Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 25 items for

  • Author or Editor: Brendan Howe x
  • Search level: All x
Clear All
Author: Brendan Howe

‘Econophoria’ is the hope that the solution of all governance challenges, whether international or domestic, can be sought through economic growth and development. It is prevalent in the East Asian region, where tremendous economic development success stories have gone hand-in-hand with lengthy periods without interstate war. This paper explores the theoretical underpinnings and antecedents for econophoria, and how it has manifest in practice in East Asia. It also raises, however, a number of questions which challenge the underlying assumptions of peace though trade and economic growth paradigms in East Asia. How does the skewed wealth distribution that is associated with macro-economic growth affect the internal stability and peace of the societies in East Asia? Does this have an impact on the propensity of the governments to contain the conflicts they have with their neighbours at a level of low tension? Is the pursuit of economic growth prior to, or at the expense of, human rights and the wellbeing of the most vulnerable sustainable in the contemporary international operating environment?

Free access
In: Asian International Studies Review
In: The Legality and Legitimacy of the Use of Force in Northeast Asia
Author: Brendan Howe

Abstract

Many states in the East Asian region (including Northeast and Southeast subregions) are moving away from traditional state-centric governance notions towards accepting a localised variant of ‘sovereignty as responsibility’ that allows for criticism of domestic policies and limited diplomatic pressure in the event of humanitarian crises. There has been acceptance of the cosmopolitan governance principles of human security and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Despite convergence on the R2P however, East Asian states maintain a pluralistic understanding of what it implies and its relationship with human security. Furthermore, refugees form one of the most vulnerable groups in the region precisely because of an ongoing resistance in recognising responsibility for their protection. This paper addresses the performance of different agencies of governance (at the national and international level) in fulfilling their R2P obligations towards North Korean refugees and the Rohingya, the two most prominent (and controversial) regional refugee groups.

Full Access
In: Global Responsibility to Protect
Editor-in-Chief: Brendan Howe
Individuals are eligible for free access to the Asian International Studies Review until 31 December 2022, using access token AISR4U. Click here for more information.

The Asian International Studies Review (AISR) is a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal published in coordination with the Ewha Graduate School of International Studies (GSIS) and the Institute for International and Area Studies (IIAS). It is a registered journal at the Korea Research Foundation, has been listed by the Korea Citation Index (KCI) since 2010, and in 2018 was accepted for listing with Scopus. The AISR is the official journal of both the Korean International Studies Association (KISA) and the Asian Political and International Studies Association (APISA).

The principal aim of AISR is to advance international studies research broadly defined to include international relations, international economics, international security, international law, development cooperation, comparative politics, international trade and investment, international business, and Asian and cross-cultural studies. It also supports networking and the exchange of ideas between academics and practitioners across disciplines, countries, and regions in order to give a greater voice to scholars of the international interactions of Asia and to Asian-based scholars of international affairs.

AISR welcomes submissions of standard research articles (5,000-10,000 words)

For editorial queries and proposals, please contact the AISR Editorial Office.

Asian International Studies Review is published by Brill on behalf of and with the endorsement of the Institute for International and Area Studies.
Full Access
  • Print + Online €406.00$470.00
  • Print Only €372.00$432.00
  • Online only €338.00$392.00
  • For further information, contact your sales manager
Author: Brendan M. Howe

Ten years on, the impact of the inaction of the international community during the Rwandan crisis is still being felt. This article considers normative, legal, and realpolitik constraints operating upon decision- makers, contending that the first two should have enabled decision- makers to authorize intervention if not actually requiring them so to do, and that the international community's non-intervention in genocide was, therefore, due to considerations of national interest. However, international law played a significant role in framing excuses for inaction, and the end of the crisis saw international decision-makers having their hands forced by pressure &om their internal and external communities, promising that non-state-centric humanitarian considerations could play a greater role in future conflicts such as Kosovo and Sudan. Thus this article demonstrates not only that liberal claims of a new world order at the end of the Cold War were premature, but also that post-Rwanda power-political considerations no longer fully explain normative war-fighting decision-making.

Free access
In: Asian International Studies Review
In: Peacekeeping and the Asia-Pacific
In: Peacekeeping and the Asia-Pacific
In: Peacekeeping and the Asia-Pacific
Full Access
In: Peacekeeping and the Asia-Pacific