Page 1 of 19
HIERARCHY IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: KANG'S RESEARCH PROGRAM
AND SECURITY IMPLICATIONS
Introduction
Kang's hierarchical approach to international security dynamics
Kang’s hierarchy theory of international system is a novel innovative paradigm which
can be used to look at the structures of power with regards to states. Comparing with other
authors who regarded states as clearly defined unitary players in the international system, Kang
supposes that the latter is made up of several nested hierarchies taking into account the
differences of states in economic-military-cultural terms. In the same regard, Kang holds that the
hegemons like the US occupies the pinnacle in many hierarchal, but middle powers and the
developing states also exercise leadership and power within issues based hierarchies of
regionalism that is based on the regional blocks, economic cooperation organizations and global
governance institutions. It is this superior, differential form of registering power that soothes
enables a much finer understanding of the current world system which foregrounds global power
transiting from unipolar billiard of distribution. Kang mentions that it is possible that even if a
state is seen as powerless or less powerful in an international political system, quite often when
seen from the hegemonic hierarchy perspective, they could actually be a hegemon in a specific
and particular domain which might consist of climate change sensitivity, or arms control treaties
and so on. His bend enables the viewer to randomly comprehend the counterintuitive diplomatic
and political agency of states within the Global South. What it does offer is a conceptual tool kit
that is designed to define and measure the amount and kind of leadership responsibilities the top
‘Echo-primordial’ or mid-ranked ‘non-primordial’ countries, such as Canada or Australia, carry.
Introducing a new vision of the tiers of the hierarchy on the international level, Kang has
suggested a strong paradigm for understanding the interconnection of the powers and leaders in
the context of globalization. His approach is a hermeneutic intervention into the unipolarity/
hegemony discussion which we think has problematic implications of a realist politics of power
defined overwhelmingly in terms of clear, empirical indicators.
Challenging power balance theories in global security structures
Page 2 of 19
The learned realist theories pertaining to the relative distribution of power have hence
continued to endure fundamental positions in the discourses on the architectures of security in
world politics. It therefore posits that in a system of major states and alliances, balanced by
power the system attains structural stability and therefore the attainment of a state of peace. This
idea has formed the basis of such structures as NATO or the permanent members of the United
Nations Security Council – the world attains balance when all sides accumulate and flaunt
menacing military might. Taking into account that the globalization processes have become more
intense and the geopolitical characteristics of the 21st century seem to be dominative it may be
necessary to address the suitability of those more traditional views on the balance of power that
rely heavily on the possession of the hard military capabilities as the major source of security. It
is possible to note that these orthodoxies play an important role as a background for defining
power relations, so there is a need to question them by presenting new frameworks that would
encompass more aspects of power: There is the economic, diplomatic, cultural, and normative
interaction. This should also entail enhancement of the power of the putative wider
representations through restructuring of the currently dominant International Governance
Institutions, which have hitherto been in the domain of the imperialistic powers, mostly the
United States of America, Russia, and other post-imperial Western European States. That is, laid
bare the axioms and the mechanisms for the modern concept of the security architecture requires
transition from the bipolar balance of power today and beginning the multilateral system with the
emerging multi pole the masters of such frameworks and power in cooperation in the global
socio-economic development, based on the indicators different from military ones. This will help
to create improved demeanor of justice that is security in the context of the distribution of the
globe power through provision of prosperity to all rather than construction of antagonistic poles
that entails power and military contestations.
East Asian historical models informing contemporary security paradigms
East Asia, specifically, has developed different types of security consistent with the
character of the necessitate of the region’s security. Policies like Sino and tributary system,
Japanese bakufu model, and neutral policies of Korea were rooted in traditional Orient’s thought
process along with power politics of South East Asian region. These historical precedents remain
relevant to understanding the contemporary security architectures of East Asian states as they
Page 3 of 19
have chosen to adapt select elements of the historical models. For instance, knowledge of the
Chinese tribute system will assist in understanding Beijing’s quest for dominance in the region
by economic and institutional authority different from forceful military might. Likewise, today’s
Tokyo policymakers refer to bakufu-era isolationism as a model they need to emulate when
enhancing the Japan Self-Defense Forces’ indigenous capabilities. Thus, the traditions of
Korea’s ‘shrimp among whales’ geopolitics and long-standing status as a buffer state are also
reflected in its balancing strategy towards Washington, Beijing, and Tokyo today. In a broader
sense, the traditional East Asian realist thinking in its absence of the import of Western
ideological premises and moralism provide the foundation to many of today’s modern realpolitic,
multi-layered diplomacy, and pragmatic allying structures. However, attempts to return to other
historical models of East Asian regionalization also contain a potential threat of increasing
conflict and instability, such as in the form of zero-sum attempts to assert mutually exclusive
spheres of influence. Therefore the structures of security in contemporary East Asia can be said
to be a combination of endogenous practice adjusted for the contemporary society from the
traditional one and the exogenous practice borrowed from the Western societies. While the
region continues to confront the emergence of nationalism and strengthening of great power
competition it is high time to seek for the best balance between the past and present.
Hierarchical Structures in International Security Systems
Formal vs. informal security hierarchies: implications
The power in structures in organization is a key ingredient that can easily cause havoc in
organizational structures, employees and employers’ relationships as well as the organizational
culture. Formal structures has been described as official organizational structures which are well
defined, black and white relationships of authority backed up by written policies and procedures
on security roles and responsibilities, rights and power to recommend or discipline. These aim at
checking on the level of co-ordination of the security management activities and also check
whether the activities are within the set standard. Still, if the formal controls are excessively
specific and strict, they might hinder informal communication between and within departments,
limit the freedom of speech and initiative, and act as demotivating factors if the employees feel
they have to work in an oppressive environment filled with bureaucratic red tape. However, the
structural ones are the clear and official relations resulting from the established interpersonal
Page 4 of 19
relations, norms, the degree of seniority, and the presumed totem of the authority. Employing the
casual structure of the hierarchy as the decision makers offer discretion, freedom of making
judgment, and freedom to choose the nature of security in relation to the situation at hand but the
decision-makers are prone to bias, arbitrariness, and favoritism – the ‘who you know’ rather than
the ‘what you know’. Inability to clarify and affect informal authorities can as well increase the
chances of misconduct where there are perceived bias in the execution of rules or where there are
hints that rules are often twisted or violated by individuals in a preferable position. Each of these
security systems has its flaw – a number of rather rigid and formalized on the one hand, and too
permissive, not very strict on the other hand. Ideally, an organization should utilize both rational/
bureaucratic mechanism that is founded on official regulation and formal compliance on one
hand, and emergent/natural system that relies on social activities among players on the other.
On the other hand in official hierarchies there are laid down ethical standards, work
description of a given official or organization is well defined, officials and organizations
responsible for overseeing the hierarchies are also held accountable and mostly there is stability
of operation. Nevertheless, certain areas of freedom in interpersonal relations, communication,
and work-related decisions enable employees to experience such respect, esteem, and self-
interest with regard to security as an organizational culture rather than as a formal regulation
from above. The most robust security cultures therefore guarantee a combined sharing of the
reports by related segments on the other hand while retaining the formal security processes’
efficiency and efficacy. Thus, the integration of both formal and informal communication
practices can be regarded as rather promising as it enables reaching successful results in case of
both tight and loose security hierarchies; at the same time, it means that leaders always face
definite risks and contradictions that are inevitable in security cultures. What this is saying is that
it is important for organizations to keep on checking up on this balance because priorities
change, new technologies come up, the composition of the work force is not constant, and new
threats present themselves.
Cultural acceptance of hierarchical security arrangements
Vertical structures of security where some people, or specific cultures in a given society,
have more power and decision-making authority over security matters than others have prevailed
throughout human history. The extent to which similar distributions of security power can be
Page 5 of 19
accepted by a given culture also bears relations with its evolution and the arguments given for
such differential ascription within that cultural matrix. In collectivist societies where people
value conformity a lot, security systems of organizations that are associated with hereditary
mobility or nobility or priesthood or royal families may easily be accepted without people asking
too many questions. The masses obey the security power consolidation amongst a few people
since cultural myths and narratives portray such arrangements as inherent and inexorable
components of the cosmic structure and the divine plan. On the other hand, in liberal democratic
cultures with the rejection of authority and hierarchy, there would be more conflicts with security
structures that invest power and force in the hands of a few elites who are not accountable to the
people or institutions of democracy. While collectivist cultures are more likely to embrace a
hierarchical framework for the organization of society, individualist cultures are likely to have
more built-in expectations for meritocracy, social mobility, and limited use of power that are
inapplicable to hierarchical security systems maintaining a status quo distribution of power.
Therefore, the sustainability of hierarchy-based security institutions as cultural attributes is
predicated importantly on the balance between the respect for hereditary values and authorities
that foster hierarchy versus the ongoing debates on power redistribution processes based largely
on appeals to heredity, divinity, or brute force not accountable to the people’s wills and needs.
Any security hierarchy is required to constantly justify itself within the dynamics of altering
cultural perceptions because if the existing hierarchy is considered increasingly as illegitimate,
there would be non-compliance and reformist movements as well as security order crisis.
Consequently, the durability of inequitable security structures arises from their harmonization
within the changing cultural landscape over time, which is able to take a turn toward portraying
accountability and transparency by mirroring more of a community feel.
