theory; theoretical pluralism.

Over the last dozen years or so there has been a major shift in the way in
which studies of Southeast Asia’s regional relations have been conducted.
For much of the post-Second World War period up to the 1990s studies
of relations in the region, as well as the role of Southeast Asian societies,
economies and states within East Asia generally, tended to be atheoreti-
cal. Where there was some theoretical treatment it generally reflected the
prevailing theoretical orthodoxy in the discipline of International Relations
(IR), and was framed within a vaguely realist or neo-realist approach. The
point here is not that studies of Southeast Asia’s regional affairs were of little
consequence; indeed, many made invaluable contributions to our growing
understanding of regional events (e.g. Leifer 1980, 1989). Rather, the point
is that analyses of regional relations were not generally theoretically diverse
or even theoretically informed.
During the 1990s, students of Southeast Asia’s regional relations began
to employ theoretically based insights in a more sustained fashion. This oc-
curred for two main reasons. First, a series of events appeared to call into
question the value of relying on a realist or neo-realist approach to help un-
derstand regional developments. In terms of regional security and political
relations, the withdrawal of Vietnam from Cambodia in 1989 and in the same
year the signing of an agreement between the Communist Party of Malaysia
(CPM) and the Malaysian and Thai governments, by which the CPM was
dismantled, signalled an end to the Cold War that had dominated South-
east Asia for decades. In 1994 the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN) successfully launched the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and a
few years later ASEAN expanded its membership to include all ten South-
east Asian countries. For many analysts neither realism nor neo-realism
helped to explain these emerging cooperative arrangements. In terms of re-
gional economic relations, there were also a number of major developments.
The inauguration of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum
in 1989 and the ASEAN member states’ central role as the venue in alter-
nate years for, and therefore driving force in, the key annual meetings had a
significant impact on regional relations. Similarly, the decision, taken at the
ASEAN Summit of 1992, to form an ASEAN Free Trade Area; the trau-
matic events of the Asian economic crisis of 1997–98; and the emergence
of the ASEAN Plus Three (APT) process of East Asian regional economic
cooperation all prompted a re-evaluation of the way in which regional de-
velopments were analysed and explained.
Second, the 1990s witnessed a proliferation of theories in IR. As a con-
sequence, an increasingly vigorous debate emerged in the literature that
 A. Acharya and R. Stubbs: Theorizing Southeast Asian Relations 127

not only underscored the value of using different theoretical frameworks in

analysing the unfolding of events but also confronted the traditional disci-
plinary hegemony of realism and neo-realism. Neo-realists continued to be
challenged by neo-liberals and neo-liberal institutionalists, especially in the
United States. Constructivists and post-modernists offered a more funda-
mental critique (Hay 2002: 13–27). In the United Kingdom and other parts
of Europe, as well as in Canada, a critical approach to IR and International
Political Economy was being promoted (Murphy and Nelson 2001). This
ferment of new theoretical approaches as well as refinements to the old
neo-realist perspective offered analysts of Southeast Asian relations a wide
range of theories from which to choose as they sought to come to grips with
the changes that were sweeping across the region. Gradually, analyses of re-
gional events started to take advantages of these theoretical developments
in order to help understand the emergence of new regional approaches to the
novel political and security issues associated with the end of the Cold War,
the changing regional role of Japan, the rise of China, increasing economic
regionalization, and attempts to forge new state-led regionalist projects (e.g.
Acharya 1995, 2001; Ganesan 1995; Higgott and Stubbs 1995).
These new approaches made important advances on the existing literature
on Southeast Asia’s regional relations. Going beyond traditionalist perspec-
tives that regarded material forces such as military balances and great power
alliances as the critical determinants of regional stability, constructivists ar-
gued that ideational forces, including norms and identity, are very much a
part of the regional environment or ‘structure’ that shapes Southeast Asia’s
regional order. Moreover, the agency of local actors and their regional insti-
tutions matter and should not be viewed (as some realist accounts of regional
order maintain) as a mere adjunct to the great power balancing.
The challenge to realism also drew strength from critical theory’s rejec-
tion of the centrality of the ‘anarchy problematique’ in international theory,
its critique of the textual legitimacy of realist approaches, and its general
highlighting of the role of social forces in IR.
Although these new perspectives made their mark in the academic realm,
they also had implications for the policy world. They challenged the close
nexus between foreign policy realism (reliance on balance of power and US
military presence) and domestic political authoritarianism which was com-
monplace among the Southeast Asian elite during the Cold War. Moreover,
they opened the space and provided new tool kits for exploring alternative
ways for organizing regional relations, including cooperative security and
community-building approaches.
While constructivists have started to challenge the central position oc-
cupied by realists and neo-realists they too have their critics. Moreover,
although the greater use of IR theory has clearly helped to advance our
understanding of events in Southeast Asia in major ways, it can have its
limitations. Indeed, questions can be raised about the extent to which using
theories that were developed primarily in a North American or European
128 The Pacific Review

