IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gig/chaktu/v39y2010i4p143-173.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Taiwan Dilemma: China, Japan, and the Strait Dynamic

Author

Listed:
  • Jason Blazevic

Abstract

Many Chinese and Japanese authorities believe Taiwan is essential to their respective states’ national security due to the island’s geographic centrality and beneficial proximity to nearby and distant sea lanes. Of further importance is Taiwan’s immediacy to territorial and resource disputes between China and Japan. This article focuses on the security concerns and strategies of both states and applies realism, its tenets of defensive and offensive realism, and neoliberalism in order to better comprehend those concerns and strategies and also provide probable solutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Jason Blazevic, 2010. "The Taiwan Dilemma: China, Japan, and the Strait Dynamic," Journal of Current Chinese Affairs - China aktuell, Institute of Asian Studies, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies, Hamburg, vol. 39(4), pages 143-173.
    • Handle: RePEc:gig:chaktu:v:39:y:2010:i:4:p:143-173
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hup.sub.uni-hamburg.de/giga/jcca/article/view/360
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wendt, Alexander, 1992. "Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(2), pages 391-425, April.
    2. Grieco, Joseph M., 1988. "Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: a realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(3), pages 485-507, July.
    3. Ruggie, John Gerard, 1998. "What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(4), pages 855-885, October.
    4. Brooks, Stephen G., 1997. "Dueling Realisms," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(3), pages 445-477, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shenkar Oded & Arikan Ilgaz, 2010. "Business as International Politics: Drawing Insights from Nation-State to Inter-Firm Alliances," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(4), pages 1-33, January.
    2. Benjamin Zyla, 2018. "Beyond the 2% fetishism: studying the practice of collective action in transatlantic affairs," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-11, December.
    3. Robert J. Hanlon, 2017. "Thinking about the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: Can a China-Led Development Bank Improve Sustainability in Asia?," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(3), pages 541-554, September.
    4. Shibashis Chatterjee, 2005. "Ethnic Conflicts in South Asia," South Asian Survey, , vol. 12(1), pages 75-89, March.
    5. Frederick Kliem, 2020. "Why Quasi-Alliances Will Persist in the Indo-Pacific? The Fall and Rise of the Quad," Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, , vol. 7(3), pages 271-304, December.
    6. Kuperman, Ranan, 2011. "Coping with Conflict:A Dynamic Decision Making Perspective," NEPS Working Papers 3/2011, Network of European Peace Scientists.
    7. James D. Fielder, 2022. "Ghosts of the Titanomachy: Structure, Commitment, Economics, and Risk as Causal Mechanisms in an Online Battle," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 53(3), pages 265-284, June.
    8. Dong-Joon Jo & Erik Gartzke, 2007. "Determinants of Nuclear Weapons Proliferation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 51(1), pages 167-194, February.
    9. Remi Maier-Rigaud, 2008. "International Organizations as Corporate Actors: Agency and Emergence in Theories of International Relations," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2008_07, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    10. Han, Xia & Lukoianove, Tatiana & Zhao, Shasha & Liu, Xiaohui, 2024. "International relations in international business research: A review and research agenda," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    11. Hoyoon Jung, 2019. "The Evolution of Social Constructivism in Political Science: Past to Present," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.
    12. Abdurrahim Sıradag˘, 2020. "Turkey’s Engagement with the African Organisations: Partner or Competitor?," India Quarterly: A Journal of International Affairs, , vol. 76(4), pages 519-534, December.
    13. James Ashley Morrison & Avery F. White, 2011. "International Regimes and War," Chapters, in: Christopher J. Coyne & Rachel L. Mathers (ed.), The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, chapter 18, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Jayati Srivastava & Ananya Sharma, 2014. "International Relations Theory and World Order," South Asian Survey, , vol. 21(1-2), pages 20-34, March.
    15. Harald Schoen, 2008. "Identity, Instrumental Self-Interest and Institutional Evaluations," European Union Politics, , vol. 9(1), pages 5-29, March.
    16. Sandberg, Kristin Ingstad & Andresen, Steinar & Bjune, Gunnar, 2010. "A new approach to global health institutions? A case study of new vaccine introduction and the formation of the GAVI Alliance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(7), pages 1349-1356, October.
    17. Kaplan Yilmaz, 2017. "China’s OBOR as a Geo-Functional Institutionalist Project," TalTech Journal of European Studies, Sciendo, vol. 7(1), pages 7-23, June.
    18. Michal Kolmas, 2016. "China’s Approach to Regional Cooperation," China Report, , vol. 52(3), pages 192-210, August.
    19. Eero Palmujoki, 2009. "Global principles for sustainable biofuel production and trade," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 135-151, May.
    20. Andrea Gerlak & Jonathan Lautze & Mark Giordano, 2011. "Water resources data and information exchange in transboundary water treaties," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 179-199, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gig:chaktu:v:39:y:2010:i:4:p:143-173. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Karsten Giese or Heike Holbig The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Heike Holbig to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dueiide.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.