| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
191876
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Chinese and European scholarly debates on China’s relations with Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) have steadily heated up since the introduction of the 16/17 + 1 cooperation mechanism in 2012. However, they have tended to take place in discrete linguistic and academic bubbles. This article has three aims: first, to introduce Chinese scholarly debates on China-CEE cooperation to an Anglophone readership; second, to conduct a critical assessment of Chinese and European scholars’ inclusions and omissions; and third, to compare the narratives presented by Chinese scholars concerning China-CEE cooperation with European scholars’ interpretations. The content analysis demonstrates that Chinese scholars under-emphasize the influence-forming and ideational aspects of the platform, while European scholars insufficiently analyze the extent to which the 16/17 + 1ʹs characteristics are shared with other Chinese regional cooperation platforms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
190481
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Normative power China (NPC) has characteristics distinct from Manners’ conception of normative power Europe (NPE). While NPE attempts to establish rules for interaction, NPC introduces practices to be co-constituted via regional platforms through a process of ‘earned recognition’. In Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), NPC’s regionalising ‘group cooperation diplomacy’ has taken the form of the ‘16/17 + 1’ cooperation framework. Using normative power theory, the article assesses, via a critical discourse analysis of speeches and interviews, how and why China’s attempts to shape practices, earn recognition and create a community of practice in CEE have met with—at best—only limited success.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|