Introduction:
The contemporary problem of the IR is whether East Asia has the capacity to form its regional order without referring to the Western models. Due to the emergence of China, the economic influence of Japan and South Korea, the significance of the institutions such as SCO, BRICS, ASEAN, and the growing uncertainty in the promises made by the U.S., the question of the regional order created by East Asia is raised.
According to the postcolonialist approach, the issue does not relate only to the balance of power, but it also concerns the effort of overcoming the legacy of Western dominance through norms, institutions, and knowledge.
The strategic autonomy of East Asia may therefore be seen as an attempt to restore agency and create institutions for the region taking into account the tradition of the region and not copying the West. Here, the key question is whether East Asia will succeed in building its own order or it has to continue with a mixture of western and Asian orders.
Background:
It is an undisputed fact that East Asia forms one of the world’s most vibrant economic zones. China remains the second largest economy in the world while Japan and South Korea remain some of the most industrialized countries in the world. The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, consisting of the ASEAN countries, China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand, is the biggest free trade agreement in the world.(Oxford Research Encyclopedia, 2025).
From contemporary literature, it has been noted that regionalism within East Asia has developed through economic dependency, strategy, and norms apart from the European model of regional integration (Oxford Research Encyclopedia, 2025). A historical example would be that of Japan, where Japan defied the West whenever the West posed a threat to Japan's supremacy in Asia. The second instance in this case is communist China, which was the most prominent revisionist power of Asia.
Main argument:
In the case of the postcolonial IR theory, it has been observed that the euro-centric assumptions where the experience of the West was considered as universal had dominated the world. However, the search for strategic autonomy in East Asia could also be seen as a search for the reclamation of agency and establishment of regional organizations based on the historical experience and values of the region.
The approach to studying the order in East Asia has been drastically different from before. Historically, West-centric IR theories have approached regional orders using the balance of power theory and alliances. However, recent approaches have challenged this approach.
The main point in the arguments provided in this commentary is that East Asia may achieve some level of order even without copying the Western model, but it will not be able to be fully autonomous because it is moving toward the hybrid order in which its norms coexist with those of the liberal international order.
Security Dimension:
The key issue facing the formation of an independent order in East Asia is that of security. Many states in the area are reliant on the security structure provided by the U.S. in their areas. Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines all have strong military ties with the U.S. (Ling, 2025)
In the post-colonial context, this has been identified to result from the sustained hegemony of the Western security structures that emerged after the Second World War.
Recent talks on the reliability of the United States have triggered debates concerning strategic autonomy, especially in Japan and South Korea, but both nations continue to be firmly entrenched in America's alliance system Ling, 2025). China, on the other hand, has tried to encourage alternative security setups, as evidenced by its growing alliances, which recently include Cambodia (Reuters, 2026). However, many other countries in the region still remain wary due to their apprehensions about the increasing military expansion and claims made by China.
Thus, East Asia at present does not have a cohesive security identity that can act as an alternative to the Western ones in existence.
Economic Dimension:
Concerning economics, East Asia stands a better chance to develop an autonomous regional order. In post-colonial terms, economic regionalism is understood to be the strategy to overcome the dependency on the western dominated global economic system. The East Asian countries have achieved greater economic diversification.
The RCEP is an example of the capability of the region to form major economic organizations independently of Western influence. Supply chains, investments, and trade linkages have become increasingly centered on Asia’s economic powerhouses. Economic interconnectedness between China, Japan, South Korea, and ASEAN nations has led to a state of economic integration not seen before in the region (Oxford Research Encyclopedia, 2025).
However, East Asia still cannot be considered completely independent. East Asia is still dependent on the international market, technological centers of the West, and the dollar economy. Additionally, the ongoing competition between the US and China in terms of high technologies such as semiconductors and artificial intelligence emphasizes the influence of external factors on the development of the region.
Political Dimension:
As far as the political aspect is concerned, there has been a special form of government practiced in East Asia which differs from the liberal approach practiced in the West. Concern about such concepts as sovereignty, consensus, and non-intervention is a characteristic of ASEAN based on the political traditions of the region rather than any kind of European model of integration.
It can be noticed from the literature on the issue that in relation to the international order, the non-Western world, particularly East Asia, is critical of the hierarchical structure of the liberal international order and the prevalence of the West in the international order (Loh, Paes, & Zarakol, 2026).
From a post-colonial perspective, this might be seen as decolonizing international relations by acknowledging the fact of different ways of achieving order, instead of imposing universal values. On the other hand, the presence of political pluralism causes problems for the region as well. There are some democratic states, such as Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, while there are also some authoritarian regimes, including China and North Korea.
WayForward:
The future order in the East Asian region cannot be created by this region in such a way that the future order will be completely isolated from Western dominance. This means that the future will bring about a multipolar regional order instead of a Western order or an Asian order. This situation matches perfectly with the ongoing academic debate regarding the need for a non-Western order.
Conclusion:
For the purpose of creating an independent regional order in East Asia, some conditions need to be fulfilled, namely economic superiority, institution building, and intellectual confidence. Theories of post-colonial IR help understand why regional order plays such an important role in the process of challenging the Eurocentric perspective and taking the initiative into one’s own hands. However, due to the nature of security interdependence, political diversity, and high level of economic globalization, it is impossible to be completely independent from western ideas.
Therefore, it appears that East Asia will undergo restructuring but not replacement of the liberal international order. Hence, the new regional order in this case will neither be wholly western nor wholly eastern but a blend of the two.
References:
Acharya, A. (2025). ASEAN and Regional Order: Revisiting Security Community in Southeast Asia. Journal of International Relations.
Chai, T. S. H. (2025). Rethinking East Asia's historical order: Heterarchy in ChinaSoutheast Asia relations. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 18(2), 246–266.
Ling, S. (2025). Realignment in Asia? U.S. regional allies' responses to China–U.S. competition. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 18(4), 473–495.
Loh, D. M. H., Paes, L. O., & Zarakol, A. (2026). Non-Western visions of international order. Annual Review of Political Science, 29, 145–162.
Oxford Research Encyclopedia. (2025). East Asian Regionalism. Oxford University Press.
Suzuki, S. (2025). International order in East Asia. In Routledge Handbook of Historical International Relations.