___________________________

Is There a Chinese School of IR?

Nele Noesselt

No 188

www.giga-hamburg.de/workingpapers

March 2012

GIGA Working Papers serve to disseminate the research results of work in progress prior to publication to encourage the exchange of ideas and academic debate.
Inclusion of a paper in the Working Papers series does not constitute publication and should not limit publication in any other venue. Copyright remains with the authors.

GIGA Research Programme:

Power, Norms and Governance in International Relations

GIGAWP188/2012
GIGAWorkingPapers

Editedbythe
GIGAGermanInstituteofGlobalandAreaStudies
LeibnizInstitutfrGlobaleundRegionaleStudien

The GIGA Working Papers series serves to disseminate the research results of work in
progress prior to publication in order to encourage the exchange of ideas and academic
debate.An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presenta
tionsarelessthanfullypolished.InclusionofapaperintheGIGAWorkingPapersseries
doesnotconstitutepublicationandshouldnotlimitpublicationinanyothervenue.Copy
rightremainswiththeauthors.Whenworkingpapersareeventuallyacceptedbyorpub
lishedinajournalorbook,thecorrectcitationreferenceand,ifpossible,thecorresponding
linkwillthenbeincludedontheGIGAWorkingPaperswebsiteat
<www.gigahamburg.de/workingpapers>.
GIGAResearchProgrammePower,NormsandGovernanceinInternationalRelations
Copyrightforthisissue:NeleNoesselt
WPCoordinationandEnglishlanguageCopyEditing:MelissaNelson
EditorialAssistanceandProduction:SilviaBcke

AllGIGAWorkingPapersareavailableonlineandfreeofchargeonthewebsite
<www.gigahamburg.de/workingpapers>.
Foranyrequestspleasecontact:
Email:<workingpapers@gigahamburg.de>

The GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies cannot be held responsible for
errorsoranyconsequencesarisingfromtheuseofinformationcontainedinthisWorking
Paper;theviewsandopinionsexpressedaresolelythoseoftheauthororauthorsanddo
notnecessarilyreflectthoseoftheInstitute.

GIGAGermanInstituteofGlobalandAreaStudies
LeibnizInstitutfrGlobaleundRegionaleStudien
NeuerJungfernstieg21
20354Hamburg
Germany
Email:<info@gigahamburg.de>
Website:<www.gigahamburg.de>

GIGAWP188/2012

IsThereaChineseSchoolofIR?

Abstract
Research on Chinese International Relations (IR) theory has produced a variety of dis
courses, including postpositivist analyses, contributions by area specialists and China
watchers,andarticlesbyChineseIRscholars.Thesestrands,however,hardlyoverlapor
communicate with each other. To close the gap between the selfreflection of the core
(Western IR) (Waever/Tickner 2009: 3) and the peripherys revolt against [Western]
IRparadigms(ibid.),itisnecessarytoviewChina(andothernonWesternregions)as
morethansimplyaplaygroundfortheorytesting.Thispaperthusgoesbeyondthemeta
theoretical debate about the possibility of nonWestern IR. It argues that even though
theIRdebatesinChinaareheavilyinfluencedbythetrendsofWesternIRStudies,the
claimregardingtheestablishmentofaChineseschoolofIRisnotahollowslogan.In
digenousframeworksarealreadyunderconstruction.

Keywords:China,internationalrelations(IR)theory,postpositivism,tianxia,worldorder

Dr.NeleNoesselt
isaresearchfellowattheGIGAInstituteofAsianStudies.Herresearchinterestsinclude
Chinese IR theory, Chinese foreign policy, ChinaEU relations, governance in China and
thetransitionprocessesof(post)socialistregimes.
Contact:

<noesselt@gigahamburg.de>

Website:

<http://staff.en.gigahamburg.de/noesselt>

IsThereaChineseSchoolofIR?
NeleNoesselt

ArticleOutline
1 Introduction
2 ThePostPositivistTurninIR
3 ChineseIRTheory
4 BacktotheFuture:TheReactivationofAncientChineseStatePhilosophy
5 Conclusion
Bibliography

1 Introduction
1

ThegrowinginterestinAsian,andespeciallyChinese,InternationalRelations (IR)hasvari
2

ouscauses. OneoftheseisthegrowinginfluenceofnonWesternactorsespeciallythose
intheEastAsianregiononinternationalpolitics.Theseactorsrisetoglobalpowerstatus
has enabled them to participate in the restructuring of the postCold War world order. To
positionthemselvesininternationalaffairs,theseemergingpowersneedasoundknowledge

1 Throughoutthispaper,InternationalRelations,capitalized,referstoIRasanacademicdiscipline,whileinter
nationalrelations,lowercased,isusedtodescribethepracticeofinternationalpolitics.
2 AnearlierversionofthispaperwaspresentedattheWISCConferenceinPorto(2011).Iwouldliketothank
MiriamPrys,BertHoffmanandHartmutMayerfortheirhelpfulcomments,aswellasMelissaNelsonforex
cellentlanguageediting.

NeleNoesselt:IsThereaChineseSchoolofIR?

ofIRtheoriessothattheycancalculatethepotentialresponsesandreactionsofotheractors
andthusdeveloptheirforeignstrategy.Butinadditiontousingtheoryasaguidetoaction,
theserisingpowerswillprobablyalsotrytogeneratetheirownsetsofnormativeIRtheories,
drawnfromtheirownphilosophicalhistoricaltraditions,todefineandconstitutetheinter
nationalorderofthefuture(Alagappa2011:222).Therefore,theriseofChinamightalso
entailariseofChineseIRtheory(Wang,Yiwei2009:103).Inordertopredictthefuturepo
sitioningstrategiesofactorssuchasChinaininternationalaffairs,itisthusnecessarytoana
lyzethetheoreticalandstrategicdiscussionsthatguideforeignpolicydecisionmakingand
determinetheworldviewoftheemergingregionalpowers.
Another motivation driving research on Chinese IR has its roots in the parochialism
debateofthelate1970s,whenStanleyHoffmanidentifiedIRasanAmericanSocialScience
(Hoffman1977).EvenaftertheendoftheColdWar,largescaledecolonization,andthefor
mationofnewregionalpowersinthenonWesternhemisphere,EuroAtlanticperspectives
continue to shape IR research all over the world (Waever 1998; Smith 2000; Crawford and
Jarvis2001).GuidedbytheaimofovercomingthisparochialisminIRandinternationalizing
IR theory, postpositivist contributions to IR literature examine the potential intellectual
3

sourcesofautochthonousIRformulationsinthenonWesternworld.
Whereas the postpositivist debate, which looks to China to find new concepts that
wouldallowthebroadeningoftheontologicalbasesofWesternIRtheory,waslaunchedin
thelate1990s,Chinesescholarshavebeenpuzzlingoverthegeneralfunctionsandconceptu
alsourcesofadistinctiveChineseapproachformorethanthreedecades(Noesselt2010).
ThecontroversyamongChineseIRscholarscanberoughlyclassifiedasanantagonismbe
tween internationalization and indigenization; a selection of articles from this debate was
publishedininternationalIRjournalsduringthe1990s(Liang1997;Song1997;Zha1997)but
didnotresonatewiththepostpositivistIRdiscussions.
ThispaperarguesthatresearchonChineseIRtheoryhasproducedavarietyofdiscourses
including postpositivist analyses (Acharya and Buzan 2010 [2007]; Waever and Tickner
2009),contributionsbyareaspecialistsandChinawatchers(e.g.Chan1997;Chan1998;Chan
1999a;Chan1999b;GeeraertsandMen2001),andarticlesbyChineseIRscholars(Qin2009;
Wang, Jisi 2003) which hardly overlap or communicate with each other. To close the gap
between the selfreflection of the core (Western IR) and the peripherys revolt against
3 In2007aspecialissueofthejournalInternationalRelationsandtheAsiaPacific(IRAP)wasdedicated

tothecriticalinvestigationofthefieldofInternationalRelationstheoryinordertoexplainthecon
tinued predominance of Western IR theory and the apparent absence of nonWestern ap
proaches (Acharya and Buzan 2007). The articles in this issue, published as an edited volume in
2010 (Acharya and Buzan 2010), analyzed the institutional foundations and sociohistorical struc
turesofIRstudiesinthecaseofChina,India,JapanandSoutheastAsia.Afollowupprojecttothe
IRAPresearchthatincludednonWesternInternationalRelationsstudies(IRS)beyondtheAsian
regionwaspublishedin2009(TicknerandWaever2009).

NeleNoesselt:IsThereaChineseSchoolofIR?

[Western]IRparadigms(WaeverandTickner2009:3),itisnecessarythatwedonottake
China (or other nonWestern regions) only as a playground for theory testing (Ikenberry
andMastanduno2003),butratherdiveintotheintellectualfoundationsofIRphilosophyas
itisdiscussedinsideChina.Thispaperthusgoesbeyondthemetatheoreticaldebateabout
the possibility of nonWestern IR. It argues that even though the debates in China are
heavilyinfluencedbythetrendsofWesternIRstudies,theclaimregardingtheestablish
mentofaChineseschoolofIRor,alternatively,atheorywithChinesecharacteristicsis
notahollowslogan.Indigenousframeworksarealreadyunderconstruction.
4

The following discussion is divided into three parts: The first section provides a short
overviewoftheresearchassumptionsthatshaperesearchonnonWesternIRtheoryinthe
EnglishlanguageIRcommunityingeneral.Thesecondsectioncontraststhepostpositivist
debateaboutChineseIRwiththedebatesinsideChina.Thelastsectionshedslightonselect
edaspectsofChineseIRthatcould,accordingtothemetadiscussionsonChineseIRedited
byAcharyaandBuzan(2010[2007])andTicknerandWaever(2009),helpbroadentheonto
logicalbaseofpostColdWarIRtheory.

