Abstract
Over the last decade, a vast array of international relations theories has been drawn upon to project China’s foreign-policy objectives and behavior in the emerging global order. For those who look at the rise of China from the outside in, China presents not just a policy challenge but also an intellectual one. The puzzle for realists is that the Chinese realpolitik has not evolved in the direction their theories have anticipated, either in the form of balance of power or that of balance of threat in regional and global diplomacy. The systemic power transition has not resulted so far in disruptive consequences in Sino-American relations to the extent their theories suggest. Liberals are equally intrigued. The dire prediction of the democratic peace theory about an authoritarian China, unconstrained by domestic politics in seeking power and self-interest that is likely to come into conflict with and to be confronted by democratic powers collectively, has not materialized. Weakness in formal international institutions in the Asia-Pacific region (as compared to Europe) has not proved to be so debilitating as to hamper successful socialization of China into multilateral cooperation in the region. Further, the constructivist intervention, with the introduction of ideational-cultural factors such as identity and beliefs, continues to grapple with the nature and purpose of Chinese power.1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
John Ikenberry and Michael Mastanduno, eds., International Relations Theory and the Asia-Pacific (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003);
J. J. Suh, Peter J. Katzenstein, and Allen Carlson, eds., Rethinking Security in East Asia: Identity, Power and Efficiency (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2004).
Yong Deng and Wang Fei-ling, eds., China Rising: Power and Motivation in Chinese Foreign Policy (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005);
Joseph Nye, “The Rise of China’s Soft Power,” Wall Street Journal Asia, December 29, 2005.
John Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York: W. W. Norton, 2001).
Z. Brzezinski and John J. Mearsheimer, “Clash of the Titans,” Foreign Policy 146 (2005): 46–49.
Thomas Christensen, “China, the US-Japan Alliance, and the Security Dilemma,” in International Relations Theory and the Asia-Pacific, eds. Ikenberry G. John and Michael Mastanduno (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003), 25–56;
Alastair Iain Johnston, “Is China a Status Quo Power?” International Security 27, no. 4 (Spring 2003): 5–56, http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/016228803321951081? cookieSet=1amp;journalCode=isec(accessed February 18, 2008).
Yongjin Zhang, “Problematizing China’s Security—Sociological Insights,” Pacifica Review 13, no. 3 (2001): 241–53.
Yongjin Zhang, “China’s Entry into International Society: Beyond the Standard of Civilization,” Review of International Studies 17, no. 1 (1991): 3–17;
Shogo Suzuki, “Japan’s Socialization into Janus-Faced European International Society,” European Journal of International Relations 11, no. 1 (2005): 137–64.
Lucian W. Pye, “China, Erratic State and Frustrated Society,” Foreign Affairs 69, no. 4 (1990): 56–74.
Jonathan Spence, “Once and Future China,” Foreign Policy 146 (2005): 44–46.
Dawa Norbu, China’s Tibet Policy (Richmond, Surrey: Curson, 2001), 78.
Svat Soucek, A History of Inner Asia (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000).
Robert Ross, “Navigating the Taiwan Strait,” International Security 27, no. 2 (2002): 47–85;
R. A. Scalapino, “Cross Strait Relations and the United States,” American Foreign Policy Interests 24, no. 2 (2002): 153–58;
Chinese Government, The Development of Tibetan Culture (Beijing: 2000);
Chinese Government, Tibet’s March Towards Modernization (Beijing: 2001);
Chinese Government, Ecological Improvement and Environmental Protection in Tibet (Beijing: 2003);
Chinese Government, Regional Ethnic Autonomy in Tibet (Beijing: 2004).
Gerrit W. Gong, The Standard of “Civilization” in International Society (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984); Zhang, “China’s Entry into International Society: Beyond the Standard of Civilization,” 3–17; and Suzuki, “Japan’s Socialization into Janus-Faced European International Society,” 137–64.
Adam Watson, “Hedley Bull, States System and International Society,” Review of International Studies 13, no. 2 (1987): 149–63.
Daniel Philpott, Revolutions in Sovereignty: How Ideas Shaped Modern International Relations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001).
Yongjin Zhang, China and International Society since 1949: Alienation and Beyond (St. Antony’s-Macmillan Series, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan, 1998).
James Mayall, Nationalism and International Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).
Banning Garrett, “China Faces, Debates, the Contradictions of Globalization,” Asian Survey 41, no. 3 (2001): 409–27;
Yu Keping et al., Globalisation and State Sovereignty and Globalization [Quanqiuhua yu Guojia Zhuquan] (Beijing: China Social Sciences Archive Press, 2004).
Quoted in Bates Gill and James Reilly, “Sovereignty, Intervention and Peacekeeping: The View from Beijing,” Survival 42, no. 3 (2000): 41–59 (43).
Allen Carlson, Unifying China, Integrating with the World: Securing Chinese Sovereignty in the Reform Era (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2005).
Ian Clark, Legitimacy in International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).
Chris Reus-Smit, “Human Rights and the Social Construction of Sovereignty,” Review of International Studies 27, no. 4 (2001): 519–38 (520).
For a brief discussion of the work of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, see Ramesh Thakur, “Outlook: Intervention, Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect: Experiences from the ICISS,” Security Dialogue 33, no. 3 (2002): 323–40.
Jack Donnelly, “Human Rights: A New Standard of Civilization?” International Affairs 74, no. 1 (1998): 1–24.
Kal J. Holsti, “Dealing with Dictators: Westphalian and American Strategies,” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 1, no. 1 (January 2001): 51–65.
Stephen D. Krasner, “Sharing Sovereignty: New Institutions for Collapse and Failing States,” International Security 29, no. 2 (2004): 85–120.
Chinese Government, Human Rights in China (Beijing: November 1991).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2008 Pauline Kerr, Stuart Harris, and Qin Yaqing
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zhang, Y. (2008). Anticipating China’s Future Diplomacy. In: Kerr, P., Harris, S., Qin, Y. (eds) China’s “New” Diplomacy. Palgrave Series in Asian Governance. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-61692-9_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-61692-9_7
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-60349-7
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-61692-9
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)