Legitimacy in hierarchical international security relationships
Legitimacy is an important factor in the more hierarchical structures of international
security relationships and when a super power seeks to coerce other countries in the pretext of
security, there is likely to be hostility since hierarchy has low level of legitimacy. Some of the
sources of legitimacy are; Perceived competence, Ethicality, Perceived compatibility in such
areas as; Values, Interests and identities. For instance, NATO has retained its security structure
that it had during the time of Cold War mainly because its members continue to have common
Page 6 of 19
objectives of checking Russian aggression and have similar political systems and political
cultures. This affords legitimacy to the major NATO powers inclusive of the US to some extent
within the alliance. However, the Iraq War significantly damaged the US’s legitimacy when it
got caught in a lie about the possession of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and proceeded to
unilaterally invade Iraq, overthrow Saddam Hussein, and later manage the occupation
ineffectively, from the perspective of many allies. This argued legitimacy significantly reduced
America’s ability to secure allied cooperation for future security endeavours for several years. It
is good to note that China now aims to exert its power in Asia, but has such challenges of
legitimacy because its regime is authoritarian and it has aggressively asserted itself in the South
China Sea. This pressure might destabilize any hierarchy in the region before it is cemented,
further coercion from the Chinese. Power and hierarchy that come out more consciously and in a
more pluralistic manner like the Association of Southeast Asian Nations or ASEAN can be more
legitimate since the institutions are made and supported by the members and the principles of
these society s are interested in stability and development. Thus, the dominant states need to
create and maintain legitimate authority, which comes with material and nonmaterial resources
such as consensus over who belongs to the hierarchy and competence in providing the security
that will sustain the hierarchy. The feeling of illegitimacy in any way harms seriously
compliance under a security order. This means that legitimacy demands that force should be used
sparingly and with caution since the use of blatant force has a way of cutting the relationship
between unequal partners and their juniors based on common parallel interests and values.
East Asian Security Models: Historical Hierarchical Perspectives
Tribute system's stabilizing effect on regional security
Paying tribute in East Asia from the first millennium CE on, was generally a stabilizing
force on the security of the region. Under this system, the smaller state would pay tribute to the
larger and more powerful state acknowledging that this state dominated the area while receiving
a certain amount of autonomy and protection in return. For instance, kingdoms in areas now
known as Vietnam, Korea and Ryukyu Islands from China paid tribute intermittently for
hundreds of years. This enabled them to do so without being fully subdued by china while china
on the other hand got the recognition of its superior power and the novelty luxuries that often
accompanied tributary missions. The outcome was more often mutual cooperation, trading, and
Page 7 of 19
exchanging rather than war-like intentions for territorial gains. Tribute system thus created a
rather loose China-centered regional order that was win-win in nature while the fact that hard
military and economic capabilities were clearly distributed in asymmetrical manner. Of course,
all of the stabilizing effects were not without some boundaries, and occasionally there were
issues pertaining to status differences and defining the nature of the relationships. The receiving
states considered tribute as recognition of their superiority and power while the sending states
misunderstood the relationship as one of equality or even superiority or the relationship was
portrayed as self-sufficient by the sending states. Hence grave insult could be inflicted if the
receiving states treated tributary missions irrespectively. Likewise, receiving states might
meddle, sometimes even with armed force, if they perceived that the sending states were drifting
too far afield or had been ensnared into the orbit of other powers from beyond the region. It
could also disintegrate over time due to external forces; the beginning of the European intrusions
especially the Portuguese and the Spanish in the 16th century distorted the existing order.
However, the fact that the tribute system survived in some way, shape or form for more than
2000 years indicates that how it set up a system of predictable interstate interactions was
consistent with regional conventions. The tribute which was given in return for independence
was more realistic than the straightforward control that the Western imperialist powers tried to
achieve. Thus it can be admitted that while not perfect, the tribute system did make a significant
contribution towards the general stability of the region in its era.
Confucian principles in hierarchical security diplomacy
The quintessential Confucian concepts of order, coordination, and propriety in
interpersonal relationships and social interactions have shaped the security diplomacy and
foreign policies of East Asian nations for many years. The fundamental principle of realism rests
on the belief that states should negotiate in a way that is akin to familial relationships, where one
state is like the father to another state that is like a son, or one is the elder brother and the other
the younger brother. Senior and junior partners must be looked at as having reciprocal
responsibilities and duties that are based on beneficent intentions from the side of the former and
faithful devotion from the side of the latter. This results in indirect communication, face control
during bargaining, the use of moral high ground instead of legalities during conflict, and
regulation based on protocol instead of regulations. The PRC in the past considered itself as the
Page 8 of 19
culturally superior ‘middle kingdom’ commanding a tributary system in Asia. The neighboring
countries observed Chinese over lordship and the rank order of the region by paying regular
tribute in the form of local products to the Chinese monarch’s court. They got gifts, trade
venturing, and implied security assurances in return. This means that instead of clear agreements
and contracts, of mutual nonaggression and cooperation, of a diplomatic system of interstate
relations grounded in conventions and laws, a system of ranked rituals governed the region. As
the opium wars disturbed this systematic approach, China has gradually assimilated some
elements of western diplomatic practices and procedures while continuing to operate on the basic
principles and prejudices of Confucianism. For instance, China still employs cultural and
educational diplomacy strategies to domesticate foreign audiences and policy makers with the
spirit of appealing to their reason to accept Chinese pre-eminence through persuasion and
voluntary obedience rather than through coercive compliance.
