Advertisement

China Contestation of the EU’s Promotion of the Responsibility to Protect: Between Solidarists and Sovereignists

  • Lluc López i VidalEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Norm Research in International Relations book series (NOREINRE)

Abstract

China and the EU are two international actors which have clearly differentiated international identities as well as perceptions and ideas about the rules which should guide the international system. In the area of humanitarian intervention to protect civilian populations from violence inflicted by their government, the EU and its member states have frequently defended the right and necessity of the international community to intervene to ensure against genocide. China has on occasion supported such a view, while on other insisting on sovereignty and non-intervention as fundamental norms trumping human rights. This chapter will explore the Chinese view of the principle of Responsibility to Protect and discuss the Chinese reaction to concrete humanitarian crises situations (Syria, Darfur and Libya). It will then compare and contrast with the EU and its member states’ views and explain how China’s norm contestation has influenced the EU’s approach to humanitarian crisis situations.

References

  1. Acharya, A. (2001). Human security: East versus West. International Journal, 56(3), 442–460.Google Scholar
  2. African Union. (1998). African Union charter. Retrieved from http://archive.ipu.org/idd-E/afr_charter.pdf.
  3. Annan, K. (1999). Annual report to general assembly, 1999. Retrieved by https://www.un.org/press/en/1999/19990920.sgsm7136.html.
  4. Barbé, E. (2013). Instituciones, normas y conflictos: los años devorados por las langostas. In Eva Vázque, Dolores Adam, & Noé Cornago (Eds.), El Arreglo Pacífico de Controversias Internacionales. Tirant lo Blanch: Valencia.Google Scholar
  5. Bellamy, A. J., & Wheeler, N. J. (2017). Humanitarian intervention in world politics. In J. Baylis, S. Smith, & P. Owen. The globalization of world politics. An introduction to international relations (pp. 514–528).Google Scholar
  6. Boyle, M. J. (2016). The coming Illiberal order. Survival, 58(2), 35–66.Google Scholar
  7. Brockmeier, S., Kurtz, G., & Junk, J. (2013). Emerging norm and rhetorical tool: Europe and a responsibility to protect. Conflict, Security & Development, 14(4), 429–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dembinksi, M., & Rienold, T. (2011). Libya and the future of the responsibility to protect–African and European perspectives. Peace Research Institute Frankfurt Report. (Vol. 107) (p. 1.30). Google Scholar
  9. European Commission. (2016). Shared vision, common action. A stronger Europe: A global strategy for the European Union’s foreign and security policy. Retrieved from http://eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/top_stories/pdf/eugs_review_web.pdf.
  10. European Union Statement. (2018). Debate on “the responsibility to protect and the prevention of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity”. Retrieved from https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/un-new-york/47293/node/47293_ka.
  11. Fabbrini, S. (2014). The dilemmas of an intergovernmental foreign policy: Learning from the European Union’s answer to the Libyan crisis. International Politics, 51(1), 177–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Garwood-Gowers, A. (2016). China’s “responsibly protection” concept: re-interpreting the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and military intervention for humanitarian purposes. Asian Journal of International Law, 6(1), 89–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haas, R. (Jan/Feb 2019). How a world order ends: Wand what comes in its wake. Foreign Affairs, 98(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  14. Hemmenway, D. (December 21, 2018). Chinese strategic engagement with Assad’s Syria. Atlantic Council. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/syriasource/chinese-strategic-engagement-with-assad-s-syria.
  15. House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. (2018). Global Britain: The responsibility to protect and humanitarian intervention. Retrieved from https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmfaff/1005/1005.pdf.
  16. Huang, Ch-H. (2017). Peacekeeping contributor profile: The people’s Republic of China. Providing for peace keeping. http://www.providingforpeacekeeping.org/2014/04/03/contributor-profile-china/
  17. Ikenberry, J. (Jan–Feb. 2008). The rise of China and the future of the West: Can the liberal system survive? Foreign Affairs, 87(1), 23–37.Google Scholar
  18. Kagan, R. (2003). Of paradise and power. America and Europe in the new world order. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  19. King, T. (1999). Human rights in European Foreign policy: Success or failure for post-modern diplomacy? European Journal of International Law, 19(2), 313–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koenig, N. (2011). The EU and the Libyan crisis: In quest of coherence? Istituto Affari Internazionali.Google Scholar
  21. Kurtz, G., & Rotmann, P. (2016). The evolution of norms of protection: Major powers debate the responsibility to protect. Global Society, 30(1), 3–20.Google Scholar
  22. Liu, T., & Zhang, H. (2014). Debates in China about the responsibility to protect as a developing international norm: A general assessment. Conflict, Security & Development, 14(4), 403–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mallet, J. C. (2008). Defense et securitý. Le Livre Blanc. Retrieved from http://bdc.aege.fr/public/Defense_et_securite_nationale_Livre_Blanc.pdf.
  24. Manners, I. (2002). Normative power Europe: A contradiction in terms? Journal of Common Market Studies, 40, 235–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Manners, I. (2008). The normative ethics of the European Union. International Affairs, 84(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (2011). The logic of appropriateness. In R. E. Goodin (Ed.), The oxford handbook of political science (pp. 478–495). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2004). Ambassador Li baodong chairs security council meeting on Libya. Retrieved from http://www.china-un.org/eng/zt/sccn201103/t809816.htm.
  28. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2018). Counter-terrorism, dialogue and reconstruction are three key points for solving syrian issue at new stage. Retrieved from https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1514519.shtml.
  29. Miskimmon, A. (2012). German Foreign policy and the Libya crisis. German Politics, 21(4), 392–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Panda, A. (2014, June 26th). “Reflecting on China’s five principles, 60 years later”. The Diplomat. https://thediplomat.com/2014/06/reflecting-on-chinas-five-principles-60-years-later/.
  31. Ramani, S. (September 22, 2016). China’s Syria agenda. The Diplomat. https://thediplomat.com/2016/09/chinas-syria-agenda/.
  32. Security Council. (2004). S/PV.5040. Retrieved from https://undocs.org/en/S/PV.5040.
  33. Security Council. (2006a). Resolution 1674. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/press/en/1999/19990920.sgsm7136.html.
  34. Security Council. (2006b). S/PV.5520. Retrieved from https://undocs.org/en/S/PV.5520.
  35. Security Council. (2011). Resolution 1970. Retrieved from http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/1970.
  36. Security Council Meeting. (2011). SC/10403. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/press/en/2011/sc10403.doc.htm.
  37. Shesterinina, A. (2016). Evolving norms of protection: China, Libya and the problem of intervention in armed conflict. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 29(3), 812–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Slaughter, A. (2006). A new U.N. for a new Century. Fordham Law Review, 74(6).Google Scholar
  39. Smith, K. (2018). The EU and the responsibility to protect in a illiberal era. Dahrendorf Forum. Working Paper nº3.Google Scholar
  40. Thakur, R. (2006). The United Nations, peace and security. From collective security to the responsibility to protect. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. United Nations Human Rights Office. (2004). Press Release. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/press/en/2004/afr921.doc.htm.
  42. Whitman, R. (2011). Normative power Europe. Empirical and theoretical perspectives. New York: Palgrave McMillan.Google Scholar
  43. Wiener, A. (2014). A Theory of Contestation. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  44. World Bank. (2018). Belt and road initiative. Retrieved from https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/regional-integration/brief/belt-and-road-initiative.
  45. Zhong, Z. (2014). Ideational divergences between European Union and China: cases of international interventions. Doctoral Dissertation. Luis Guido Carli University and Université Libre de Bruxelles.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universitat Oberta de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations