Sovereignty under siege: globalisation and the state in Southeast Asia

It is commonly assumed that processes associated with globalisation are affecting the sovereignty of states. While the extent and implications of such processes may be debatable, globalisation presents even the most powerful states with new challenges to their autonomy and authority. In Southeast Asia, where the principle of sovereignty has been a crucial and jealously guarded part of regional governance structures, globalisation is an especially acute challenge for national governments. This paper examines the theoretical and policy implications of globalisation in Southeast Asia and argues that not only is globalisation threatening to unravel existing governmental practices in Southeast Asia, but that as a consequence we also need to re-think the way we understand core theoretical principles like sovereignty.

The Paradoxes of Paramountcy: Regional Rivalries and the Dynamics of American Hegemony in East Asia

It has become increasingly commonplace to describe the United States as hegemonic. And yet, despite America's dominant position at a number of levels strategic, political-economic and ideational, there are plainly limits to US hegemony. These limits and the enduring strengths of American hegemony are revealed quite clearly in East Asia. This paper critically assesses a number of theories of hegemony, and argues that the concept continues to provide a useful way of conceptualising America's evolving relationship with East Asia. Theories of hegemony can, with appropriate caveats, also help us to understand the limits to Chinese and Japanese power in the region; two countries that are routinely cited as potential hegemonic rivals

Globalisation, security and international order after 11 September

This article advances the discussion of the contentious question of links between global inequalities of power and violent responses, focussing on globalisation and non-inclusive forms of governance. Drawing on international political economy, the article criticises the nationstate-centrism in much political discourse, suggesting that both authority and security need to be reconsidered - to account for less plausible national borders and controls. It suggests that human security (including issues of development and equality) ought to replace national security as the primary focus of public policy. It draws attention to the intractability of difference, insisting that the terrorism of 2001 has complex transnational antecedents. Realist approaches to international order have become part of a problem to be overcome through further intellectual debate.

Moving and removing: relocation threatens people's wellbeing

The implications of relocation on Indigenous Australians

Australia's relationship with the United States: The case for greater independence

A number of recent events-especially attempts to negotiate a bilateral trade agreement and Australia's participation in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq(1)-have thrown Australia's relationship with the United States into sharp relief. While this relationship has historically enjoyed strong bilateral endorsement, such uncritical support is beginning to unravel. At the very least, the relationship is being subjected to a renewed, more critical scrutiny. This paper argues that a dispassionate analysis of the relationship is appropriate and overdue. Not only are the benefits that accrue to 'Australia' from the relationship debateable, even when judged within the limited calculus of the 'national interest', but Australia's uncritical support for US foreign policy is also helping to entrench potentially damaging aspects of American foreign policy and somewhat ironically-undermining the legitimacy of its pre-eminent 'hegemonic' position.