In the case of information exchange, it turns more to personal contacts of leaders than
contracts to assure the partners of its continuous commitment to the relationships. Thus, Chinese
diplomats still continue to favor subtle diplomatic negotiations where no specific country is
named compared to formal collective agreements where all parties are equal. The Sino-centric
diplomacy that emerged from China’s candidature has a Confucianical approach which defines
how china engages the fresh regional security structures like the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization and the ASEAN Regional Forum, which creates concerns in the West and even
some of China’s Asian counterparts to believe that although the language used by China may be
‘win-win’, mutual benefit or harmonization, it is indeed China’s reassertion of the natural order
and rightful place at the top of the Asian pecking order. It is still rather questionable if Confucian
relational approach in one case and the straightforward rule-oriented Western in the other can be
mutually incorporated and effectively used in constructing a cooperative and peaceful order in
the region. All the parties involved in the conflict will need to exert diplomatic acumen in the
sense that is appropriate in the management of conflicts.
Adapting hierarchical security norms to power shifts
With the shifting of global dynamics, as developing countries push for a change in power
distribution, from America’s post-Second World War hegemony to Asian giants like China, the
world has had to search for new rules and regulations that can govern security relations in the
Page 9 of 19
contemporary world. Bureaucratic security structures created after the Second World War also
seem anachronistic, like the United Nations Security Council made up of five permanent
members that have the right of veto, which are not relevant to today’s power balance. Ascent
powers such as India, Brazil and other are part of the new global security structure, but the
question is? Changing overly bureaucratic structures threatens to sacrifice structure and outcome
effectiveness; however, lack of changes threatens to further marginalize these countries, create
dual systems, and enhance fragmentation. Balancing this is not a matter of figuring out the best
solution but would call for accuracy, keeping of lines of communication open, readiness by all
parties to give in, and probably gradual shifts over a long period. This is unlike radical
transformation that is characterized by abrupt shocks and changes, the gradualist approach can
build the new world order to accommodate the new powers gradually without causing disruption
to the system. For example, increasing the number of seats in the Security Council nonpermanent
rotation to have more opportunities to be present frequently to major emerging economies while
keeping the permanent membership and their veto rights is more representative while sustaining
stability and order. It has been pointed out that such interim half-way measures can in no way
compensate for the need for radical reorganisation of authority and responsibilities in line with
shifts in power relations. However, they can purchase time for deliberative adjustment processes
to occur, as is the case with the strategic development of biodefense capabilities. With the
change of dynamics in relation to relative might, assimilation of ascending powers must
accelerate to facilitate stable power transitions. The alternative threats are instability and conflict.
In the end, archetypes sustaining global security have to align themselves with this emerging
distribution between hard and soft power in compelling nation states. Yet challenging and
overturning these archaic power structures are not easy and cannot be done within a short time
frame.
Hierarchy's Influence on International Conflict and Cooperation
Power disparities affecting interstate conflict probabilities
Some of the ways that have been described are: The power relations in the states may be
used to predict the probability of conflict between the different states. In particular, if one of the
states of the dyad has become considerably stronger than the other either through own’s
development or through the formation of military alliances, then the tendency towards the use of
Page 10 of 19
force in disputes is likely to decrease. This is because the costs of war rise for the weaker party
with the growing distance in terms of power, discouraging the side of the weaker player from
starting a conflict and preventing the side of the stronger player from performing preemptive
attacks. On the other hand, other studies indicate that moderate power asymmetries are
conducive to influence and might even enhance the likelihood that conflict will erupt when
power dynamics evolve swiftly. In these cases, the rising state is a state that is increasing its
capability and interests in a war, while the declining state has more to lose, which makes
preventive war possible. However, when one-sided dominance of capabilities is established, the
likelihood for conflict decreases because the superiority level is already too massive for the less-
powerful state to have any chance of defeating the more powerful one. Some of the major wars
in which the powers of the opposing sides are vastly different are rare. Thus, in the context of
polarity between the competing states, the high level of polarity definitely leads to the absence of
war and potential conflicts However, rather stable shifts from the parity to moderate levels of
asymmetry are increasing the level of tension and potential conflicts. However, the preventive
logic for war reduces once more with large scale inequalities being established. This goes some
way towards explaining why, in history, it is not unusual for conflict to occur when there is an
emerging power challenge but when there is a clear dominant power, as there is today with
America, then there is little chance of a rival power emerging and so, such periods are more
stable. Parity transition management is therefore an essential matter of foreign policy. It is noted
that power asymmetry and incentives for military confrontations have tipping points and
counterintuitive dynamics which are studied by historians and political scientists. Capturing the
subtleties is important to global stability as the last name implies.