2 ThePostPositivistTurninIR
AcloserlookatIRpublicationsthatdealwithIRstudiesandIRtheoryinChinarevealsthat
theirmainconcernisnottodigintothearchivesoftraditionalChinesestatephilosophyand
excavateelementsthatcouldexpandtheexplanatorypoweroftheexistingIRframeworks.
Rather,mostanalysesofChineseIRtheoryengageinametatheoreticaldiscussionthatgoes
backtothereflectivistturninIR.AcharyaandBuzan(2010[2007]:13)refertoCoxscritique
thatthereisnoabstracttheoryindependentfromtimeandspace(Cox1981),Wightsearly
insights that IR theory consists of national international relations theories (Wight 1966),
Gramscisconceptofhegemony(Gramsci1971[19291935]),andstudiesontheparochialism
ofEuropeanAtlantic(Western)IRtheory(Waever1998).TicknerandWaeverdraftamore
complexmatrixofgeoculturalepistemologiesbycombiningselectedelementsofthepost
positivist debate, namely, postcolonialism, with sociology and the philosophy of science
(WaeverandTickner2009:616).Thecentralideaoftheseframeworksisthatthereisnotone
unifiedworldthatcanbeanalyzedwiththehelpofIRtheory,butthatIRtheoryitselfcon
tributestotheimaginationandconstructionofthisworld,whichisonlyoneofmanypos
sibleimaginations.

4 Thestudyadoptsaphenomenologicalhermeneuticalapproach.Itsummarizesanddiscussestwoleadingde
batesonChineseIR:thepostpositivistdebateandthediscussionamongChinesescholars.Thelatterhasbeen
documentedandarchivedbytheonlinedatabase<www.IRChina.org>,establishedandmaintainedbyNankai
University.AdditionalresourcescanbefoundintheCrossAsia/ChinaAcademicJournalsdatabase,whichis
thesourceofthedatausedinthispapersquantitativefigures.

NeleNoesselt:IsThereaChineseSchoolofIR?

Thisgeoculturalframeworkisdeeplyrootedinthepostpositivist IRdebate:Contraryto
thepositivistphilosophyofsciencethathasconstitutedtheepistemologicalbasisofrational
IR theory frameworks (realism, liberalism), postpositivist reflectivist approaches reject the
idea that the empiricism applied in natural science possesses the same explanatory power
whentransferredtothefieldofsocialscience.Insteadofthediscoveryofgeneralregularities
and objective laws that can be empirically tested, postpositivism shifts the focus from ex
plainingtounderstanding,andtotheinterpretationoftheobjectsandstructuresunderob
servation (Smith 1996: 16). Thiserects a dividing line between explanatory versus constitu
tive and foundational versus antifoundational theory. Whereas positivist scholars believe
thatgenerallawscanbediscoveredandexplainedbytheoriesthatareclearlydifferentiated
fromfacts,postpositivismidentifiestheoriesasnormativeconstitutiveframeworksthatdo
notexplaintheworldbutinsteadascribemeaningtoit.Inpostpositivismtherearethusno
objectiveandunchangeablefoundationsagainstwhichthevalidityofatheorycanbemeas
ured(Smith1997:167).
Normative theories, which positivism declassifies as valueladen and unscientific
(Smith 1997: 173), were reintegrated into IR theory during the early 1990s. Critical theory,
rooted in Marxism and heavily influenced by the Frankfurt School, specifies the impact of
norms and ideas in IR theory by stating that theory is always for someone and for some
purposeandthatthereisnosuchthingastheoryinitself(Cox1981).AccordingtoCox,
normative theories have not been produced exclusively since the postpositivist turn in IR,
buthaverathershapedthedisciplineforages.ThemainconcernofcriticalIRisthereforeto
reflectupontheassumptionsandframeworksthathavesofarbeentakenasgiven.Critical
approachesthuslaybaretheconcealednormativefoundationsoftheexistingstructuresand
organizational principles, but at the same time also outline their own normativeutopian
modelofhowtheworldcouldbetransformed(Cox1981).Onecouldthusexpectthattheo
ries developed in the nonWestern context do not solve the parochial bias, but instead
simplyreplacetheexistinghegemonywithaconceptualcounterhegemony.
One approach that should definitely also be included in the postpositivist search for
nonWestern IR is the dimension of language and wording. According to the post
modernistcritiqueofIR,whichisguidedbyastrongincredulitytowardmetanarratives
(Lyotard1984:xxiv)andbasedonFoucaultspoststructuralistconceptionofpower,(politi
cal) power is a derivative of discursive knowledge production. The world is constructed
through the meaning attributed to it via the practice of discourse. Discourses not only de
scribetheobjectsofwhichtheyspeak,butalsodefinehowtheseshouldbeaddressed.Inthis

5 Wightbasicallyidentifiespoststructuralismandpostmodernismassubcategoriesofpostpositivismandsees
constructivist frameworks as a way to synthesize the manifold and divergent postpositivist hypotheses
(Wight 2002: 34). Smith offers a slightly more complexcategorization that differentiates between normative,
feminist,critical,andpostmodernisttheoriesandalsoincludeshistoricalsociologyasasubtypeofreflectivist
IR(Smith1997:172).

NeleNoesselt:IsThereaChineseSchoolofIR?

sense,IRtheory,whichportrayscertainworldviewsthatprovideoneamongmanypossible
representations as the only way to interpret the objects (structures, processes, practices) of
international politics, functions as constitutive to power relations in international politics.
Language and labeling play a crucial role in the subjective construction of the world (de
Saussure1966),astheymanifestpowerhierarchiesandprescribeorthodoxwaysofthinking.
Competing IR paradigms hence manifest themselves as historical representations of the
worldanditsorderingprinciples.
Postcolonialismisneithertheonlynorthemostdominantfactorinthesearchforalter
nativeIRtraditions.However,itaddsaspecificdimensiontotheIRdebate:identityandrole
conceptions. As, according to the postcolonial worldview, the Orient stands for Europes
imaginationoftheother(Said1979),thediscourseaboutthenonWesternworldisanin
strument of identity formation based on discursive practices of integration and exclusion.
Heavily influenced by the Gramscian conceptof hegemony, postcolonial studiescondemn
thepredominanceofconceptsdefinedfromtheperspectivesoftheleadingpowersinworld
affairs and demand a more pluralist, integrative IR framework. Postcolonialism proposes
theintegrationofthevoicesofthesocalledThirdWorldintotheprocessofIRtheoryformu
lation. To justify this endeavor, postcolonial scholars stress the incompatibility between
WesterntheoryandnonWesternpoliticalandphilosophicalfoundations.
However,aslongastheIRdiscoursesinsideChinaareexcludedfromthepostpositivist
IRdebate,thepostColdWarIRdiscussionstillrunstheriskofstrengtheningtheintellectual
colonizationoftheformerperipheryofworldpoliticsand,inthewordsofpostcolonialism,
of perpetuating the construction of Western regimes of truth (Abrahamsen 2007: 116)
thatsilencethosevoicesfrombeyondtheEuropeanAtlantichemisphere.

2.1 ChinaastheCenterofanAlternativeFormulationofIR?
Untilveryrecently,IRresearchintheWestdidnotincludeChineseapproachestointerna
tionalrelationsandworldaffairs.Instead,mostIRstudieshavereferredtoChinaasaplay
groundfortheorytestingorasapotentialsourcefortheontologicalexpansionofgeneralIR
theorynotasapotentialtheorygeneratingstateactor.
ThepostColdWarliteratureonIRconstellationsinLatinAmericadocumentsaconcep
tualmisfitofconventionalIRassumptionswiththesocalledThirdWorld(Neuman1998):
according to the perspective of those Latin American states that joined the already estab
lished international system after the process of decolonization, international constellations
arenotanarchicbutareratherhierarchicallystructured.Regardingthenatureofthestateas
the main actor in international politics, the political regimes of Latin American states are
comparativelyweakandunconsolidated.WithrespecttotheChinesecase,incontrast,most
studies conclude that the existing IR theories also cover the political constellations in the
AsiaPacificregion.IkenberryandMastanduno,whotestthemainassumptionofmacro

NeleNoesselt:IsThereaChineseSchoolofIR?

