|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
106044
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
During the course of China's continuing rise, Chinese scholars have developed different schools of thought on China and even greater interest in ancient Chinese philosophy and diplomacy. 1 Under this backdrop, research into China's tributary system has become a main academic focus.
Much controversy surrounds both the tributary system and the broader concept of a tributary relationship. The term 'tributary' itself is often misunderstood to mean unilateral behaviour towards China among states in China's periphery, or even to imply that the tributaries direct the relationship. 2 Some scholars are predisposed towards using concepts and terms other than that of 'tributary', for example, the 'Order of Rule by Rites', 3 the 'lord and vassal', 4 and 'grant and tribute' relationships; 5 and the 'Clan and Vassal Institution', the 'Suzerain - Vassal' and 'Clan and Vassal Systems', and the 'Huayi Order'. 6 Zhang Feng argues in observing the wide range of terms and concepts used in the literature that there is strong need for a systematic rethinking of the concept of the tribute system. 7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
106045
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The issue of human rights has been one of the most sensitive elements in the EU-China relationship. It is difficult to deal with in the official relationship between the EU and the Chinese government, and has caused controversy in public opinion and in the media. The question of human rights often appears as the aspect of the relationship between Europe and China that constitutes the greatest and most destabilizing of differences between them. We have seen instances of this with regards to specific issues such as Tibet, notably when President Sarkozy, as holder of the EU Presidency, met the Dalai Lama in 2008, and a generalized criticism in Europe that year of China's human rights which surrounded the Beijing Olympics, notably during the Olympic torch procession, and when many human rights activists advocated a boycott of the opening ceremony by European leaders. The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo in 2010 brought human rights to the fore once again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
106043
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In International Relations, the question of global governance has become a main issue that has given rise to numerous research programs and products on the question of how to govern. IR scholarship, however, has more or less been conducted according to the tradition of regime and institution studies, focusing on how rules govern and how institutions can promote cooperation by lowering transactional costs and reduce conflict by increasing predictability and decreasing uncertainty. 1 In the IR discourse, rule-based governance seems to be the only model at international, regional, and global levels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
106046
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
eginning in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the United States discussed or extended capital and technology, Most Favoured Nation (MFN) tariff treatment, Export-Import Bank financing, and long-term credit to the Soviet Union and China. This strategy raises three questions: First, why did the United States extend concessions to rival great powers when, under the more restrictive international environment of the 1970, it viewed Moscow's growing aggregate economic power and military capability, and especially its emerging nuclear strategic parity in ICBMs, and China's ideological challenge to the West as threats? 1 Second, why, under this restrictive environment, did U.S. engagement with China and the Soviet Union make greater advances, resulting in major treaties on arms control such as the SALT Agreements, Basic Principals Agreement, Helsinki Agreement, and Agreement on the Prevention of Nuclear War, and the normalization of Sino-American relations, than in previous periods? Third, and a point scholars often neglect, what role did Beijing and Moscow play in guiding American foreign policy towards China and the Soviet Union?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|