Hierarchical expectations in security crisis management
A security crisis management system is essentially dependent on a sound organizational
hierarchy and role definitions between the various tiers. In a crisis situation, order and structure
are essential, thus, everyone involved must have a role to play. Organizational-top management
establishes goals, directions as well as overall objectives and key activities. This means they
cannot afford to get wrapped up into operational concerns or issues. Instead, mid-level tactical
managers interpret and convert the strategic information into an operational course of action.
which involves specification of the roles of various staff, the flow of information, and clear
Page 11 of 19
specific goals in the immediate future. The mid-level managers get to be involved at the tactical
level mainly due to the clear responsibilities and structured process in place. They monitor new
trends in real-time, modify their strategies and allocate resources accordingly and make sure the
senior managers are up to date. Precisely on the frontlines, junior staff just implements a tactical
action plan strictly on paper. They gather information, report and cooperate with other agencies
and carry out any related physical functions. Lack of voer autonomy means that junior staff do
not plan but rather execute whatever has been directed to them by their seniors. The hierarchical
approach avoids confusion and redundancy so that each line of reporting has a clear and
differentiated set of responsibilities. It also allows for the prompt formulation and
implementation of joint initiatives at the organizational level. Rigid structures entail lines of
strict power and authority, which also restrain the sharing of information. It becomes evident that
crisis management calls for certain levels of hierarchy, but at the same time, it cannot allow for
complete secrecy. Even junior staffs who are more in the frontline can notice details and signs
that are not visible to the higher ranking strategists. So it is incumbent on leaders to encourage
everyone to share their ideas and feedback. Once gathered, effective strategies can move to the
next level in an organization’s hierarchy for usage. Likewise, it is the responsibility of the senior
leadership to translate the formulated strategies to the operational, technical, and even the staff-
management level. It has a two-way process which serves as means of making sure every
individual is in harmony with the overall goal. As has been stated time and time again, the
execution of orders in a crisis defines the results. Synchronizing priorities with the organizational
hierarchy helps to achieve the business’s goals and objectives.
Cultural understandings facilitating security conflict resolution
On the security aspect, one can argue that participants’ cultural perceptions can do much
for addressing the conflict as it is an inter-cultural endeavor. Occasionally, the existent
controversies are a kind of which arise from a misunderstanding, or even sheer cultural
insensitivity between the two parties. In this capacity, they can focus onto the intercultural
competencies in order to reduce prejudice and there establish a framework of the cause of
conflict and stepping stone to efficient peace. It is crucial to start the cultural conflict analysis by
identifying cultural spectacles, cultural orientations, and perceptions of the conflicting parties.
When done carefully, competent mediators acquainted with the cultures averse to each other will
Page 12 of 19
be able to identify these essential cultural variables that define the conflict mostly in relation to
resource competition, historical prejudice or prevention of whatever they deem to be their
identity. It is once such paradigms that one could map and subsequently construct the related
patterns of interaction in line with cultural-discursive reason and ultimately secure the
counterparty’s trust and ensuing obedience. It also has a significant interpreting function,
namely, in raising the consciousness of both parties about the corresponding cultural mentality
toward business when bargaining, and improving their awareness of possible contacts. As it has
already been said, if there are ever such inalienable clashes of the parties’ identity or their
underlying culture, the competent mediators are always searching for equi-cultured interfaces
where two cultures’ positive feedbacks may be directed towards the goals to be achieved.
Gradually, there is an even more significant slowing down of the process of perceiving the
‘other’ as having an absolutely and independently hostile relation to reality. Also, mediators can
employ cultural scripts such as the narrative, rite, and the performativity acted out scripts of one
or both cultural mediator with the aim of ‘re-opening’ the silenced communication or to give
voice to the other. War has inaccurate and omitted several components of cultures while
unveiling their hidden dealings, but sustainable peace is still possible because societies’
directions can be altered by the possession of such information through Intellitactics. Therefore,
it is indeed possible to take this dialogue, which has a long history, to the next level and promote
the development of the cross-cultural relationship, using the principles of cooperation based on
tolerance and patience.
