The Indo-Pacific region is now home to at least two competing regionalism road maps, China’s Belt Road Initiative (BRI) and Japan’s Free and Open Indo-Pacific Vision (FOIP). Through comparing their respective development trajectories, this article examines the relationship between these two regionalisation initiatives. Key lines of enquiry include the following: Is the interaction between the BRI and the FOIP Vision reactive, proactive or both? Why has each initiative changed its trajectory? How can we characterise these competing initiatives? This article employs a regionalism matrix analysis that compares two different approaches, integration from a ‘rational-legal perspective’ with an emphasis on broad cooperation and state sovereignty from a ‘process-oriented perspective’ with a focus on exact goals. It finds that the BRI focuses on both a high degree of state sovereignty based on a ‘process-oriented perspective’ and exact cooperation. In contrast, FOIP stresses integration through a ‘rational-legal perspective’, broad cooperation and a shared rules-based order. Furthermore, there is a reactive interplay between these two regionalism frameworks that shapes their orientation and influences their focus.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stephen Nagy (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: