CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 564International Relations and Foreign PolicyHistorical Geopolitical and Social DynamicsGlobal Peace and Security Dynamics

Why is There No NATO in Asia? Collective Identity, Regionalism, and the Origins of Multilateralism

Open access
Hemmer, Christopher, Katzenstein, Peter J.·2002·International Organization
DOI 10.1162/002081802760199890
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In this paper, we explain why the U.S. government chose multilateral security arrangements in Europe and bilateral ones in Asia in the 1940s and 1950s. After reviewing the inadequacies of a number of universal and indeterminate explanations, we put forward three explanations—great power status, efficient responses to threats, and regional identity—which rely on the combination of material and social forces for their explanatory power. Starting with common rationalist explanations that focus on material capabilities and institutional efficiency to explain the forms of international cooperation, we add to them the important effect that America's collective identity had on the formulation of its foreign policy goals. U.S. policymakers believed that the United States was a natural part of the North Atlantic community but that Southeast Asia was part of an alien political community. This difference helped drive the U.S. government to adopt divergent policies in two regions that, far from being natural, were constructed politically only in the 1940s. We conclude by pointing to the advantage of eclectic combinations of rationalist and constructivist insights, with an extension to the politics of regional collective identity in the 1990s.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/002081802760199890

Cites

134 of 134 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Institutionalist scholarship is now open to more nuanced, subtle, and contingent formulations than those suggested by rigid standard approaches.

    “In sum, institutionalist scholarship is now open to more nuanced, subtle, and contingent formulations than those suggested by rigid standard approaches.”

    From The Genesis, Design and Effects of Regional Institutions: Lessons from East Asia and the Middle East (2008) · cites this paper as Hemmer and Katzenstein (2002)

  • Norm-based institutional accounts have largely disregarded systematic explanations of domestic changes related to internationalization.

    “Given EA's unparalleled integration in the global economy, it is particularly baffling that norm-based institutional accounts have largely disregarded systematic explanations of domestic changes related to internationalization.”

    From The Genesis, Design and Effects of Regional Institutions: Lessons from East Asia and the Middle East (2008) · cites this paper as [41]

    The Abstract says neoliberal institutionalism has focused largely on successful Western institutions, and Universal Explanations says existing accounts fail to explain differing U.S. approaches to Europe and Asia. Neither passage addresses whether norm-based institutional accounts have disregarded explanations of domestic changes related to internationalization. Searches for “internationalization” and domestic transformation found no passage making that point. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Alagappa, Muthia. 2000. Asia-Pacific Regional Security Order: Introduction and Analytical Framework. Paper prepared for the Second Workshop, Security Order in the Asia-Pacific, 29 May-2 June, Bali, Indonesia.
  2. Cowhey, Peter F. 1993. Elect Locally-Order Globally: Domestic Politics and Multilateral Cooperation. In Multilateralism Matters: The Theory and Praxis of an Institutional Form, edited by John Gerard Ruggie, 157-200. New York: Columbia University Press.
  3. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
  4. Destler, I. M., Leslie H. Gelb, and Anthony Lake. 1988. Breakdown: The Impact of Domestic Politics on American Foreign Policy. In The Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence, edited by Charles W. Kegley and Eugene R. Wittkopf, 17-29. New York: St. Martin's Press.
  5. Kohno, Masaru. 1996. Limits of Neoliberal Institutionalism: Learning from the Failure of Multilateral Institutions in East Asian Security. Paper presented at the conference organized jointly by the Japan Association of International Studies and the International Studies Association, Makuhari, Japan.
  6. Lauren, Paul Gordon. 1988. Power and Prejudice: The Politics of Diplomacy and Racial Discrimination. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
  7. Nau, Henry. 2002. Identity and Power in American Foreign Policy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
  8. Nolt, James H. 1999. Liberalizing Asia. World Policy Journal. 16 (2):94-l 18.
  9. Rusk, Dean, and Khomen Thanat. 1962. Joint Statement, Washington, 6 March 1962. The Department of State Bulletin 46 (1187):498-99.
  10. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
  11. Ullman, Richard. 1999. The U.S. and the World: An Interview with George Kennan. New York Review of Books 46 (13):4-6. No NATO in Asia 607
  12. U.S. Department of State. 1984. Foreign Relations of The United States: 1952-1954. Vol. 12, East Asia and the Pacific, Part I. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  13. Williams, Lee E. 1976. Southeast Asia: A Short History. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hemmer, C., & Katzenstein, P. J.
Venue
International Organization
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2002
Volume
56
Issue
3
Pages
575-607
ISSN
  • 0020-8183 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-5088
DOI
10.1162/002081802760199890
OpenAlex
W2155538275
Cited by
564
References
134
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 54 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 20
FWCI
81.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 554 d)
Locations
  • International Organization (publishedVersion)
  • Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Historical Geopolitical and Social Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Global Peace and Security Dynamics
Keywords
NATO, multilateralism, regionalism, collective identity, US foreign policy, Southeast Asia, North Atlantic, great power status, regional identity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review