In 2007, the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue brought the United States, Japan, India, and Australia together in a loose security dialogue. Countries of the Quad, as it later came to be known, sought to strengthen each other on the basis of shared values and interests, particularly on maritime security from East Asia to the Indian Ocean. Despite its potential, the Quad suffered an untimely death when Australia withdrew from the association in 2008. Today, however, there seems to be an apparent connection between the revival of the Quad in 2017 and the formation of the so-called Indo-Pacific region. Indeed, one can make the argument that there is a definitive relationship between these two variables, that is, that the rebirth not just of the idea but of the actual Quad spurred the creation of the Indo-Pacific concept. Accompanying these arguments are typically empirical analyses that trace the events that led to the creation of the Quad in 2007 and its untimely demise in 2008, as well as the factors that resulted in its revival in 2017. While rich empirical analyses are always an advantage, they oftentimes run the risk of being disorganized precisely because they are unmoored in contemporary scholarly debates. I argue here that one way to deepen our understanding of the Quad phenomenon is to go one level of abstraction up and engage with theory. Thinking theoretically is neither favored only by the dwellers of the Ivory Tower, nor a futile exercise. Indeed, while theory does not construct reality, it does shape our perception of it. Here, I offer two ways to think theoretically in regard to the Quad.

First, the usual premise of studies on the Quad is that its revival is linked to the creation of the Indo-Pacific region, which then begs the question of how to theorize regional formation. Extant literature has much to offer in this regard, beginning with, for instance, Barry Buzan’s concept of regional security complexes (RSC). While RSCs are not entirely the origin story we hope it to be, Buzan does point us in the right direction by arguing that regions have their own sets of circumstances and dynamics that are unique from those of other regions.

Contemporary scholarship on regional formation may be classified as operating under three types of logic: correlation, causation, and falsification. Correlation identifies factors, elements, features, even events that take place in the same temporal and spatial dimension as the topic of study. Recent studies on the Quad reveal their commitment to correlation, and while comprehensive in offering empirical connections, there is no way of knowing definitively what counts as a significant element and what does not. For example, events that take place prior to or concurrent with the Quad are linked to the emergence of the concept of an Indo-Pacific region. This may include the onset of the Rudd government in Australia in 2008, which is seen as the cause of death of the Quad then, the US rebalancing strategy, and the onset of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Still, these beg the question of how we know for certain if an incident is isolated or is part of the phenomenon under study? How far back in time do we go? Is 2007 the beginning of the Quad story, or is it merely the beginning of the manifestation of an idea?

A second way to theorize regional formation is therefore to strengthen correlation by way of causation. Here, specific variables are identified and tested against each other. Definitive criteria are set from the get-go in order to validate hypotheses. For instance, one can make the argument that the circumstances surrounding post-World War II Europe caused the Benelux countries to form what we now know as the European Union. Similarly, the East-West rivalry during the Cold War caused the Southeast Asian states to form the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Another example that can be drawn from the Southeast Asian experience is the route that Amitav Acharya took, which is to argue that a common identity, no matter how amorphous that is, is what sparked states to form regional organizations. In the case of the Indo-Pacific therefore, what criteria do we set in order to definitively conclude that the revival of the Quad caused its formation? Is the rise of China a sufficient causal factor to this equation?

Theorizing regional formation can be taken a step further by tapping the logic of falsification. The value of falsification, following Popper’s philosophy, is that hypotheses that can be refuted are considered scientific. A hypothesis that cannot be falsified then becomes a fallacy. In this sense, falsifiability is the criterion that separates what is scientific and what is not. Against this backdrop, can the hypothesis that the revival of the Quad caused the formation of the Indo-Pacific be falsified? Answering this question requires a tour of the literature on initiatives that did not lead to regional formation. Conversely, is the Quad-Indo-Pacific hypothesis the falsification test for existing regional frameworks? The success of the Quad can challenge the centrality of ASEAN. Similarly, the farther West the Quad and the Indo-Pacific go, the more it becomes tangential to the peripheral borders of the EU. Hence, the success (or failure) of the Quad will likewise spell the success (or failure) of existing regional frameworks.

In short, theorizing regional formation via correlation, causation, and falsification is one way to establish the connection between the revival of the Quad and the formation of the Indo-Pacific. Another path is to theorize cooperation. Arguably, the scholarship on cooperation, particularly on cooperation in the midst of anarchy, is abundant. Nevertheless, what needs more theorizing is the area of security cooperation. In the context of the Quad, it is worth asking why the US, Japan, India, and Australia should work together.

We have a whole gamut of frameworks to study the phenomenon of security cooperation, from alliances to balancing and equi-balancing to bandwagoning, buckpassing, and more recently, to strategic partnerships. There are subtleties to these arrangements, but each one can be utilized to explain why and how the Quad reemerged in 2017. Labels are important, not least because the words that we use to characterize international relations matter. After all, in the words of Wittgenstein, words create worlds. This is not meant to negate the materiality or the tangibility of reality, only that language shapes the way we view the material world. In the case of the Quad and the attendant birth of the Indo-Pacific region, how we describe what is happening is indeed crucial, but even more so are the circumstances from which the descriptors that we use have emerged. Apart from this, how labels take root and eventually evolve are worthy of study. In particular, the evolution of the name of the region we know as Asia-Pacific to Indo-Pacific becomes more than just the purview of scholars because it has equally important implications to policymaking.

Theorizing security cooperation thus requires peeling the layers and revealing the forms of life that emerge from the language we use. Additionally, through a linguistic analysis, security cooperation can be seen as practice. Most actions in international relations are instances of practice. For example, diplomacy, summitry, balancing, even war, are practices in international relations that are conducted with some regularity and with attendant norms, rules, and expectations. What differentiates practices from the study of regimes is that methodologically, practices are studied using language. Hence, we can look at the efforts of the Quad as an international practice of posturing, balancing, perhaps even diplomacy, and using language as the methodology addresses how these practices came to be and how they can evolve.

In sum, substantiating the argument that the revival of the Quad engenders the formation of the Indo-Pacific region requires a deep engagement with theory. Theorizing regional formation is one way to go about it, specifically through correlation, causation, and falsification. Another way is to theorize security cooperation – with language as a methodological tool. Embedding the already rich empirical analysis in theory makes for more nuanced policy options not only for the members of the Quad themselves, but also for small countries like the Philippines that have limited maneuverability in great power politics. A theoretically grounded understanding of the Quad can allow the Philippines to find better ways to leverage its alliance with the US by diversifying its ties beyond the military sector, boost its relations with Japan and Australia via trade-related and domestic security initiatives, and reach a deeper and closer relationship with India. Tapping variegated policies can help the Philippines take advantage of these movements in regional and international politics.