Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRimmer, Susan Harris
dc.date.accessioned2018-08-16T23:44:05Z
dc.date.available2018-08-16T23:44:05Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.issn0020-7020
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0020702016686383
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/236863
dc.description.abstractThe previous Abbott government had prioritized a general attitude to foreign policy captured by the phrase “Jakarta not Geneva,” which signified a preference for bilateral or minilateral interactions with the region rather than United Nations-based multilateralism. With Julie Bishop MP as Australia’s first female foreign minister, the Coalition also prioritized economic diplomacy, as exemplified by the repeated refrain that Australia is “open for business.” This approach led to a preference for diplomatic venues and processes that focused on continuing investments in regional architecture, new emphasis on minilateral dialogues such as the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA) and Mexico, Indonesia, Korea, Turkey, and Australia (MIKTA), and more effort directed to bilateral and plurilateral processes such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations. This approach has been continued under Prime Minister Turnbull, with a renewed focus on innovation. Part 1 considers minilateral and regional investments in the Indo-Pacific region, primarily, IORA, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), and the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). I consider MIKTA a unique vehicle for Australian diplomacy. Part 2 considers what issues Australia should be pursuing through these forums, with a focus on the two themes of gender equality (as an example of niche diplomacy) and trade (multilateralism under pressure) as case studies. Beeson and Higgott argue that middle powers have the potential to successfully implement “games of skill,” especially at moments of international transition. How skilful have Australia’s efforts been in these minilateral dialogues, enhanced regionalism, and plurilateral processes, and what more can be achieved in these forums? Are these efforts creating more fragmentation of the rules-based order, or are they a way to overcome global governance stalemates? I set out the arguments for whether Australia, as a pivotal power, should generate more global options, or be more focused on inclusion in the Asia-Pacific region.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherSage Publications Ltd.
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom630
dc.relation.ispartofpageto650
dc.relation.ispartofissue4
dc.relation.ispartofjournalInternational Journal
dc.relation.ispartofvolume71
dc.subject.fieldofresearchPolicy and administration
dc.subject.fieldofresearchPolitical science
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode4407
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode4408
dc.titleAustralian experiments in creative governance, regionalism, and plurilateralism
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articles
gro.facultyArts, Education & Law Group, School of Law
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text
gro.griffith.authorHarris Rimmer, Susan G.


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record