IRtheoriesintheiranalysesofinternationalrelationsintheAsiaPacificregion,assumethat
generalIRtheoriespossessuniversalexplanatorypowerandthatthereisnoneedtopursue
alternativetheoreticalformulations(IkenberryandMastanduno2003:19).Sofar,though,no
finalconsensushasbeenreached:contrarytoIkenberryandMastanduno,DavidKangpos
tulatesthatrealistandliberalisthypothesesarenotabletocoverthehistoricalandcultural
particularitiesoftheregionandthatAsiamayposenewempiricalandtheoreticalchalleng
es[that]couldleadtoafruitfulresearchagenda(Kang2003:83).Kangsstatementoutlines
thelinkagebetweentheorytestingandthedebateonChineseIRtraditions.Asearlyasthe
late1990sChinahadbeenidentifiedasapotentialbreedinggroundforalternativeIRconfig
urations:
For the sake of the growth of knowledge and the promotion of international under
standing,thereisaneedtogobeyondthisparochialunderstandingofIRtoaccommo
datenonWesternviews.Inthisrespect,thedevelopmentofIRstudiesinChinaadds
aninterestingdimensiontotheexistingbodyofknowledge.
Chan1997:2
Some surveys claim that not much research [on IR theory] is to be found elsewhere
[beyond the West] the next largest community is the Japanese, which produces
verylittletheoryingeneralandmuchlessthatisnotbasedonAmericaninspiration.
ThemostobviouscandidateforanindependentIRtheoryisChina,thoughverylittle
independenttheorizinghastakenplace.
Waever1998:696
China,asoneoftheworldsmostancientcivilizations,hasattractedtheattentionofacademic
elitesintheWestforcenturies.ZhangYongjin,whobelongstotheEnglishschoolofIR,ar
guedthatnocredibleIRtheory()canbebuiltonlyuponthenarrowconfinesoftheEu
ropean historical experience () Chinas rich and deep history is an important avenue for
exploringotherworldorders(Zhang,Yongjin2001:63).
GeraldChan,whopublishedthefirst(Englishlanguage)overviewarticlesonthestateof
ChineseIRresearchanditstheoreticalunderpinnings,explainedthatChineseIRStudiesin
the 1990s did not meet the (international) academic standard and were therefore not taken
seriouslyinscholarlydebatesaboutIRtheory.However,hepredictedthattheinterestofthe
policymakersandtheiradvisorsaroundtheworldintheideasandcalculationsunderlying
Chinasforeignpolicydecisionmakingwouldrapidlyincreaseovertime.ThestatusofChi
neseIRwouldthusbeupgradedtothatofasemiperipheralschoolofIR,though,accord
ingtoChan,itwouldnotbecomeamajortheoryschool(Chan1999b:179180).
Nonetheless, to date Chinas contributions to IR ontology, which have been under way
sincethe1990s,havenotmadeitintotheofficialrecordsofpostColdWarIRtheory.

10

NeleNoesselt:IsThereaChineseSchoolofIR?

2.2 TheFunctionalDimensionsofTheoryBuilding
InordertoanswerthequestionofwhethernonWesternIRtheoryexists,thetermtheory
itselfneedstobeclarifiedsomewhat.Onehastodistinguishbetweenabroadandanarrow
conceptionoftheoryandtokeepinmindthattheChinesedebatedoesnotnecessarilyemu
latetheWesterndefinitionofIRtheory.
AcharyaandBuzanintroduceawiderdefinitionofIRtheorythatintegratestheharder,
positivist, rationalist, materialist and quantitative understandings () and the more reflec
tive, social, constructivist, and postmodern [understandings of the theory spectrum]
(AcharyaandBuzan2007:291).TheyalsoconcedethatIRmightincludenormativeassump
tions;evenpretheoreticalconceptsareviewedaselementsofanemergingIRtheoryframe
work inAsia (Acharya and Buzan 2007: 292).As a working definition,Acharya and Buzan
proposelabelinganyIRconceptthatiseitherrecognizedasatheorybytheinternationalac
ademic community or identified as such by its progenitors or, regardless of academic
acknowledgement,representsasystematicandabstractapproachtoIRasacontributionto
IRtheory(AcharyaandBuzan2007:292).
In contrast to this allencompassing definition, Alagappa reduces theory in the Asian
contexttoanormativeconstitutivefunction,whichisdirectlylinkedtothepolicylevel(Ala
gappa2011:222).Accordingtothisunderstanding,theorydoesnotfunctionasaframework
for analysis, but is rather a tool for exerting power in international politics. Alagappa as
sumes that theory in the Asian context has a predominantly practical orientation with
emphasisonunderstandingandinterpretingtheworldtoforgesuitablenationalresponses
(Alagappa2011:194).
OntheChineseside,aMarxistunderstandingoftheory,whichwasimportedduringthe
early stages of SinoSoviet cooperation and ideological proximity, is still discernible in IR
publications.TheofficialChineseunderstandingofthemeaningandfunctionof(IR)theory
isasfollows:
[Atheory]isasystemofconceptsandprinciples()ascientifictheoryisestablished
onthebasisofsocialpracticeandhasbeenprovedandverifiedbysocialpractice,and
isacorrectreflectionoftheessenceandlawsofobjectivethings.Thesignificanceofa
scientific theory lies in its ability to guide human behavior (Cihai entry on theory,
quotedfromWang,Jisi1994:482).
ThisdefinitionhasitsrootsintheMaoistera.InhiswritingsOnPracticeandOnContra
diction,Maoproposedarecursiveinterrelationbetweentheoryandpractice:
Discoverthetruththroughpractice,andagainthroughpracticeverifyanddevelopthe
truth. Start from perceptual knowledge and actively develop it into rational
knowledge;thenstartfromrationalknowledgeandactivelyguiderevolutionaryprac
ticetochangeboththesubjectiveandtheobjectiveworld.Practice,knowledge,again
practice,andagainknowledge.Thisformrepeatsitselfinendlesscycles,andwitheach

NeleNoesselt:IsThereaChineseSchoolofIR?

11

cyclethecontentofpracticeandknowledgerisestoahigherlevel.Suchisthewholeof
the dialecticalmaterialist theory of knowledge, and such is the dialecticalmaterialist
theoryoftheunityofknowinganddoing.
Mao1937
Theory,ascanbeseenfromMaoswritings,wasnotsomethingtobeproducedbytheac
ademiccommunity;rather,itshouldbeformulatedbythepoliticalleaders.Themainaimof
thesepoliticaltheorieswasnottoexplaintheworld,buttorealizethesocialistworldrevo
lution(Chan1997:59).
Inthereformperiod,IRtheoriesintheChinesecontexthavecontinuedtoservethedual
functionofguidingandlegitimatingpoliticalaction.Obviously,thisunderstandingoftheory
isdifferentfromthedefinitionscommonlyagreeduponinthegeneralIRliterature.Iftheory
inChinahastoguidepoliticalpractice,itsmainfocushastolieonforeignpolicy,notonin
ternationalorglobalpoliticsingeneral.Onlyframeworksapplicableinthebiandmultilat
eral context of international politics are regarded as being worth studying (Ren 2000: 20).
Contrarytothispractical,Marxistinspireddefinitionoftheory,themoreliberalschoolof
ChineseIRscholarsaffiliatedwithFudanUniversityinShanghaiarguesthattheoryshould
servetopromotetheforwardlookingawarenessorpredictivepowerofinternationalaffairs
andtoserve[sic]toaccumulateknowledge(Chan1998:16).
ChinesescholarsstilldisagreeoverthequestionofwhetherthefocusofIRresearchand
IRtheoryformulationinChinashouldbeChineseforeignrelationsorinternationalrelations.
Intherecentpast,mostresearchhasdealtwithChinasforeignrelationsandChinasimage
intheworld(Wang,Fan2008).Asanelementofforeignpolicy,thetheorydebatehastoan
swerthecorequestionofChineseIR:ithastodefinethecircumstancesandconditionsun
der which Chinas reemergence, the peaceful rise, can be realized without encountering
containmentandbalancingactsbyotherstates(Qin2005).If,inaccordancewithneorealism,
states act in an anarchic environment and seek to defend their relative power capacities,
there would not be any place for China in the concert of the worlds great powers
(Mearsheimer2004).StatesrelyingonrealisttheorieswouldtendtocontainstateslikeChina
fromrisingtoglobalstatus.ThisimpliesthatChinasconceptofapeacefulrisehasadual
purpose:ItexplainsandlegitimatesChinasreemergenceandjustifiesthestepsundertaken
torealizethisambitiousproject.Atthesametime,itfulfillsthestrategicfunctionofdefusing
the threat perceptions and conflict scenarios that conventional Western IR would predict
for the coming years between the US, the old hegemon, and China, the reemerging Asian
power(Friedberg1993/1994;BernsteinandMunro1997).
TheChinesecontributiontotheIRdebatedoesnotleadtothesubstitutionorreformula
tionofestablishedIRconceptssuchasglobalgovernanceandworldsociety;itinsteadintro
ducesanindependentIRterminologyandpresentsalternativeexplanationsofinternational
development.TraditionalChinesephilosophytogetherwithelementsofdialecticalandhis

12

NeleNoesselt:IsThereaChineseSchoolofIR?

toricalmaterialismformthebasisofChineseIRtheory.ThereactivationoftraditionalChi
neseterminologysymbolicallyunderlinesthePRCsclaimofdevelopingatheoryframework
independentfromandopposedtotheWest(Wang,Yiwei2009).
Moreover,intheChinesecontextthevalidityofatheoryisnotmeasuredintermsofits
explanatorypower,butratheraccordingtoitsideologicalsoundnessanditsabilitytoguide
politicalaction(GeeraertsandMen2001:252).Thisimpliesthatahugegapexistsbetween
the general understanding of theory in the context of Chinese IR and the functional di
mensionsofIRtheoryintheinternationaldebate.IntheChinesedebate,ideologyisanes
sentialelementofanytheory,whereasintheWesterndiscourse,ideologicalattributesare
takenasevidencethatnonWesternIRlacksascientificfoundationandshouldinsteadbe
classifiedasstrategy(Wang,Jisi1994).Inordertoavoidbeingmisledbythetermtheory,
oneshouldconsiderreferringtoIRdebatesinChinanotassystematicframeworksofanaly
sis,butratherasworldviewsthatdonotreflecttheworld()[but]representit,notonly
constraining our vision but also enabling us to develop a language of concepts and terms
thatinturnmakeitpossibletotalkintelligiblyaboutIR(Griffiths2007:1).
But what is the Chinese worldview? What are its ontological and epistemological
foundations?Thefollowingsectioninvestigatesthesequestions.