context can appropriately be used to advantage in parts of the world that are
less economically developed (Phillips 2005; Tickner 2003). Increasingly, over
the last few years, analysts of Southeast Asian relations have sought to adapt
IR theories in such a way as to make them more amenable to the changing
circumstances that have recently overtaken the region. Importantly, in do-
ing so they have made significant modifications that may be helpful to those
studying other parts of the world such as South Asia, Latin America, Africa
or the Middle East. It is possible, of course, that the adaptations made to IR
theories in studies of Southeast Asian relations could also, in turn, be mod-
ified yet again and applied to analyses of particular facets of European or
North American regional relations. Certainly, this form of cross-pollination
based on analyses of different regions of the world has considerable potential
to advance IR theorizing.
What is particularly impressive is the contribution that a new generation
of scholars interested in Southeast Asian relations is making to this theo-
rizing enterprise. A vibrant and illuminating debate is emerging among this
cohort of analysts that is helping to expand our understanding not only of
Southeast Asia but also how we might best apply IR theories to regional
relations more generally. Theoretical pluralism, which is characteristic of
the emerging debate, and which is to be found in analyses of both regional
security and regional political economy issues, is most encouraging and pro-
vides the basis for a productive exchange of arguments and ideas. While the
essays in this special issue do not capture the full range of this pluralism, they
do suggest that the fears of a constructivist orthodoxy replacing the realist
one are highly misplaced, as is the claim that the study of Southeast Asia’s
IR is somehow beholden to a singular perspective on regional institutional
dynamics.
The articles in this special issue draw on work that is being undertaken by
this new generation of scholars. The articles by Ba, by Eaton and Stubbs, and
by Katsumata are revised versions of papers that were originally presented
at the first Asian Political and International Studies Association (APISA)
Congress held in Singapore in November 2003.
Sarah Eaton and Richard Stubbs focus on the debate between realists and
neo-realists on the one hand and constructivists on the other. They seek to
delineate the key differences between the two groups by asking the ques-
tion ‘Is ASEAN Powerful?’ Most significantly, by distinguishing between the
realist/neo-realist emphasis on power as coercion and other-oriented and a
constructivist conception of power in terms of the competence motive, or
as simply ‘the ability to act’, which is essentially an environment-referent
approach, Eaton and Stubbs set out a clear and useful distinction that helps
us understand why the debate around ASEAN efficacy has emerged. More-
over, by drawing on the experience of the relatively weak ASEAN member
states in originating and building major regional cooperative institutions
they are able to contribute to the refining and development of constructivist
theorizing around the all important concept of power.
 A. Acharya and R. Stubbs: Theorizing Southeast Asian Relations 129

