Search

The advent of the Internet and the Information Age was initially hailed as ushering in a new era of transparency and interconnectivity in binding the world closer together. Yet, the Information Age has also brought a proliferation in the phenomenon known as fake news, a trend that is set to continue for the foreseeable future. In this, the potential impact of fake news on international relations should not be underestimated, particularly given the extent to which the phenomenon has been exploited by various entities, from political ideologues and political partisans to government espionage agencies, to skew the media narrative. This article will examine what fake news is and the challenge that it poses to civil society, before moving on to discuss the various types of fake news that have begun to emerge in recent years. Based on this discussion of the threats posed by the fake news phenomenon, this article will conclude by examining how educators, civil society and other stakeholders may respond to the challenges posed by fake news.

“A picture says a thousand words”, as the aphorism goes. This certainly applies to the realm of photography. Yet, do photographs speak for themselves, or does the backdrop of photographs matter in underscoring the deeper underlying issues in wartime? As this manuscript shall examine, iconic photographs taken during conflict can have a deeply powerful symbolic impact in seizing the imagination and attention of the public. In so doing, and depending on the context of the conflict being fought, such iconic imagery of war may impact not only on the decision-making process of that conflict, but also be adopted by other observers in the post-conflict to underscore underlying metaphorical themes in warfare. The authors propose to examine this in the form of five particularly iconic photographs from the Viet Nam War (known in Vietnam as “The American War”).

Donald Trump’s electoral victory was an unexpected outcome in the 2016 US Presidential Election, and one that now places many members of the international community in a state of uncertainty over the future of US foreign and security policy. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the context of the Asia Pacific region, which now faces the prospect of an increasingly assertive, nationalistic China. Given Trump’s repeated statements indicating his willingness to confront China over issues such as unfair trading practices and the status of Taiwan, there are growing regional concerns that US-China relations under the Trump Administration will be characterized by tension and hostility. Such circumstances place middle powers in the Asia Pacific region in a particularly difficult quandary, given their preference for maintaining good relations with both superpowers whilst simultaneously avoiding conflict in the region and safeguarding their national security. The archetype middle powers in the Asia Pacific facing this conundrum are the Republic of Korea (ROK) and Singapore, and this study will examine the policy options that both countries, as middle powers in the Asia Pacific region, may attempt to exercise in seeking to balance their relations within the context of US-China superpower rivalry.

This article examines the downward spiral presented by the security dilemma between China and Japan. The paper follows the logic outlined by Booth and Wheeler. The security dilemma is treated as a potential outcome of the parties' interpretation of and response to each other's strategic posture. The article highlights that China as a strong strategic rationale to expand into the maritime realm. However, this maritime space has already been claimed by Japan, among other states. Thus, China's security-seeking behaviour is interpreted as threatening and hostile by Japan, which, in turn, responds with the security-seeking behaviour of its own to preserve the status quo. The article concludes that China and Japan are engaged in a classical security dilemma, in which the countries negatively associate each other's security. While the situation would be highly, and increasingly, difficult to resolve, the article offers some suggestions in the conclusion to mitigate these dynamics that are highly damaging to Sino-Japanese relations.

The abstract is not available. To access, please order the printed version or browse the electronic version of this article.

Moscow’s intervention in Ukraine since early 2014 marks a dangerous development in Russian foreign policy that has potentially significant implications for international security. Russia’s actions in Crimea and eastern Ukraine are in direct violation of clearly defined norms of international law. In proclaiming a right to arbitrarily intervene overseas to safeguard the rights of ethnic Russians overseas, Putin’s aggressive new foreign policy sets a dangerous precedent for other countries that may wish to use force to suit their own geostrategic aspirations. Furthermore, given the security fears in Eastern Europe that have arisen from Putin’s involvement in Ukraine, it is also necessary for the Transatlantic Community to adopt a firm response in underlining international opposition to Russia’s actions. Yet, it is necessary to avoid viewing Putin’s Russia as an imminent threat to the security of Eastern Europe that has to be confronted. An analysis of the current situation in Eastern Europe using the theoretical framework of the security dilemma suggests that confronting Russia at this stage may cause an already serious situation to escalate further. Rather, it is necessary for the Transatlantic Community to respond to Russia’s involvement in Ukraine with a mixture of firmness and strategic restraint.

Since its founding, there has been significant debate over the extent to which the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has succeeded in institutionalising reciprocal security cooperation in Southeast Asia. A review of the academic literature on the security dilemma, focussing on security regimes and security communities as sources of order in international politics, helps to frame a yardstick upon which the achievements of ASEAN may be assessed. In this regard, whilst ASEAN has not yet evolved into a security community, it may be argued that the association may be seen as a qualified success in promoting a security regime insofar as the norms of sovereignty are concerned. At the same time, however, the emergence of non-traditional security issues alongside the four new members of ASEAN highlights the need to expand the scope of the existing ASEAN security regime to encompass an expanded agenda for long-term security cooperation in the regime.