论文代写：东南亚安全建设
在本文中,作者认为在真正的区别在新建构主义知识东南亚和leifei一起的。当前的知识没有多少地方主义的问题,但重点是重要的条件。物质力量如早些时候出现这样的一个大国平衡有效的地区主义的先决条件被leifei一起视为物质力量。leifei一起关注较少的政治区域身份形成和规范动力学和也没有考虑这样的事实,他们有一个独立的对地区秩序的影响。
它已被证明在识别的论文作用形成和地区规范提供了一个更完整的了解东南亚地区主义包括失败和成就。这与leifei一起的外交和战略调查集中在地区的力量平衡。本文呈现一个更广泛的知识平台的亚洲安全秩序,制度建设和社会化观察区域的塑造者的权力平衡,也作为兼职教授的权力平衡动力学。作者提出了一个不同的东南亚的安全。失败或成功在东南亚地区主义是由观念的力量(包括政治身份和规范建筑)和大国平衡。
的结果已经在报纸上看到这告诉,如何在塑造东南亚地区秩序的规范具有重要意义。这一事实的基础上规范的违反发生非使用武力,反对越南入侵柬埔寨被视为安全威胁雅加达的共产主义政权普遍。规范在这些情况下的东盟成员国的反应在一个特定的方面,甚至在国家立场和问题的时候会在另一边。在这些情况下leifei一起的观点或多或少权力中心。本文作者认为东盟命运的解释是吝啬的,而不是部分(因为他们集中的地区力量平衡的变化在某种程度上是基于美国军事的存在)。
论文代写：东南亚安全建设
In this article the author has argued on the real difference amongst the newer constructivist knowledge off Southeast Asia and that of Leifer’s. The current knowledge isn’t much about the regionalism issues but focuses on the conditions under which it matters. Material forces such as the earlier presence of a great power balance like precondition for efficient regionalism was viewed as material force by Leifer. Less attention was paid by Leifer to politics of regional identity formation and norm dynamics and also didn’t take into account the fact that they had an independent impact on regional order.
It has been shown in the paper that role of identify formation and regional norms offer a more complete knowledge of the Southeast Asian regionalism which also includes the failures and achievements. This is in contrast with the Leifer’s diplomatic and strategic investigation which focused on the regional equilibrium of power. The article renders a platform for a more extensive knowledge of Asian security order wherein institution-building and socialization are to be observed as shapers of the regional balance of power and also as the adjuncts to the balance of power dynamics. The author has presented a different point of the Southeast Asian security. The failure or success regionalism in Southeast Asia is explained by ideational forces (which includes politics and norms of identity building) and also by the great-power balance.
A number of results have been seen in the paper which tells that how in shaping the regional order of Southeast Asia the norms mattered. On the basis of the fact that a violation of the norm of non-use of force has occurred, the opposition of Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia was regarded as a threat to security of Jakarta from the communist regime prevalent at that time. Norms in cases like these shaped the response of the members of ASEAN in a particular aspect, even at the times when national positions and concerns would have been on the other side. In these situations the view of Leifer was more or less power centric. The author in the article regards the explanation of the ASEAN fortune to be ungenerous and not partial (as they focused in the changes in the regional power balance which in a way was based on the presence of US military).