Contemporary Hierarchical Analysis in Global Security
China's hierarchical approach to regional security order
In this case, China has been more aggressive in engineering the top-down approach
towards fashioning the architecture of security in Asia. First as regards the domestic concerns,
the most important are to ensure the stability of political and social situation in China and the
monopoly power of the CCP. In this direction China wants to preserve the rate of growth and
development which is so essential for it, and balance is essential in global environment. This has
forced China to negotiate diplomatically through multilateral agencies and its relationships
within the countries in this region to de-escalate the conflict and encourage the development of
business. However, China has ambitions to dominate Asia, remove the Americans as leaders of
Page 13 of 19
the continent and be on top instead. Thus, although China is engaging in international economy
and is at this point becoming a member of this international economy, international power such
as military and diplomacy is used to control and defend territories including Taiwan and the East
and the South China Seas. In this regard, China practices aggressive diplomacy in conductive
shows force and power and resort to occupation and the military control of territory; and commit
economic predation by the use of threats of trade and the use of tourism to change the territorial
and normative facts on the ground to its own choosing. China also has regional public good
offering mechanisms like infrastructure investments to offset the concern of a hegemonic China.
It gives China a stick and a carrot whereby it can get economic support and forge new realities
on the ground without necessarily instigating large-scale conflict However due to China’s agenda
to restructure the region with the view of establishing and recognizing Chinese dominance,
willingness of other regional actors with their own self-interests as well as mutual suspicion of
china within the perspectives of the Japanese, Australians and Indians leads to strategies of
hedging. Thus, hierarchy describes the security architecture that the Chinese leadership would
prefer for Asia; at the same time, a balance of power – a system of intersecting dependencies and
competitive nationalisms – is more appropriate to characterize the current context of the region’s
security. China strives to create its own hierarchy At the same time, China has to embody
nationalism and the role of the system of allied relationships that are still the basis of the Asian
security outlook.
Middle powers' security strategies in hierarchical systems
Middle powers' security strategies in hierarchical systems are situated between great
powers and small powers, possessing more power than the latter but not as much as the former.
These security concerns reflect the rank and status that the European Member States occupy in
this hierarchy. Unlike great powers, middle powers do not possess the latent capacities or
military might that enables them to rely on the threat of force or use of force to guarantee
security. It is a way to seek ways of asserting their power in what has come to be known as soft
power diplomacy and forming alliances without engaging in policies that will offend certain
states. They want to ensure their security through international integration, engagement in
alliances and multilateral formations, and participation in international institutions as well as
governance structures where they can ‘exercise more influence than their capabilities would
Page 14 of 19
warrant’. Middle powers strive to transform rules, norms and decision-making processes within
these organisations to their benefit. Another approach is the multilateral coalition-building – such
as North-South partnerships or ‘niche diplomacy’ – in foreign policy sectors where middle
powers can demonstrate more of an entrepreneurial role, in these areas as conflict resolution,
environmental protection, and human rights. As middle powers, these countries especially prefer
to avoid confrontation and instead advocate for the use of negotiations and bargaining in
identifying gains from cooperation. Nevertheless, they cannot fully integrate themselves into the
two systems as they also need to retain a certain degree of independence and ensure against
being left alone or dominated by the GPs. Middle powers may adopt soft balancing measures if
institutions or great powers collapse or become spoilers and may engage in organizational
critique and containment within organizational forums. In totality, middle power security
policies mirror their mid-tier structural status – affirming institutional entrenchments and
cooperative stewardship in niches while mitigating great power dominance through soft-
balancing shenanigans. The tensions between cooperation and autonomy provide the backdrop
for middle powers’ efforts to secure positions as enablers or coordinators of processes and
structures that encourage stability rather than change and subversion of existing orders while
potentially upsetting the great powers within the existing international system.
ASEAN's security mediation in hierarchical regional dynamics
In the last few decades, the Association of South East Asian Nations or ASEAN has
contributed tremendously to the security architecture in the Southeast Asian region. As a
comparatively weak organization of the states and an SMRB in a geographical area between
Southeast Asia and two great powers, China and India, on the one hand, and a rapidly rising
economic and military power of Bangladesh on the other, ASEAN has had to uphold both the
external and internal stability. During the first stage of ASEAN development after its formation
in 1967, the aims were largely based on the principle of maintaining peace and security, conflict
and superpowers’ intervention avoidance. But after the Cold War era, and the emergence of new
structures, ASEAN has slowly assumed more active mediation in regards to the security of the
area. For instance, ASEAN launched the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in 1994 as the
mechanism for the more official dialogue between ASEAN and other major players in the region
on the political and security concerns. ARF is a forum that allows major powers to engage in
Page 15 of 19
dialogue and coordinate their approaches to regional security policies; At the same time, it is a
venue where ASEAN can influence the dynamics of the discussions through the use of group’s
soft diplomatic power derived from consensus decision-making. ASEAN has also been involved
in resolving conflict of territories between the member countries such as through the DOC or the
Declaration on the Conduct of parties in the South China Sea. While the declaration is an
unsourced statement, it was an effective move to have ASEAN collectively stand against the
Chinese claims thus easing tension. Nevertheless, ASEAN is still weak in its capacity to compel
dominant actors including the regional hegemons such as China into binding dispute settlement
systems, which points to the fact that the element of hierarchy persists in the new architecture
where small players have entrée but little agency. Based on the current trends and projections,
ASEAN’s geopolitical position seems poised to become increasingly fraught with great power
competition between the US and China. When it comes to dealing with major powers, ASEAN
members may find themselves individually solicited by the former instead of the block as a
whole. ASEAN will have its work cut out as it has to ensure that members’ states remain in
harmony while it retains policy independence as a mediator. Addressing this challenge may
mean engaging in some strategic maneuvering that has the effect of reestablishing ASEAN as the
focal point of conversation on security while ensuring that basic structures are in place to allow
for the mechanism to accommodate for varying levels of freedom in bilateral relations in
ASEAN members. ASEAN’s handling of these turbulent waters will be critical in enabling it to
continue offering middle power leadership and addressing Asian security issues in a region
where power dynamics are shifting in a hierarchical manner.
