Abstract
‘Architecture’ has emerged as the new catchphrase in Asian security politics. Despite its growing centrality, insufficient attention has thus far been given to defining the term, often leading to its imprecise usage. This article seeks to redress that shortcoming. It reviews the ways in which various scholars and practitioners have employed the term ‘security architecture’ and highlights the anomalies that their often differing employment has created. The article proposes a set of guidelines to aid conceptualisation and application of the term. In so doing it establishes criteria to ascertain what ‘security architecture’ actually exists in the Asian region, and must ultimately exist to assure regional security.
William T. Tow is Professor in International Security in the Department of International Relations, Australian National University. He is co-director of ANU projects for the McArthur Foundation's Asia Security Initiative and for the Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security. His most recent publication is the edited collection Security Politics in the Asia-Pacific: A Regional-Global Nexus? (Cambridge University Press, 2009).
Brendan Taylor is Senior Lecturer in the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University. He is the author of American Sanctions in the Asia-Pacific (Routledge, 2009) and is presently completing a monograph addressing the great power use of sanctions for the International Institute for Strategic Studies Adelphi series. He can be contacted at {brendan.taylor@anu.edu.au }.
Footnotes
* An earlier version of ‘What is Asian Security Architecture’ by William T. Tow and Brendan Taylor first appeared in ASEAN-India-Australia: Towards Closer Engagement in a New Asia edited by William T. Tow and Chin Kin Wah. Excerpts are reproduced here with the kind permission of the publishers, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore {http://bookshop.iseas.edu.sg}. The authors wish to thank Robert Ayson, Rosemary Foot, Bates Gill, Brian Job, Hiro Katsumata, Tang Shiping, Ole Wæver and the journal’s anonymous reviewers for their many helpful comments.