Alice Ba also explores the issue of power in her constructivist analysis

of the ASEAN states’ ‘complex engagement’ of China. In particular, Ba is
concerned with interactive social learning and the way it has shaped regional
relations between China and the ASEAN members. She notes that the un-
certainties of the post-Cold War years provided the opportunity for both
sides to reassess the relationship; that the relationship was developed on a
number of fronts; that the mutual socialization process went through vari-
ous stages; and that the power asymmetry, while affecting the way in which
ASEAN approached its task of socializing China to the ‘ASEAN Way’, did
not significantly prohibit ASEAN from influencing China’s actions. Ba’s
analysis makes an important contribution to our understanding of the so-
cial learning process at the international level and to constructivism more
generally.
Hiro Katsumata similarly employs a constructivist approach in his assess-
ment of the significance of the ARF. He challenges the realist and neo-
liberal views of why the ARF was established – what he sees as the conven-
tional explanations – and develops an argument that focuses on the ASEAN
members’ interest in developing the norm of security cooperation in Asia.
Katsumata conceives of security cooperation in the region as having two
elements: the goal of common security which was originally set out in the
Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) and the code
of conduct associated with the ASEAN Way’s emphasis on consultation and
consensus. The ARF, he concludes, should be envisaged as essentially an
arena in which norms associated with security cooperation are developed
and put into practice. Katsumata agues that, viewed in this light, the ARF
is a much more significant organization than the conventional explanations
of its establishment would have us believe. This is an intriguing perspective
that certainly has resonance for the way in which security issues in other
parts of the world may be analysed.
By contrast, Shaun Narine takes issue with the constructivist approach to
analysing Southeast Asian relations. He argues that ASEAN can best be un-
derstood by making use of insights from the English School (ES) approach
to the study of IR. While recognizing that there is some overlap between
constructivism and the ES, he points out that the ES has some distinct fea-
tures that make it a particularly useful theory for analysing Southeast Asia’s
relations since the formation of ASEAN in 1967. Narine notes that ASEAN
member states’ preoccupation with preserving their sovereignty is at odds
with the building of an ASEAN identity that is at the heart of the con-
structivist approach to regional relations. He makes the case that ASEAN’s
emphasis on sovereignty and non-intervention as well other norms of the
Westphalian system are more amenable to an ES interpretation of the ori-
gins, durability and nature of ASEAN than is constructivists’ interpretation
of the same phenomena. Narine’s analysis is important because it indicates
how the recently revived ES approach can usefully be employed at the re-
gional level in parts of the world other than Europe.
130 The Pacific Review

Tsuyoshi Kawasaki also challenges the constructivist approach by

provocatively characterizing it as romantic and intellectually naı̈ve. He ar-
gues that the functions the ARF performs, most notably institutionaliz-
ing the ASEAN Way as the region’s code of behaviour and establishing
confidence-building measures (CBMs) as the central action programme of
member states, can best be seen as serving the member states’ interests and
are, therefore, most usefully analysed through what he terms a rationalist
institutionalist lens. For Kawasaki, then, the ARF is an institutional solu-
tion to the cooperation problems set out in what he calls the Assurance
Game or what is often referred to as the Stag Hunt. This use of a rationalist
framework to analyse a key Southeast Asian institution suggests that this
approach may be useful in examining security issues in other parts of the
world.
Finally, Tan See Seng offers a critical perspective on Southeast Asia’s IR,
especially targeting constructivist approaches. He acknowledges that con-
structivist scholarship on Southeast Asia has been conceptually and method-
ologically innovative, especially in challenging the rationalist ‘myth’ about
international anarchy as given, in offering new insights into how regions and
regional identities come about and how states and norms work to produce
anarchy, regions and/or states. But he also finds them making important con-
cessions to state centrism and ideational/normative determinism. In Tan’s
view, many constructivists share a rationalist proclivity to couple agency
with sovereignty and, somewhat in the manner of Kawasaki, he sees them
falling back upon an idealized notion of international order so as to explain
Southeast Asia’s regional relations. He calls upon constructivists to go be-
yond granting ontological priority to states, so as to make more credible their
claim of challenging the rationalist perspective on Southeast Asia’s regional
order.
The essays in this special issue raise a number of key points with regard
to the future of the theorizing of Southeast Asian relations. Importantly,
they challenge and go beyond realism – by far the dominant approach on
Southeast Asian and Asian security both historically and contemporane-
ously. But they also put to the test the claim that constructivism is becoming
a new orthodoxy of the study of Southeast Asia’s regional relations. While
Ba, Eaton and Stubbs, and Katsumata write from a broadly constructivist
perspective, those by Narine, Kawasaki and Tan critique constructivist as-
sumptions from the vantage point of ES, neo-liberal institutionalism and
critical theory, respectively. This is a welcome demonstration of theoretical
pluralism.
Significantly, the articles that critique constructivism raise four significant
issues. First, it is important to recognize that constructivists account for only a
handful, if growing number, of scholars working on Southeast Asia’s regional
relations; realism, overt or latent, remains the dominant approach in the field.
Moreover, constructivist writings do not constitute a homogeneous category.
For example, while Acharya (2001, 2004) places strong emphasis on norms
 A. Acharya and R. Stubbs: Theorizing Southeast Asian Relations 131

and local agency, others like Ba, in this special issue, give more play to
external actors. While all take ideational factors and socialization seriously,
they differ on the degree of transformation to the existing regional order that
they argue is possible. Indeed, constructivists are not uniformly optimistic
about Southeast Asia’s regional order; some of their critical perspective on
aspects of regional order borders on realism.
Second, constructivists are not necessarily romanticists. It may seem that
because constructivists recognize the possibility of transformative cooper-
ation and take ideas and norms seriously, this criticism is justified. But on
closer scrutiny the criticism misses the mark in that it fails to account for the
fact that many constructivists (e.g. Acharya 1997, 2001, 2002; Johnston 2003)
give due recognition to the limits of cooperation and even perils of certain
norms such as non-intervention. The attention paid by constructivists to ob-
stacles and challenges to cooperation has been duly acknowledged, includ-
ing by some of their critics. Even Michael Leifer, who critiqued Acharya’s
ideational and sociological approach to Southeast Asia’s IR, recognized that
it ‘fully accounts for’ the challenges that ASEAN faced (Leifer 2001; see also
Datta-Ray 2001; Peou 2002: 16). Leifer’s disagreement with Acharya was
over how to understand the sources of these challenges; Leifer believed that
they came from power limitations, while Acharya (2001) blamed ASEAN’s
problems on the quality of socialization following membership expansion
and its refusal to go beyond the norm of non-intervention.
The case of the ARF, the subject of Kawasaki’s essay, is pertinent here. It
is difficult to think of any constructivist analysis of the ARF that takes its
contribution to regional order or even its survival for granted. Rather, the
claim is that the ARF does introduce an important vehicle for socialization
and norm setting in the regional environment that challenges the dominance
of balance-of-power thinking both in the policy community and academia.
Ironically, the measured claims of constructivists regarding what regional
institutions can do and how far can they go has been the subject of criticism
(Duffield 2005).
Third, constructivists writing on Southeast Asia may be accused of state
centrism and normative determinism. In his contribution to this special issue,
Tan See Seng, for example, thinks this is partly due to their ‘uncritical em-
ulation of rationalist constructivist perspectives in International Relations
theory’. However, it is difficult to find examples of constructivist writers on
Southeast Asia who are ‘rationalist constructivist’ scholars and adopt a social
scientific methodology akin to the constructivism of Wendt or Katzenstein.
For example, none of the constructivist essays in this special issue (those
by Ba, Katsumata, and Eaton and Stubbs) are social scientific in their ap-
proach. The same can be said about other constructivists such as Haacke
(2003). Some constructivists are more inclined to be social scientific than
others, such as Johnston (2003) and Acharya (2004). It is not always the case
that being social scientific necessarily translates into analysing only the role
of the state and being deterministic about norms.
132 The Pacific Review

Can it be said, then, that constructivists have reified and privileged the
state? Certainly, in the Wendtian sense, that states are assumed to be the
primary actors rather than the only, or even dominant, actors, some types
of constructivism are state centric. But constructivist writings on South-
east Asia’s civil society, especially Acharya’s notion of ‘participatory re-
gionalism’, demonstrate that social movements and epistemic communities
are taken seriously by constructivists in their writings on regional order
(Acharya 2003; Caballero-Anthony 2005). The state centrism in construc-
tivism is most often of the type that assumes that the state is a first point of
reference (hence many constructivists focus on elite socialization as a start-
ing point of ASEAN). But it does not amount to a claim that the state is
the only or ultimately the most important actor. Also, it may be one thing
to focus on the state as the main unit of analysis in the present regional
international order; it is quite another to view its role as the final and per-
manent arbiter of future regional order. To the extent that constructivism
accepts the transformation of the regional international order from anarchy
to community, it is open to the possibility that incremental socialization and
the impact of new international norms on Southeast Asia’s state system can
lead to fundamental changes that challenge the dominance of state author-
ity. The impact of globalization, democratization and human rights norms
on Southeast Asian security attests to the possibility.
Can it also be said that there is normative determinism in constructivism?
There is little question that constructivists take norms seriously. But they
also give due recognition to identity, institutions and interests. The main dif-
ference between constructivist and materialist perspectives such as realism
and liberal institutionalism is that while the latter look at material forces
first (power or wealth) and then turn to ideas to mop up what remains unex-
plained (many would not even do that), constructivists will focus on norms in
their own right. They may start with ideas first, and bring in material forces
next. And, since the field has been dominated by materialist perspectives
for so long, the main concern of constructivists has been to show that ideas
matter, not that they are the only things that matter.
In conclusion, it needs to be underscored that constructivists do not claim
to have a finality or aspire to become the end point of discourse and debate
on Southeast Asian regional order. However, they have advanced our un-
derstanding of Southeast Asia’s regional relations in three important ways.
First, they have broadened our understanding of the sources and determi-
nants of regional order by recognizing the role of ideational forces, such as
culture, norms and identity, as opposed to offering a purely materialistic per-
spective. Second, they have led to a less static conception of Southeast Asia’s
regional order. Certainly, by giving greater play to the possibility of change
and transformation driven by socialization, constructivists have introduced
a conception of regional relations that is in direct contrast to the uncritical
acceptance of the balance-of-power system posited by realist and neo-realist
scholars. Third, such writings have engendered greater theoretical diversity
 A. Acharya and R. Stubbs: Theorizing Southeast Asian Relations 133

