Author: Monalisa Adhikari
- A coherent “Asian model” of peacebuilding does not exist, but there are common features which characterize the international conflict management practices of China, Japan, and India.
- Understanding the specificities of the engagement of Asian states in international conflict management requires mapping their engagement at different levels – global, national, and local – as well as contradictions at the various levels.
- Differences between Asian states, especially as India and Japan seek to counterbalance China in the region, has created convergence between India, Japan, and Western states, creating momentum for further partnerships and coordination with Western states on issues related to peace and security.
About the Series: The Global Transitions Series looks at fragmentations in the global order and how these impact peace and transition settlements. It explores why and how different third-party actors – state, intergovernmental, and non-governmental – intervene in conflicts, and how they see themselves contributing to reduction of conflict and risks of conflict relapse. The series critically assesses the growth and diversification of global and regional responses to contemporary conflicts. It also asks how local actors are navigating this multiplicity of mediators and peacebuilders and how this is shaping conflict outcomes and post-conflict governance. Explore the full series.