| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
134647
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper starts from the assumption that geostrategic and security interests alone are not sufficient to explain China’s foreign policy choices. It argues that ideas about what China’s role as an actor in the increasingly globalised international system should be, and about world order in general, have a deep influence on China’s foreign policy decision-making process. Taking the North Korean issue as a case study, the paper postulates that China is currently engaged in a search for a ‘new’ identity as a global player. China’s actor identity is composed of various partly contradictory role conceptions. National roles derived from China’s internal system structures and its historical past lead to continuity in foreign policy, while the ‘new’ roles resultant from China’s rise to global power require an adaptation of its foreign policy principles. In the case of its relationship with North Korea, China’s foreign policy is oscillating between the two roles of ‘socialist power’ – as thus comrade-in-arms with its socialist neighbour – and ‘responsible great power’, which leads to it being expected to comply with international norms, and thus to condemn North Korea’s nuclear provocations and related actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
174779
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article analyzes changing patterns of leadership with a special focus on the re-centralization and re-personalization of Chinese politics as initiated under Xi Jinping. Going beyond the categorization of personalistic rule, it argues that the construction of visionary, futuristic governance ideas—as illustrated by the opening of Xiong’an New Area in 2017/2018—are part of a transformational leadership mode. Xiong’an is constructed as a test lab for Chinese AI innovation and a model city unit of green urbanization, illustrating the political leaders’ will to engage in all-encompassing reforms. By framing Xiong’an as a presidential signature initiative, potential risks and implications for the party-state’s long-term regime legitimacy, in case of unexpected delays or implementation complications, are reduced to a minimum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
139561
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
After decades of policy learning and adoption of “Western” theories of international politics, the Chinese academic community has (re-)turned to the construction of a “Chinese” theory framework. This article examines the recent academic debates on theory with “Chinese characteristics” and sheds light on their historical and philosophical foundations. It argues that the search for a “Chinese” paradigm of international relations theory is part of China's quest for national identity and global status. As can be concluded from the analysis of these debates, “Chinese” theories of international politics are expected to fulfil two general functions – to safeguard China's national interests and to legitimize the one-party system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|