and opened the space for debate in the field and helped to link the insights of
the traditional area studies approach to Southeast Asia to the larger domain
of IR theory.
Overall, then, the articles in this special issue provide a good indication of
the lively debate that is emerging over how best to analyse Southeast Asia’s
regional relations. Without degenerating into polemics, they show that the
study of Southeast Asia’s IR need not be dominated by either realism or
constructivism. While constructivists have started to challenge the central
position occupied by realists and neo-realists, they too have their critics.
What is not in doubt is that Southeast Asia is becoming an increasingly
important arena for theorizing about regional relations and indeed about
IR more generally. Certainly, the theoretical advances made can also be
usefully applied to other regions of the world.

References
Acharya, Amitav (1995) ‘A regional security community in Southeast Asia’, Journal
of Strategic Studies 18(3): 175–200.
——– (1997) ‘Ideas, identity, and institution-building: from the “ASEAN Way” to
the “Asia Pacific Way” ’, The Pacific Review 10(2): 319–46.
——– (2001) Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the
Problem of Regional Order, London: Routledge.
——– (2002) ‘Regional institutions and Asian security order: norms, power, and
prospects for peaceful change’, in Muthaah Alagappa (ed.) Asian Security
Order: Instrumental and Normative Features, Stanford: Stanford University
Press, pp. 210–40.
——– (2003) ‘Democratisation and the prospects for participatory regionalism in
Southeast Asia’, Third World Quarterly 24(2): 375–90.
——– (2004) ‘How ideas spread: whose norms matter? Norm localization and institu-
tional change in Asian regionalism’, International Organization 58(2): 239–75.
Caballero-Anthony, Mely (2005) Regional Security in Southeast Asia: Beyond the
ASEAN Way, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Datta-Ray, Sunanda K. (2001) ‘Tying together a rope of sand’ (Review of The Quest
for Identity: International Relations of Southeast Asia), Times Higher Education
Supplement, 16 February, p. 32.
Duffield, John (2005) ‘International institutions and Asian regional order’, Issues
and Studies 41: 225–31.
Ganesan, N. (1995) ‘Testing neoliberal institutionalism in Southeast Asia’, Interna-
tional Journal 50(4): 779–804.
Haacke, Jurgen (2003) ASEAN’s Diplomatic and Security Culture, London:
RoutledgeCurzon.
Hay, Colin (2002) Political Analysis: A Critical Introduction, Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Higgott, Richard and Stubbs, Richard (1995) ‘Competing conceptions of economic
regionalism: APEC vs EAEC’, Review of International Political Economy 2(3):
549–69.
Johnston, Alastair Iain (2003) ‘Socialization in international institutions: the ASEAN
Way and International Relations theory’, in G. John Ikenberry and Michael
Mastanduno (eds) International Relations Theory and the Asia-Pacific, New
York: Columbia University Press, pp. 107–62.
Leifer, Michael (1980) Conflict and Order in Southeast Asia, Adelphi Paper No. 162,
134 The Pacific Review

London: International Institute for Strategic Studies.

——– (1989) ASEAN and the Security of Southeast Asia, London: Routledge.
——– (2001) Review of The Quest for Identity: International Relations of Southeast
Asia, The Pacific Review 14(3): 484–6.
Murphy, Craig N. and Nelson, Douglas R. (2001) ‘International political economy: a
tale of two heterodoxies’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations
3(3): 393–412.
Peou, Sorpong (2002) ‘Realism and constructivism in Southeast Asian security stud-
ies today’, The Pacific Review 15(1): 1–20.
Phillips, Nicola (2005) ‘Globalizing the study of International Political Economy’, in
Nicola Phillips (ed.) Globalizing International Political Economy, Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–19.
Tickner, Arlene B. (2003) ‘Seeing IR differently: notes from the Third World’, Mil-
lennium: Journal of International Studies 32(2): 295–324.