Abstract
As the international system is changing to accommodate the rise of China, bilateral relations among the big global actors are arguably the most important individual elements of the emerging world order. As a consequence of the reconfiguration of the international system and the emergence of new players, bilateral relations have tended to take the shape of inter-regional relations as aptly illustrated in the relationship between the EU and China. A more complex and diverse international system puts new demands on policymakers and commentators to gain a better understanding of the motivations that guide the interests pursued by global actors. At the same time, international interaction, particularly within the framework of international regimes, gives rise to convergence in rules and regulation, administrative structures, behaviour and ideas. But socialization and ideational convergence may mask deep-seated differences in worldviews and complicate rather than facilitate relations between strategic partners. In recent times, a number of policymakers in China and Europe have multiplied their calls to improve communication and intensify people-to-people contacts in order to improve knowledge about each other’s countries.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Joseph S. Nye, Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power, New York: Basic Books, 1990.
See also Joseph S. Nye, The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go It Alone, New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Qin Yaqing, “Why Is There No Chinese International Relations Theory?” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, vol. 7, 2007, pp. 313–40.
Pan Zhongqi, “Managing the Conceptual Gap on Sovereignty in China-EU Relations”, Asia Europe Journal, vol. 8, no. 2, 2010, pp. 227–43.
Li Mingjiang, “China Debates Soft Power”, Chinese Journal of International Politics, vol. 2, no. 2, 2008, pp. 287–308.
Ian Manners, “Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms”, Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 40, no. 2, 2002, pp. 235–58.
Anna Michalski, “The EU as a Soft Power: The Force of Persuasion”, in Jan Melissen, ed., The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
Li, “China Debates Soft Power”; Sheng Ding, “Analyzing Rising Power from the Perspective of Soft Power: A New Look at China’s Rise to the Status Quo Power”, Journal of Contemporary China, vol. 19, no. 64, 2010, pp. 255–72.
Christopher B. Whitney and David Shambaugh, Soft Power in Asia: Results of a 2008 Multinational Survey of Public Opinion, Chicago: CCGA, 2009.
Kenneth Chan, “Images, Visibility and the Prospects of Soft Power of the EU in Asia: The Case of China”, Asia Europe Journal, vol. 8, no. 2, 2010, pp. 133–47.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2012 Anna Michalski
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Michalski, A. (2012). China and the EU: Conceptual Gaps in Soft Power. In: Pan, Z. (eds) Conceptual Gaps in China-EU Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137027443_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137027443_5
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-43959-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-02744-3
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)