3 ChineseIRTheory
3.1 ChineseIR:HistoricalBackground
AlthoughChinesepoliticalscienceresearchdatesbacktothelateimperialera,IRresearchas
anindependentacademicdisciplinehasquiteashorthistory.Intheearly1950stheDepart
ment of ForeignAffairs was set up at Renmin University in Peking; this was enlarged into
theForeignAffairsCollegein1955.In1963,followingtheChineseCentralCommitteesdeci
siontostrengthenresearchonforeignaffairs(notinternationalrelations!),departmentsofin
ternationalpoliticswereestablishedatRenminUniversity,PekingUniversityandatFudan
UniversityinShanghai(GeeraertsandMen2001:253;Chan1997:4748).6Researchwasdi
vided among these institutes along geopoliticalideological lines: Renmin University fo
cusedonsocialiststates;BeijingUniversityanalyzeddevelopingstatesinAfrica,LatinAmer
ica andAsia; and Fudan University had the only institute specialized in the politics of the
Westerncapitaliststates(Wang,Yiwei2009:105).

6 This relaunching of IR research in the 1950s, after most research institutes had been shut down in the early
yearsofthePRC,wascausedbytheSinoSovietdispute.TheMaoistPRCrefusedtocopytheSovietmodel
and instead sought to follow an independent foreign strategy based on analyses and visionary concepts of
worldorderthatreflectedtheChineseperspective.ForamoredetailedstudyontheemulationofSovietmod
elsinthePRCsee:BernsteinandLi2010.

NeleNoesselt:IsThereaChineseSchoolofIR?

13

During this initial phase of IR studies in China, most analyses were rather atheoretical
works(Qin2010[2007]).MarxismLeninismprovidedtheoverallframeworkthatdetermined
Chinas interpretation of international politics (Wang, Yiwei 2009: 105). The few IR concepts
that were put forward were primarily political concepts among them Maos theory of in
termediatezones(Ye2001:128129;Pu2004:2021)andhisThreeWorldTheory(Yee1983).
InthepostMaoistperiod,IRstudiesinChinaunderwentanallencompassingreorgani
zation.MostinstituteshadbeenshutdownduringtheCulturalRevolution(19661976).Af
ter1978,theywerereopenedandMaoistideasandMarxistLeninistideologywerereplaced
withWesternIRapproaches.Theseapproacheswereregardedasuniversallyvalidanalyti
cal frameworks that would allow the PRC to enact pragmatic and efficient foreign policy.
ScientificresearchwasseenasanecessaryprerequisitefordefendingChineseinterestsinthe
contextofbiandmultilateralbargainingprocessesininternationalpoliticsandforrealizing
Chinasmodernizationprogram.7However,asmostscholarsatthereopenedresearchinsti
tuteshadbeeneducatedinMarxistLeninistmethods,theoldparadigmscontinuedtoinflu
encepoliticalresearchinthePRC.Newperspectiveswereintroducedbytheyoungergenera
tionofChineseIRscholars,whohadstudiedWesternlanguagesandhadoftenspentseveral
yearsatuniversitiesintheUSorEurope(Fang2005).ThefieldofIRinChinacontinuestobe
shapedbythecleavagesthatemergedintheearlydecadesofthereformperiodandthatare
manifested in the controversy regarding the internationalization/Westernization versus the
indigenization/SinizationofIRtheory(GeeraertsandMen2001:266).
AlthoughChinesescholarswereencouragedbyDengXiaopingtomakeupthemissed
lessonsandcatchupwiththeWest,IRtheorydidnotplayamajorroleinChineseIRjour
nalsuntilthe1990s.AlthoughkeypublicationsfromWesternIRweretranslatedintoChi
neseanddiscussedbytheacademiccommunity,almostnoneoftheseframeworkswereap
pliedtotheanalysisofIRintheChinesecontext(Qin2009:188189).AsFigureOnedemon
strates,analysesofChinaandInternationalRelationstheoryrepresentonlyanegligible
shareofallIRarticles.8

7 ThisisillustratedbythefactthatIRresearchcontinuedafter1989,whenmostothersubdisciplinesintheso
cialscienceswerethesubjectofspiritualrectificationandideologicalreeducation.
8 InChinese,thecombinationChinaandIRtheoryhasadualmeaning:ItcanstandforIRtheoryinChi
naaswellasforChineseIRtheory.WhereasthelatterillustratesChinaseffortstodevelopanautochtho
nousIRframework,theformeralsoincludesMarxistLeninistandWesternIR.

14

NeleNoesselt:IsThereaChineseSchoolofIR?

Total Number of Articles

Figure1: QuantitativeSurveyofArticlesonIRTheoryinChineseAcademicJournals
(19932011)
250
200
150

IR theory

100

China + IR theory

50
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year

Source:AuthorsowncompilationbasedontheChinaAcademicJournalsdatabase9.

The overall majority of articles were and still are dedicated to American IR theory (Qin
2009:192,figure2).Between1978and2007,onlysixpercentofallarticlesreferredtoMarxist
IR(Qin2009:193,figure3).Furthermore,thetimedependentcodingofthetheoreticaltrends
inChineseIRjournalsshowsthatthemajorityofMarxistanalysesdatebacktotheearlydec
adesofthepostMaoistPRC,whentheoldgenerationofrevolutionaryscholarsdominated
thefieldofresearch(Qin2009:194,figure4).Theinstitutionalizationandmodernizationof
IRresearchinpostMaoChinadidnotstopwiththereceptionandadoptionofWesternIR.
InsteadoftheorylearninganewparadigmhasemergedinChineseIRjournalssincethe
late1980s,withsomeChinesescholarsproposingtheformulationofaChineseIRapproach.
Although Qin Yaqings survey documents the existence of a Chinese paradigm (Qin
2009),nosystematicconceptualizationofChineseapproachestoIRtheoryhasbeendevel
opedtodate.ChinesescholarsinsupportofaChineseIRtheorystilldisagreeastowhether
itshouldbeatheorywithChinesecharacteristics,leadtotheformationofaChineseschool
ofIRorrepresentanattempttoSinicizeIR(=indigenization).ThiscontroversyamongChi
nesescholarscanberoughlydividedintotwoperiodsofmetatheoreticaldiscussion:
1) ChineseCharacteristics
In1987HuangXian,thechiefcadreoftheResearchDepartmentforInternationalAffairsun
dertheStateCouncil,proposedtheconstructionofIRtheorywithChinesecharacteristics
andexplainedthatthistheoryshouldbebasedonChina,facetheworldandanalyzetheob
jective development laws of the shifts in international politics from a Chinese perspective
(Huang 1987, quoted from Ren 2009). This statement was made public at the first Pan
ChineseIRConferenceinShanghai(1987).Sincethensimilarconferenceshaveelaboratedon
thisidea.Morethanadecadelater,in2004,thePanChineseIRConferencetookplaceunder
9 ThisandthefollowingfigurearebasedontheChinaAcademicJournalsdatabase.OnlyarticlesincoreChi
nese IR journals have been counted; the subject search (Figure 1) was conducted for articles tagged with
guojiguanxililun(IRtheory)andguojiguanxililun(IRtheory)+Zhongguo(China).

15

NeleNoesselt:IsThereaChineseSchoolofIR?

thegeneralheadlineconstructaChineseIRtheory,establishaChineseschool(ofIR)(see
alsoGuo2005).
AlthoughtheformulationsIRtheorywithChinesecharacteristics,ChineseIRtheory
andChineseschoolofIR(seeFigure2)allbelongtotheindigenizationandSinizationof
IR theory category, they should not be understood as simple synonyms. The formulation
ChinesecharacteristicsisdirectlylinkedtoDengXiaopingsformulasocialismwithChi
nesecharacteristics(Wang,Yiwei2009:109).ItimpliesthatthePRCnotonlyfollowsanin
dependentdevelopmentpathindomesticpolitics,butalsohopestodevelopanindependent
and sovereign foreign policy, as the Chinese minister of foreign affairs, Zhou Enlai, stated
shortlyafterthefoundingofthePRC(Wang,Lian1994:45).Theideaofconstructingatheory
with Chinese characteristics iterates the principles of MarxismLeninism while simultane
ouslyreflectingtheadaptationoftheseideastothenationalconstellationsofthePRC.Liang
Shoude,headoftheDepartmentofInternationalPoliticsatPekingUniversity,cameupwith
thefollowingdefinitionofIRwith Chinesecharacteristics:Inadditiontobeingbasedon
Chinasversionofsocialism,ithastoserveChinasnationalintereststhatis,toconsolidate
Chinas status in international affairs and to regulate Chinas relations with other states. It
does not directly oppose MarxistLeninist principles or Western IR, but it distances itself
from both by drawing its main assumptions from traditional Chinese philosophy (Liang
1994,quotedfromWang,Lian1994).
Figure2: QuantitativeSurveyofArticlesonChineseIR

25

Total Number of Articles

20

15

10

0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
China + IR theory

Chinese characteristics

Chinese school

Indigenization of IR theory

Source:AuthorsowncompilationbasedontheChineseAcademicJournalsdatabase.

16

NeleNoesselt:IsThereaChineseSchoolofIR?

