|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
133955
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The 'assertive China discourse' has become a widespread narrative in the United States and certain other countries, and there is a parallel narrative in China. It argues that China has abandoned the taoguangyanghui (Keeping a low profile) strategy and adopted that of fengfayouwei (Striving for achievements), especially since 2009. This article, taking background knowledge as the most important factor of an agent's thinking and doing, argues that the Zhongyong dialectic constitutes a core component of background knowledge on the Chinese. It holds that a strident turn from one strategy to the other is inadvisable, and indeed continuity through change is a realistic description of China's present international strategy. It implies the existence of both continuity and change, although the former is its main theme with regards to strategic goals, designs, and policies as a whole. Changes, however, do occur, mainly through issues perceived as relevant to core national interests. The textual analysis in this article provides support for this argument, but offers little to substantiate the 'assertive China discourse'. Also worthy of note is that it is easy to use such changes to infer a revolutionary turn in China's international strategy, as the 'assertive China discourse' has done, as it fits perfectly into the embedded Hegelian dichotomous structure under the background of a realist tragedy of major power politics. Such an interpretation, however, is both biased and dangerous, because it attempts to turn a constructed narrative into a conventional wisdom. This could potentially culminate in a self-fulfilling prophet of the zero-sum struggle in a Hobbesian jungle, particularly between China and the United States.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
095259
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The article seeks to trace the development of International Relations Theory (IRT) in China since 1978. Based on the data collected from five major International Relations (IR) journals published in China as well as a series of translated Western classics and important IRT works by Chinese scholars, the article concludes that two parallel processes are at work in China over the last thirty years. One is a tenacious learning process aimed at knowledge acquirement and generation. It is primarily a process of learning from the West, especially the US, through which IR has developed as an independent academic discipline in China. The resulting triangular competition for influence among the three imported schools of IRT, that is, Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism coincides with the internal debates on China's rise and integration into the international community. The other is a process of developing a Chinese school of IRT. Dissatisfied with the dominance of Western theoretical discourse in the Chinese context, scholars in China have been trying to bring Chinese thoughts back in and establish a distinctly Chinese perspective on IRT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
097000
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
As China continues rapidly to develop, the question remains, 'Is it possible for China to rise peacefully?' It is generally agreed that China's rise from 1979 to the present has been quite successful, but there is still worry, or at least widespread uncertainty, about its peaceful rise. Realists argue that a rising power will sooner or later challenge the hegemon and the existing international order, probably through violent, systemic war.1 Liberals worry about China's political system and ideology. Although they believe that international institutions permeated with liberal ideas and norms will greatly incorporate China and constrain its behavior, uncertainty nonetheless exists owing to the anarchical nature of the international system,2 the limitations of international institutions, and China's domestic political and socio-economic processes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
133843
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The author believes that strategic choice of states lies behind the shape of the international order. Originally, the western mainstream theories stress that anarchy is the primary and prerequisite to international relations. It determines strategic choice of states that shapes the international system, promotes its transformation and, therefore, bring about characteristics of the international order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|