Kang, David C.

Abstract
In this article entitled “Getting Asia Wrong,” David King makes two major arguments. First, European-derived theories in general and realist theories in particular frequently have difficulty explaining Asian international relations. Second, international relations scholars need to be as careful about issues of empirical testing and theoretical rigor when studying Asia as they are when studying Europe. In a reply to Kang’s article, Amitav Acharya agrees with both of these claims while also critiquing the essay in arguing that shared norms and institutional linkages mitigate rivalry in Asia and that the author is a historical determinist. Acharya, however, has misunderstood both international relations theory and the role of history. His response to the article provides an opportunity to clarify and briefly  expand on the major themes in “Getting Asia Wrong.”
PDF