2) ConstructingaChineseSchool
Sincethelate1990sChinesepublicationshavestartedtousetheexpressionChineseschool
insteadofstressingtheparticularityofChinasIRapproach.Themembersofthisschoolof
(Chinese) thought do not negate the general ideas of Western IR, but, inspired by the
Englishschool,trytoenrichtheexistingframeworksandtoaddanewperspectivetogen
eralIR(Ren2009).TheChineseschoolparadigmhas,however,notreplacedthesearchfor
IRwithChinesecharacteristics(Figure2).
TheindigenizationofIRhasemergedquiterecentlyinChineseIRliterature(seeFig
ure2). The notion refers to a theory framework that reflects Chinas national interests and
considersitsoptions,asarisingpower,forcooperationwiththeinternationalcommunityof
states, aswell as the danger of confrontation with these same states.According to the self
imageofChinasIRcommunity,suchanIRtheoryneitherformulatesannotationstothepo
litical statements of Chinas leaders nor serves as an instrument for Chinese foreign policy
(Ren 2009).As the links between the historical and cultural traditions of a country and its
foreignpolicyaremorethanobvious,Chinesescholarsargue,whyshouldnttherebeadis
tinctiveapproachtointernationalrelations?
MostarticlesquotedintheonlinedatabaseonIRinChina,whichismanagedbyNankai
University, refer neither to the Chinese school nor to Chinese characteristics. Instead
they use the expression Zhongguo guoji guanxi lilun which can be translated both as
ChineseIRtheoryandasIRtheoryinChina.10
Overall, the quantitative surveys (Figure 1; Figure 2) document the strong influence of
Western IR on Chinese political science. The emergence of a Chinese paradigm since
1991,asoutlinedbyQinYaqing,hasmarkedaturningpointincontemporaryIRresearchin
China.ArticlessubscribingtoChineseparadigmsmightcontributetotheconstructionof
anindigenousChineseIRtraditionwithdistinctiveperspectivesandcategories.However,
asQinYaqingdoesnotspecifythemeaningofthetermChineseparadigmitisnotclear
whetherthisgroupofarticlesisdedicatedtoametatheoreticaldiscussionorisalreadyen
gaged in the ontological construction of a Chinese IR approach.11 Even Chinese scholars
engagedinthedebateaboutaChineseparadigmhavetoadmitthatnosystematicChi
nese IR theory or theory with Chinese characteristics has been formulated so far (Qin
2008;Zhang2003;Su2005).
Nonetheless,ontheontologicallevel,Chinesescholarshavestartedtoexcavateconcepts
from Chinese philosophy and traditions. These are presented as alternative conceptualiza
tionsofinternationalpolitics.SomeofthesetraditionalelementsofChineseIRhavebeen
10<www.IRChina.org>.
11WangYiweiarguesthatChinesescholarshavestartedtoconstructtheworldandtodefineadistinctivege
oculturalviewoftheworld(Wang,Yiwei2009:116).Sofar,however,thisworldviewhasnotofferedaunified
and integrated interpretation of the world, but instead has comprised selected diplomatic statements and
fragmentsofancientChinesephilosophy.

NeleNoesselt:IsThereaChineseSchoolofIR?

17

analyzed by scholars specialized in Chinese history and applied to the analysis of Chinese
foreignpolicy(Fairbank1942;Fairbank1968).Othershavemainlybeenelaborateduponin
thedebateamongChineseIRscholars;althoughEnglishtranslationsareavailable,theyhave
notbeenintegratedintotheWestern,poststructuralistglobaltheoryframework.

4 BacktotheFuture:TheReactivationofAncientChineseStatePhilosophy
AsstatedinChinesescholarsmetatheoreticalstudiesonIR,premodernChinesephilosophy
isseenastheprimarysourceofinspirationfortheconstructionofChineseIRinthetwen
tyfirst century (Ren 2009). Of the articles on Chinese IR in academic journals which
makeuplessthanfivepercentofallIRrelatedarticles(Qin2009)onlyaminorsharefocuses
onitsontologicalfoundations.ThesearticlesonChineseIRontologycanberoughlysub
dividedintothefollowingcategories:
1.

basicprinciplesofinterstaterelations;

2.

ideasconcerningthestructureoftheinternationalsystem;

3.

visionaryconceptsofglobalpolitics.

4.1 TheArchaeologyofChineseIR:PrinciplesofInteraction
ChinesescholarsarguethatChineseIRcanbetracedbacktotheZhoudynasty(Chan1997;
Yan2011a;Ye2004),duringwhichseveralsmallChinesekingdomscontendedforleadership
andhegemony.Duringthisperiod,alsoreferredtoastheSpringandAutumnperiod(770
476B.C.)andtheWarringStatesperiod(475221B.C.),multiplephilosophicalschoolsdevel
opedtheirreadingsonthestate,therulerandwaysofgoverning.Theinteractionsbetween
the formally independent kingdoms, which later became unified under the emperor of the
victoriousQindynastyin221B.C.,arereferredtoasahistoricexampleofpremoderninter
nationalrelationsinaregionalcontextfarfromtheWest.InsteadoflearningfromtheWest
ernhistoryofinternationalrelationsandmemorizingtheoutcomesoftheEurocentrictheory
debates,scholarsinfavoroftheformationofaChineseschoolproposestudyingthecon
stellationsinsidethetianxia,theChineseconceptoftheworldasallunderheaven,dur
ingtheZhoudynasty(Chan1999a;Yan2011a;Zhang2001).12
Yan Xuetong, professor of international politics at Peking University, has presented the
mostcomprehensivestudyonancientChinesestatephilosophyfromthepreQinperiodand
itsadaptationtotheconstellationsofthetwentyfirstcentury.Inadditiontohiscomparative
overviewsofselectedChinesephilosopherspoliticalideas(Yan2011a),YanXuetongsanaly
sisoflegitimaterule,thenatureofthestate,andthe(international)orderoffersakeyforun
derstandingthetheoreticalunderpinningsofmodernChineseIR(Yan2008).

12Foramoredetaileddiscussionsee:Fairbank(1968);Walker(1971).

18

NeleNoesselt:IsThereaChineseSchoolofIR?

YanXuetongarguesthatancientChinesestatephilosophypredictsadirectinterrelation
betweentheviewsandconvictionsoftheemperor,thenatureofthestateandthestructure
oftheinternationalsystem.Yandevelopsathreefoldtypologyofpoliticalrule:Trueking
ship (wang) leads to a stable international order. Hegemony (ba) establishes hierarchies
andasymmetries,andtheinternationalorderoscillatesbetweenstability(relationsbetween
the hegemon and its allies) and chaos (confrontation between the hegemon and its oppo
nents).Tyranny(qiang)willinevitablyleadtodisasteranddecline(Yan2008:137).True
kingship,alsolabeledhumaneauthority,istheonlywaytomaintainalonglastingand
stableorder.13Overall,preQinIRtheoryissaidtodifferfromWesternIRintwocentral
ways:
1) Political leadership requires moral authority. The sage and benevolent ruler has to em
ployenlightenedanddistinguishedofficialstoguaranteestabilityandharmony.
2) Theinternationalsystemishierarchicallyorganized.Thesehierarchicalstructures,whose
existence can be empirically proven, exert a stabilizing effect on international politics
(Yan2008).
Chinas proclamation regarding a harmonious world and its commitment to a peaceful
rise,whichhavesofarbeenclassifiedaspoliticalslogans,arethusidentifiedastheconcep
tualpillarsofanalternativemodeloftheinternationalsystemthatcouldserveasablueprint
forotherstateactors(Yan2008:159).
YanXuetongsresearch,whichundertakesaneclecticreadingofpoliticalphilosophyand
mergesitwiththepoliticalconstellationsofthetwentyfirstcentury,is,however,contested
byawiderangeofChinesescholars(Yang2011;Xu2011;Wang,Rihua2011).QinYaqings
contributiontothevolumeonnonWesternIReditedbyAcharyaandBuzan(2010[2007]),
for example, indirectly excludes the idea of a premodern international system in China
fromtheongoingpoststructuralistIRtheorydebateandpostulatesthattheabsenceofChi
neseIRtheoryismainlyduetothelackofinternationalnessinChinasviewofitsenvi
ronment(Qin2010[2007]:3637).

4.2 TheTraditionalOrderandVisionsoftheInternationalSystem
UntiltheOpiumWars(FirstOpiumWar:18391842),theinternationalorderestablished
bytheChineseempirewasbasedontheideaofallunderheaven(tianxia),theconceptof
Chinaasthecenterofthecivilizedworld,withitsexternalexchangesbasedonthetributary
system.ThistraditionalstructuralelementestablishedahierarchyintheChineseemperors
relationswithotherstatesandtribes.DependingontheirgeographicalproximitytotheChi
neseempireandthedegreetowhichtheyhadassimilatedandinternalizedChinesenorms

13Inhis2008article,Yantranslatedwangastruekingship;in2011,heinsteadusedthetermhumaneau
thority(Yan2011b).

NeleNoesselt:IsThereaChineseSchoolofIR?

19

andvalues,theseactorswerearrangedinconcentriccirclesaroundthepowercenterpersoni
fiedbythesonofheaven(Fairbank1968).
InWesternresearchonChina,thetributarysystemhasbeenequatedwithaChinese
world order (Fairbank and Teng 1941; Fairbank 1942; Fairbank 1968). In political reality,
however,theprimuspositionoftheChineseemperorcouldonlybemaintainedinselected
periods,whencentralistcontrolwasrecognizedbythevassalstates.Intimeswhentheem
pire was weak, the rhetorical claim to rulership over the tianxia was perpetuated and the
mythofthetributarysystemiterated,buttheemperorhadalreadylostcontrolovercertain
vassalstatesandterritories(Wang,Gungwu1983:62).14
RecentpublicationsbyChineseIRscholarshavereinventedthetianxia,notthetributary
system,asanalternativetotheexistinginternationalorder(Ren2010).Thismodelisbased
onaselectivereadingandreinterpretationofthetianxiaandtheWestphaliansystem.Itrelies
ontheassumptionofageneralincompatibilitybetweenChineseandWesternordering
principles.TheWestphalianorderislinkedwithnegativeattributes:theinternationalsystem
isanarchic;nationstatescompeteagainsteachotherinzerosumgames;andwarsandcon
flictsresultfromtheabsenceofanethicalcodeofconduct(Qin2005;Zhao2005).Incontrast
tothisdarkscenariothetianxiaisdepictedasahierarchicalbutstablealternativeblueprint
forthetwentyfirstcentury(Zhao2005).15AccordingtoZhao,thetianxiaconceptmightserve
as a model for world governance as opposed to the failed concepts of international or
global governance defined by the Westphalian order. The decline of the nationstate in the
ageofglobalizationmight,accordingtoZhao,evokearesurgenceofempiresaspredictedin
theoftquotedstudybyHardtandNegri(2000).
Inhistheory,ZhaomergeselementsofChinasphilosophicaltraditionswiththeongoing
globaldebateaboutapostColdWarworldorder.BasedontheConfucianideaofagood
social and political order, Zhao develops a framework of interaction for a world society
thatsurpassesthebordersoftheformernationstates.Accordingtothisinterpretation,tian
xia represents an ordering structure distinct from military empires, which plan to extend
14TheChineseemperorwasneitherabletodefendhisterritorialclaimsagainstthenomadictribesintheNorth
nor to impede the vassal states from declaring themselves independent and joining in alliances with other
states.After1138thefounderoftheSongdynastywasforcedtoacceptbeingrelegatedtothestatusofavassal
statetotheNorthernJindynasty.Thiscontradictsthegeneralassumptionsregardingthetributarysystemas
theoperationalinstitutionalfoundationoftheChineseworldorder(seealsoZhang,Feng2009:555).Andin
thelastyearsoftheMingdynasty,thepoweroftheChineseemperorwasrepeatedlychallenged.Itwasnot
untilthereignoftheQingemperorQianlongthatapunitiveexpeditionwaslaunchedtoreestablishcentral
control.Burmascapitulationresultedinaninterimstabilizationofthetributarysystem,which,however,did
notlastverylong(seeZhou2011:165,tableI).
15ZhaoTingyangdedicateshimselftoscrutinizingthetianxiaasanontologicalelementofChineseIRtheories.
His two books on this topic, The Tianxia System:An Introduction to the Philosophy of a World Institution
(Zhao2005)andInvestigationsoftheBadWorld:PoliticalPhilosophyastheNumberOnePhilosophy(Zhao
2009),havebecomebestsellersinChina.ThegeneralideasofhismodelcanalsobeaccessedviahisEnglish
languagearticles,whichhavebeenpublishedinhighrankinginternationaljournals(Zhao2006;2009).

20

NeleNoesselt:IsThereaChineseSchoolofIR?

their sphere of influence across the whole world (Roman Empire), and imperialist states,
whichareguidedbynationalismandcolonialism(BritishEmpire).TheAmericanempireis
themostrecentvariationofhegemonicleadership(Zhao,Tingyang2006).16
ContrarytothestatecentricapproachesinWesternIR,thecentralunitofChineseIRis
theworld.Theworldneedsacommonlyagreeduponworldinstitutionasitscontrol
center.Asisthecasewiththeancienttianxiaconcept,thispowercenterisnotdemocratically
elected but is legitimated through its compliance with moral and ethical values.Although
thispartofZhaostheorylacksempiricalfoundationsandlogicalconsistency,itnonetheless
revealsaprevalenttrainofthoughtwithinChinasepistemiccommunitythathaslongbeen
ignoredinglobalIRdebates.
ZhaostianxiadoesnotfinditsWesternequivalentintheUnitedNationsOrganization.
Althoughbothstructuresaddressglobalissues,thephilosophicalandstrategicfoundations
oftheUNcanbetracedbacktoIRframeworksbaseduponthenationstate.Politicalreality
hasproven,atleastaccordingtoZhao,thattheUNisunabletorestoreinternationalstability
and establish universally valid and commonly accepted principles of interaction (Zhao,
Tingyang2006).
AccordingtoZhaostianxiaconcept,nooneisexcludedandthereisnosuchcategoryas
foreign.Participationinthetianxiasystemisnotforstates,butisinsteadopentoallpeople.
Flexibilityandinclusivenessarethemodelsmainfoundations.Itischaracterizedbyharmony
and diversity, and cooperation between different civilizations and sociopolitical systems
(Zhao,Tingyang2006).17
ZhaoTingyangsconfigurationofthetianxiainthecontextofthetwentyfirstcenturyis
notlimitedtothetributarysystem,whichservedastheoperationalfoundationoverhun
dredsofyears;insteaditupgradesthetianxiafromaregionalinstitutionalframeworktoan
abstractglobalmodel.ZhaoTingyangstianxiashowsparallelstoworldsystemtheoryand
theoriesofworldsociety,yetitofficiallydrawsonoriginalChinesephilosophytodevelop
an autochthonous concept. In diplomatic practice, however, the PRC does not employ the
tianxia concept, but rather refers to the idea of the harmonious world introduced by Hu
Jintao in 2005 (Hu 2005). In contrast to Zhao Tingyangs global model, the harmonious
world requires the existence and persistence of independent nationstates that remain the
mainactorsininternationalandworldpolitics.Ratherthantransferringsovereigntytoasu
perior,commonworldgovernmentbeyondthebordersoftheoldnationstates,theharmo
nious world requires the peaceful coexistence of divergent, multiple civilizations. But like
ZhaoTingyangstianxia,theharmoniousworldisaconsciousdisassociationfromthecon

16ThisandthefollowingpassagesrelyontheonlineeditionofZhaoTingyangsbook.
17Zhaos concept has met with severe criticism from Chinese scholars and was the subject of a critical decon
structionofitsinternalcoherenceandintellectualsoundness(Callahan2008).MostargumentsagainstZhaos
tianxiamodelarerelatedtohisquotesfromtheChineseclassics.HistoriansandphilosophersaccuseZhaoof
misreadingandselectivelyarrangingfragmentsofConfuciantextstojustifyhistheory(Chang2011).

NeleNoesselt:IsThereaChineseSchoolofIR?

21

ceptofglobalgovernanceandunderlinesChinasaimofintegratingitsownorderingprinci
ples,whicharesaidtobederivedfromancientChineseculture,intotheinternationaldebate.

5 Conclusion
PoststructuralistandpostcolonialambitionstointernationalizeIRtheorythroughtheinte
grationofvoicesfromthenonWesternworldwhichwerepreviouslymarginalizedand
silencedhavecometoatemporarystandstill.Theonlyoutcomeofthepoststructuralistas
sessmentofChineseIRconsistsofahandfulofessaysaboutthestateofIRstudiesinChina.
These do not go much beyond the earlier overview articles published by area specialists.
Nonetheless,themaincontributionofthesepoststructuralistinvestigationsintoAsianIRis
the fact that the possibility of alternative IR formulations has come to be accepted by a
wideraudienceofIRscholars,mostofwhomrefusedtoacceptChineseIRasatheorydur
ingthe1990s.
The obvious isolation of the postpositivist search for Asian or, to be more general,
nonWesternIRapproachesfromareastudiesandintraareadiscourseshasevokedsevere
criticismfromscholarsspecializedintheAsianregion.Alagappahascommentedontheab
sence of a direct dialogue betweenAsian IR experts and the group of poststructuralist IR
scholars.Asaresult,heargues,IRtheoryinthenonWesternworldisanalyzedandclassi
fiedintermsofthestructuresandbasiccategoriesofWesternIRtheory.18Aslongasthe
epistemologicalfoundationsofIRtheorycontinuetoberestrictedtoaWesternphilosophy
ofscience,itisunlikelythatthedisciplinesparochialbiascanberesolved(Alagappa2011).
Furthermore, the predetermined dichotomy between Western and Asian IR that
postcolonial studies assume raises more questions than it can solve. There is no unified
WesternIRtradition(Acharya2011:620621),norcanIRinAsiabereducedtoonesingle,
homogenousapproach(China,India,Japan,Korea,SoutheastAsia)(Alagappa2011).Strictly
speaking, the assumed antagonism between regional concepts of world order and world
viewsmirrorstheOrientalismversusOccidentalismcontroversy.Asiaisportrayedasthe
other against which the West defines itself and consolidates its political and national
identity. Reciprocally, the intraChinese debate contrasts Western bourgeois and socialist
theories and bases its own national project on the latter. Whereas the Wests post
structuralist community pursues the goal of decentralizing and pluralizing IR through the
inclusionofthehistoryoftheglobalSouth,theintraChinesedebatereturnstotherootsof
Chinese philosophy to reactivate indigenous concepts that cannot automatically serve as
universalframeworksorbeconsideredtheory.

18OneofthefewexceptionsisthearticlebyAcharya(2011).AcharyapointsoutthatthewholeAsianregionhas
beeninfluencedbyBuddhistideastheotherphilosophicalreligiousideasarecategorizedaslocaltraditions
andwouldthusbebasedonadistinctiveepistemologicalfoundation.

22

NeleNoesselt:IsThereaChineseSchoolofIR?

Even though the internationalization of IR theory seems more than appropriate in

timesofglobalizationandincreasinginterdependency,oneshouldnotforgetthat,withinthe
Chinese debate, the formulation of an autochthonous Chinese IR perspective still ranks se
condtothemetatheoreticaldebateonthepastandfutureofIRstudiesinthePRC.Veryfew
ChinesescholarsengageintheconcreteformulationofChineseIRcontributions.
Finally,onehastoconcludethattheChinesedebateonthemetatheoreticalfoundations
of foreign policy, the area studies discourse on Chinese IR theory, and the postpositivist
streaminIRliteratureremaininsulateddiscoursesthatdifferintermsoftheirresearchinter
ests and their methodological and epistemological bases. Moreover, the postpositivist and
the area studies discourses are highly incompatible: while the former looks at IR theory in
ChinafromtheoutsideandassumesthatexistingIRtraditionscanbecombinedwiththehis
toricalexperiencesofthenonWesternhemispheretobroadentheempiricalfoundationsof
IRtheory,thelatterismainlyinterestedinexploringtheevolutionofChineseperspectives
onandinterpretationsoftheworldorderaspartofthePRCsnationalidentityformation.

NeleNoesselt:IsThereaChineseSchoolofIR?

23

Bibliography
Abrahamsen,Rita(2007),Postcolonialism,in:MartinGriffiths(ed.),InternationalRelationsTheory
fortheTwentyfirstCentury,London/NewYork:Routledge,111122.
Acharya,Amitav,andBarryBuzan(2007),WhyIsThereNoNonWesternInternationalRela
tionsTheory?AnIntroduction,in:InternationalRelationsoftheAsiaPacific,7,3,287312.
Acharya,Amitav,andBarryBuzan(ed.)(2010[2007]),NonWesternInternationalRelationsTheory:
PerspectivesonandbeyondAsia,London/NewYork:Routledge.
Acharya,Amitav(2011),DialogueandDiscovery:InSearchofInternationalRelationsTheory
beyondtheWest,in:Millennium,39,3,619637.
Alagappa,Muthiah(2011),InternationalRelationsStudiesinAsia:DistinctiveTrajectories,in:
InternationalRelationsoftheAsiaPacific,11,2,193230.
Bernstein,Richard,andRossMunro(1997),TheComingConflictwithChina,NewYork:Knopf.
Callahan, William A. (2008), Chinese Visions of World Order: Posthegemonic or New He
gemony,in:InternationalStudiesReview,10,4,749761.
Chan, Gerald (1997), International Studies in China: Origins and Development, in: Issues &
Studies,33,2,4064.
Chan,Gerald(1998),TowardanInternationalRelationsTheorywithChineseCharacteristics?,
in:Issues&Studies,34,6,128.
Chan,Gerald(1999a),TheOriginoftheInterstateSystem:TheWarringStatesinAncientChina,
in:Issues&Studies,35,1,147166.
Chan, Gerald (1999b), Chinese Perspectives on International Relations:A Framework forAnalysis,
NewYork:St.MartinsPress.
Chang,Chishen(2011),TianxiaSystemonaSnailsHorns,in:InterAsiaCulturalStudies,12,1,
2842.
Cox, Robert (1981), Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations
Theory,in:Millennium,10,2,126155.
Crawford, Robert, and Darryl S. Jarvis (eds) (2001), International Relations Still anAmerican
SocialScience?,Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.
Fairbank,JohnK.,andS.Y.Teng(1941),OntheChingTributarySystem,in:HarvardJournalof
AsiaticStudies,6,2,135246.
Fairbank, John K. (1942), Tributary Trade and Chinas Relations with the West, in: The Far
EasternQuarterly,1,2,129149.
Fairbank, John K. (ed.) (1968), The Chinese World Order: Traditional Chinas Foreign Relations,
Cambridge:HarvardUP.
Fang,Changping(2005),Zhongguoguojiguanxililunjianshe:Wentiyusikao[Construction
ofIRTheoryinChina:ProblemsandReflections],in:JiaoxueyuYanjiu,6,4651.

24

NeleNoesselt:IsThereaChineseSchoolofIR?

Friedberg,Aaron L. (1993/1994), Ripe for rivalry: Prospects for peace in multipolarAsia, in:
InternationalSecurity,18,3,533.
Geeraerts, Gustaaf, and Jing Men (2001), International Relations Theory in China, in: Global
Society,15,3,251276.
Gramsci,Antonio(1971[19291935]),SelectionsfromthePrisonNotebooks[ed.HoareandNowell
Smith],London:Lawrence+Wishart.
Griffiths, Martin (2007), Worldviews and IR Theory: Conquest or Coexistence?, in: Martin
Griffiths (ed.) (2007), International Relations Theory for the TwentyFirst Century, London/
NewYork:Routledge,110.
Guo,Shuyong(2005),Guojiguanxi:HuhuanZhongguolilun[IR:PladoyerforaChineseTheory],
Tianjin:TianjinRenminChubanshe.
Hardt,Michael,andAntonioNegri(2000),Empire,Cambridge:HarvardUP.
Hoffman, Stanley (1977), An American Social Science: International Relations, in: Daedalus,
106,3,4160.
Hu,Jintao(15092005),Nulijianshechijiuhepinggongtongfanrongdehexieshijie[Strivetocon
structaharmoniousworldoflonglastingpeaceandcommonprosperity],online:<http://
news.xinhuanet.com/world/200509/16/content_3496858.htm>(01November2011).
Ikenberry,G.John,andMichaelMastanduno(eds)(2003),InternationalRelationsTheoryandthe
AsiaPacific,NewYork:ColumbiaUP.
Jia,Jianghua(2004),MaoZedongguojizhanledezhuanhuanjiqiluojifenxi[Analysisofthe
EvolutionandLogicofMaoZedongsInternationalStrategy],in:MaoZedongSixiangYan
jiu,3,6467.
Kang,David(2003),GettingAsia Wrong:TheNeedforNewAnalyticalFrameworks,in:In
ternationalSecurity,27,4,5785.
Lapid, Yosef (1989), The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post
positivistEra,in:InternationalStudiesQuarterly,33,3,235254.
Liang,Shoude(1997),ConstructinganInternationalRelationsTheorywithChinesecharac
teristics,in:PoliticalScience,49,1,2339.
Lyotard, JeanFrancois (1984), The Postmodern Condition:A Report on Knowledge, Manchester:
ManchesterUP.
Mao, Zedong (1937), On Practice, Selected Works of Mao Tsetung, vol. 1, online: <www.
marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selectedworks>(10October2011).
Mearsheimer, John (2004), Why Chinas Rise Will Not Be Peaceful, online: <http://mears
heimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0034b.pdf>(02August2011).

NeleNoesselt:IsThereaChineseSchoolofIR?

25

Neuman,StephanieG.(1998),InternationalRelationsTheoryandtheThirdWorld:AnOxy
moron?,in:StephanieG.Neuman(ed.),InternationalRelationsTheoryandtheThirdWorld,
NewYork:St.MartinsPress,130.
Noesselt, Nele (2010), Alternative Weltordnungsmodelle? IBDiskurse in China [Alternative Mo
delsofWorldOrder?IRDebatesinChina],Wiesbaden:VSVerlag.
Pu, Ning (2004), Lun Mao Zedong di diyuan zhanleguan [On Mao Zedongs Geopolitical
Strategy],in:YaozuFuandGuanfuGu(eds),Zhongguoguojiguanxililunyanjiu[Research
onIRtheoryinChina],Beijing:ShishiChubanshe,1932.
Qin, Yaqing (2005), Theoretical Problematic of International Relationship Theory and Con
structionofaChineseSchool,in:SocialSciencesinChina,6272.
Qin,Yaqing(2008),Yanjiushejiyu xueshichuangxin [ResearchProgram andtheInnovative
Renewalofthe(IR)Discipline],in:ShijieJingjiyuZhengzhi(2008),7580.
Qin,Yaqing(2009),DevelopmentofInternationalRelationsTheoryinChina,in:International
Studies,46,1and2,185201.
Qin,Yaqing(2010;[2007]),WhyIsThereNoChineseInternationalRelationsTheory,in:Amit
avAcharyaandBarryBuzan(eds)(2010),NonWesternInternationalRelationsTheory,Lon
don;NewYork:Routledge,2650.
Ren,Xiao(2000),Lilunyuguojiguanxililun:Yixiesikao[SomeThoughtsonTheoryandIR
Theory],in:Ouzhou,4,1925.
Ren,Xiao(2009),Zouzizhufazhanzhilu:ZhenglunzhongdeZhongguoxuepaiguojiguanxixue
[Following the Road of Selfreliant Development: The Controversy about a Chinese
SchoolofIR],online:<www.irchna.org/news/view.asp?id=1868>(10October2011).
Ren, Xiao (2010), Traditional Chinese Theory and Practice of Foreign Relations:A Reassess
ment,in:YongnianZheng(ed.),ChinaandInternationalRelations:TheChineseViewandthe
ContributionofWangGungwu,London/NewYork:Routledge,102116.
Said,EdwardW.(1979),Orientalism,NewYork:RandomHouse.
Song,Xinning(1997),InternationalTheorybuildinginChina,in:PoliticalScience,10,26,4061.
Smith,Steve(1996),Positivismandbeyond,in:SteveSmith,KenBoothandMarysiaZalewski
(eds),InternationalTheory:Positivism&beyond,NewYork:CambridgeUP,1144.
Smith,Steve(1997),NewApproachestoInternationalTheory,in:JohnBaylisandSteveSmith
(eds),The GlobalizationofWorldPolitics:AnIntroductiontoInternationalRelations, Oxford:
OxfordUP,165190.
Smith,Steve(2000),TheDisciplineofInternationalRelations:StillanAmericanSocialScience?,
in:BritishJournalofPoliticsandInternationalRelations,3,3,216255.
Su,Changhe(2005),WeishenmemeiyouZhongguodeguojiguanxililun?[WhyIsThereNo
ChineseIRTheory?],in:GuojiGuancha,4,2630.