Security Ramifications of Hierarchical International Relations
Alliance formations within hierarchical security frameworks
Hierarchical security structure alliances imply forging of partnership and formation of
coalition entailing security structures within the existing security structures that are meant to
provide order and stability. With the global connectedness that has been witnessed in the twenty-
first century, the call for cooperation in most areas of security has been deemed necessary. But
creating strong coalitions is not an easy task because there are always numerous and diverse
stakeholder interests and views that contrast within different nation-states, international
organizations, and other structures. Indeed, the issue of who should be included is always critical
Page 16 of 19
in any strategic alliance and so is the issue of exclusion to ensure that the alliance does not
become too bureaucratic to function efficiently. This means that the more members are there, the
more aspects are covered but at the same time, it becomes difficult to arrive at decisions and
administration. There are also several small and closely coupled security collectives which can
work quickly but they may freeze out critical stakeholders or may not possess adequate power to
combat significant risks. Hence, to build more effective yet lean security partnerships, more
often than not, there is a need to articulate clear objectives, share responsibilities fairly, have
well-coordinated mechanisms for decision-making, and develop a sense of engagement. For
example, NATO has remained relevant as an alliance of nations because of the core interest that
all partners have in defending each other against external aggression. This is based on Article 5
which says that an attack on one member is an attack on all members fostering a culture of
collective protection. But, decision making based on consensus has also posed a weakness in that
it takes longer for NATO to respond to situations as required. The traditional security
architectures, as it becomes evident that the geographical barriers are fading away due to
advancement in technology, and non-state threats are arising might require the establishment of
vigorous and more dynamic security cooperation that entails a coalition of capabilities across the
governmental, private sector, and civil society domains. In peacetime, the right foundation must
be laid to ensure the compatibility of partnerships to face crises. Defense concerns will still
probably require formal vertical organizations, while the need for greater coupling implies
security networks that are loose, versatile, and that incorporate expertise from different sources.
Nuclear deterrence in hierarchical power configurations
Nuclear deterrence involves the existence of an assurance that should a first nuclear strike
occur, a second and more devastating attack will be launched. In bi-polar systems of power
between nations, the principle of nuclear deterrence was to ensure that power relationships were
stable to avert these nations from engaging in nuclear warfare. But it can also allow provocation
and risky check–founding strategies between the powers–to–powers competing. The hierarchical
nuclear deterrence usually has a superpower nuclear country that aims at preventing other states
that are in a lower rank in the international system from threatening it with nuclear power. The
superpower uses its nuclear capability as a tool to threaten and subdue the emerging second tier
nuclear weapon state. Still, the emerging state might perceive its own nuclear weapons as a
Page 17 of 19
means of preventing the over-powering of its capabilities by the dominant power, leading to
security compensation and arms racing. The hierarchical element also hinders the ability of the
aspiring nuclear states to threaten the dominant power because any attempt to develop a
deterrence strategy with an equally capable and a superior arsenal is practically impossible due to
the overwhelming military technology possessed by the dominant state. The dominant state-bully
may act belligerently and take advantage of its first use capability and perceived enhanced
credibility in threatening nuclear use against the aspiring state. This dynamic can lead to a
potentially definitive misstep and misinterpretation, particularly during problems between the
two asymmetrical nuclear countries. Though it is founded on the principle of rationality, the
fluidity of the hierarchical relationships between the established NWSs and aspiring ones opens
up more chancy opportunities for an illogical spiral based on hubris and wounded pride on both
ends. Stabilizing arms control measures, and crisis communication means between such
asymmetrically posed nuclear powers could help to minimize these risks and curb the propensity
of either side to rely on nuclear threats for coercing the other, or for preemptively attempting to
gain an advantage due to overconfidence about the effectiveness of coercive pressures. However,
global development toward disarmament may be the only stable way to address the chronic
threats posed by asymmetrical nuclear deterrence relationships that originate from power
hierarchies.
Resolving territorial disputes in hierarchical security contexts
The key challenge of managing territorial disputes in hierarchical security structures is to
navigate through the inter-state contestations and find the best solution that will consider the
power relations as well as mutual interests of the conflicting parties. Such objectives as
sovereignty protection, and the preservation of the state’s integrity are on the one hand, while on
the other, there are objectives like the prevention of escalation of conflict and general stability of
the region. While the assertion of territorial claims may appeal to the nationalist voters at home,
the rhetoric or action that is provocative or defiant will be met with a response which raises
tensions and threats to peace. On the other hand, giving in to threats or pressures could be
interpreted as displaying weakness and the aggressor may proceed to exert more pressure. The
resolution of these dilemmas requires specifically balanced diplomatic strategies that take into
account the power relations between the parties involved in a conflict. This is the case where one
Page 18 of 19
state or country has dominance in political, economic or military aspect over the other or is in a
superior position to the other, making it a herculean task to mediate in a dispute involving two or
more states that seek to claim a particular territory. The state that wields more power and
growing confident of its dominance over the other sees no reason to restrain itself or refrain from
aggressive actions. On the other hand, the weaker must protect its limited free will from being
overrun, hence the need to engage in power struggles. These are power relations that competent
third party actors such as multilateral organizations, or any other party not affiliated with any of
the conflicting parties can manipulate in order to enable compromise.
For instance, dominant global players such as the United States use both military
assistance and political support to influence the policymaking of subordinate partners. In the
event of the intervention by a third party such as the UN or World Bank through deployment of
troops, or provision of aid to the subordinate state, the position of the latter is reinforced. Such
strategies restore balance of power that otherwise weakens the weaker state into surrendering its
sovereignty on the questions of territory. Of course, it also helps that the states themselves have
fairly flexible starting positions in order to achieve the peaceful settlement of territorial claims.
These demands combine with a need in the management of MNCs to pay heed to public
sentiments while at the same time considering the realistic possibility of their actions. Bilateral
guarantees of non-coercion may be attained through the demilitarization or mutual defense
treaties. Last but not the least; it is possible to note that common concerns regarding the
protection of the economic continuity or the social interactions across the borders also can
encourage the parties to make compromises in terms of territories. Presenting concessions in a
way which paints them as mutually beneficial for both domestic and international partners is one
of the ways in which leaders might garner domestic support for deal-making. So there can be a
peaceful and fair outcome even to a conflict of a territorial nature, intense and involving states
that are significantly uneven in their power when third parties and politicians think ahead.
Conclusion
As for the contribution, Kang questions the approaches of the international security by
citing post cultural and historicist perspectives of the security relationships at the international
level between states. This can be seen in his desire for more work to be done in order to
contribute to dumbing down of theoretical frameworks that are used in the consideration of
Page 19 of 19
international security problems, in as much as the paradigms embedded in these frameworks are
concerned. Kang’s significant work sheds light into the nature and position of cultural-historical
contexts to the framework of security politics of the nations. Stated herein is the view that
dissimilar parts of the whole civilization has had dissimilar status structures within societies in
order to steer a given state’s conviction towards security risks or aspiration over control. Besides
providing an understanding of contextual factors relevant to the ties between the emerging and
the dominant powers, Kang’s work enhances knowledge of the revealed relations in world
politics. In security relations in East Asia he uses the arguments of threat perceptions in the Sino-
Japanese American context with Reference to the ideas of Confucianism and Sino-centrism as
Ideas regarding hierarchy. Realist and liberal theories which are under analysis by Kang
presuppose identically of the assumptions about state interest and its activity all over the world.
He also says that theoretically, one can choose an openly poly-paradigmatic approach to
analyzing security relations that would embrace views from the East as well. His recent work
revolves around security of North Korea and how structure of hierarchy of that period before
China and the existing perception of North Korea as a state, amidst the large neighboring states
influenced the security ideology and strategy of North Korea. Eventually, Kang’s studies is
charged with the task of offering theoretical approaches that will effectively more appropriate
concerning the give cultural and geopolitical narrative security orders in the different regions of
the globe. However, thanks to the focus on the differential cultural-historical conditions, the
assessment of the outlined interests, threats, and power relations in Kang’s work is possible as
far as states are in their certain security neighborhoods. The strength of his analysis of relations
in international security is multifaceted, and this gives one the expectation that such an approach
will yield precise courses of action that the policymakers will need as the world gets
progressively more intricate. Therefore, as newcomers turn to challenge the power arrangements
and de-legitimate the power hierarchy, Kang’s cultural-historical contingency of security would
indeed be deemed more pertinent.