26

NeleNoesselt:IsThereaChineseSchoolofIR?

Tickner,ArleneB.,andOleWaever(eds)(2009),InternationalRelationsScholarshipAroundthe
World,London/NewYork:Routledge.
Waever,Ole(1998),TheSociologyofaNotSoInternationalDiscipline:AmericanandEurope
anDevelopmentsinInternationalRelations,in:InternationalOrganization,52,4,687727.
Waever, Ole,andArleneB.Tickner(2009),Introduction:Geoculturalepistemologies,in:Ar
leneB.TicknerandOleWaever(eds)(2009),InternationalRelationsScholarshipAroundthe
World,London/NewYork:Routledge,131.
Walker, Richard Louis (1971), The Multistate System ofAncient China, Westport: Greenwood
Press.
Wang,Fan(2008),GuanyuZhongguoguojiguanxililundejidiansikao(SomeReflectionsonChi
neseIRTheory),online:<www.irchina.org/news/view.asp?id=1598>(19October2011).
Wang,Gungwu(1983),TheRhetoricofaLesserEmpire:EarlySungRelationsWithItsNeigh
bors,in:MorrisRossabi(ed.),ChinaAmongEquals:TheMiddleKingdomandItsNeighbors,
10th14thCenturies,Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,4765.
Wang, Lian (1994), Jianshe you Zhongguo tese de guoji guanxi lilun xueshu yanjiuhui
zongshu [Summary of theAcademic Conference on Constructing IR Theory with Chi
neseCharacteristics],in:GuojiZhengzhiYanjiu,3,4447.
Wang,Jisi(1994),InternationalRelationsTheoryandtheStudyofChineseForeignPolicy,in:
Thomas W. Robinson and David Shambaugh (eds), Chinese Foreign Policy Theory and
Practice,Oxford:ClarendonPress,481505.
Wang, Jisi (2003), International Studies in China Today, online: <www.irchina.org/en/
pdf/IRSC_wang_jisi_english.pdf>(12October2011).
Wang,Rihua(2011),Political HegemonyinAncientChina:A Review ofHegemonyinThe
Stratagems of the Warring States, in: Daniel Bell and Zhe Sun (eds), Ancient Chinese
Thought,ModernChinesePower,Princeton:PrincetonUP,181198.
Wang,Yiwei(2009),China:BetweenCopyingandConstructing,in:ArleneB.TicknerandOle
Waever (eds) (2009), International Relations Scholarship Around the World, London/New
York:Routledge,103119.
Wight,Martin(1966),WhyIsThereNoInternationalTheory?,in:MartinWightandHerbert
Butterfield(eds),DiplomaticInvestigations,London:Allen&Unwin,1734.
Wight, Colin (2002), Philosophy of Social Science and International Relations, in: Walter
Carlsnaes,ThomasRisseandBethA.Simmons (eds),Handbook ofInternationalRelations,
LosAngeles:Sage,2351.
Xu,Jin(2011),TheTwoPolesofConfucianism:AComparisonoftheInterstatePoliticalPhi
losophies of Mencius and Xunzi, in: Daniel Bell and Zhe Sun (eds), Ancient Chinese
Thought,ModernChinesePower,Princeton:PrincetonUP,161180.

NeleNoesselt:IsThereaChineseSchoolofIR?

27

Yan, Xuetong (2008), Xun Zis Thought on International Politics and Their Implications, in:
ChineseJournalofInternationalPolitics,2,1,135165.
Yan, Xuetong (2011a), A Comparative Study of PreQin Interstate Political Philosophy, in:
DanielBellandZheSun(eds),AncientChineseThought,ModernChinesePower,Princeton:
PrincetonUP,2169.
Yan,Xuetong(2011b),XunzisInterstatePoliticalPhilosophyandItsMessageForToday,in:
DanielBellandZheSun(eds),AncientChineseThought,ModernChinesePower,Princeton:
PrincetonUP,70106.
Yang, Qianru (2011),An Examination of the Research Theory of PreQin Interstate Political
Philosophy, in: Daniel Bell and Zhe Sun (eds), Ancient Chinese Thought, Modern Chinese
Power,Princeton:PrincetonUP,147160.
Ye, Zicheng (2004), Chaoyue duojihua siwei, cujin daguo hezuo: Dui Zhongguo duojihua
zhanle de lishi yu lilun de fansi [Going beyond the Idea of Multipolarity, Promoting
Cooperation between Great Powers: Historical and Theoretical Reflections on Chinas
StrategyofMultipolarity],in:JisiWang(ed.),Zhongguoxuezhekanshijie[ChineseScholars
ViewtheWorld],Beijing:XinShijieChubanshe,6286.
Yee,Herbert(1983),TheThreeWorldTheoryandPostMaosGlobalStrategy?,in:Internation
alAffairs,59,2,239249.
Zha,Daojiong(1997),Introduction,in:PoliticalScience,49,1,15.
Zhang,Feng(2009),RethinkingtheTributeSystem:BroadeningtheConceptualHorizonof
HistoricalEastAsianPolitics,in:ChineseJournalofInternationalPolitics,2,4,545574.
Zhang,Ruizhuang(2003),Woguoguojiguanxixuekefazhancunzaideruoganwenti[Some
Problems in the Development of IR as anAcademic Discipline in China], in: Huanrong
Xiao (ed.), Guoji guanxixue zai Zhongguo [IRS in China], Beijing: Zhongguo Chuanmei
DaxueChubanshe,2027.
Zhang,Yongjin(2001),System,EmpireandStateinChineseInternationalRelations,in:Review
ofInternationalStudies,27,5,4363.
ZhaoTingyang(2005),TianxiaTixi:Shijiezhiduzhexuedaolun[TheTianxiaSystem:AnIntro
ductiontothePhilosophyofaWorldInstitution],Nanjing:JiangsuJiaoyuChubanshe.
Zhao, Tingyang (2006), Rethinking Empire from a Chinese Concept of Allunderheaven
(tianxia),in:SocialIdentities,12,1,2941.
Zhao,Tingyang(2009),APoliticalWorldPhilosophyinTermsofAllunderheaven(Tianxia),
in:Diogenes,56,1,518.
Zhou,Fangyin(2011),EquilibriumAnalysisoftheTributarySystem,in:TheChineseJournalof
InternationalPolitics,4,2,147178.

Recent Issues
No 187 Maria Bondes and Sandra Heep: Frames We Can Believe In: Official Framing and Ideology
in the CCPs Quest for Legitimacy, February 2012
No 186 Hanspeter Mattes: Domestic Security in the Maghreb: Deficits and Counter-Measures,
January 2012
No 185 Michael Grimm, Simon Lange and Jann Lay: Credit-constrained in Risky Activities?
The Determinants of the Capital Stocks of Micro and Small Firms in Western Africa,
January 2012
No 184 Almut Schilling-Vacaflor: Democratizing Resource Governance through Prior Consul
tations? Lessons from Bolivias Hydrocarbon Sector, January 2012
No 183 Lena Giesbert and Susan Steiner: Perceptions of (Micro)Insurance in Southern Ghana:
The Role of Information and Peer Effects, December 2011
No 182 Bert Hoffmann: The International Dimensions of Authoritarian Legitimation: The Impact
of Regime Evolution, December 2011
No 181 Sabine Kurtenbach: State-Building, War and Violence: Evidence from Latin America,
November 2011
No 180 Laurence Marfaing and Alena Thiel: Chinese Commodity Imports in Ghana and Senegal:
Demystifying Chinese Business Strength in Urban West Africa, November 2011
No 179 Hugo Dobson: The G20: Engine of Asian Regionalism?, November 2011
No 178 Johannes Vllers: Fighting for a Kingdom of God? The Role of Religion in the Ivorian
Crisis, October 2011
No 177 Marco Bnte: Burmas Transition to Disciplined Democracy: Abdication or Institutionalization of Military Rule?, August 2011
No 176 Anna Barrera: Turning Legal Pluralism into State-Sanctioned Law: Assessing the Impli
cations of the New Constitutions and Laws in Bolivia and Ecuador, August 2011
No 175 Matthias Basedau, Annegret Mhler and Miriam Shabafrouz: Revisiting the Resource
Conflict Link: A Systematic Comparative Test of Causal Mechanisms in Four Major OilExporting Countries, August 2011
No 174 Babette Never: Who Drives Change? Comparing the Evolution of Domestic Climate
Governance in India and South Africa, August 2011

All GIGA Working Papers are available free of charge at www.giga-hamburg.de/workingpapers.

For any requests please contact: workingpapers@giga-hamburg.de.
Working Papers Editor: Bert Hoffmann
GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies Leibniz-Institut fr Globale und Regionale Studien
Neuer Jungfernstieg 21 20354 Hamburg Germany
Email: info@giga-hamburg.de Website: www.giga-hamburg.de