Explanation plays a central role in international relations (IR). However, as different conceptions of explanation inform our conduct of practices in IR inquiry, such centrality is far from being a settled matter in the discipline. These conceptions tend to be subsumed under broad dichotomies—such as explanation vs. understanding, constitutive vs. causal explanation, and positivism vs. interpretivism—which, in turn, generate a sense of a perennially divided discipline, obfuscating in this process the explanatory pluralism that characterises IR research. In this paper, I argue that different approaches to explanation coexist in IR, with different explanatory games being played by scholars in various fields of international inquiry. Explanatory games are characterised by constitutive rules, rules of representation, rules of inference, and rules of scope, all of which provide the basis for tailoring explanations. Scholars play the game that works best for their explanatory puzzles, following a specific set of rules that validate their form of explanation and thus achieve their research goals. Ultimately, explanation in the discipline is inherently plural. Examining this explanatory pluralism, therefore, requires investigating the rules of our explanatory games.
解释在国际关系（IR）中发挥着核心作用。然而，由于不同的解释概念影响着我们在国际关系研究中的实践行为，这种中心地位在该学科中远非定论。这些概念往往被归结为宽泛的二分法--如解释与理解、构成性解释与因果性解释、实证主义与解释主义--这反过来又产生了一种学科长期分裂的感觉，并在此过程中模糊了作为 IR 研究特点的解释多元化。在本文中，我认为不同的解释方法在国际关系学中并存，不同国际研究领域的学者正在进行不同的解释游戏。解释游戏的特点包括构成规则、表述规则、推论规则和范围规则，所有这些规则都为量身定制解释提供了基础。学者们遵循一套特定的规则，玩最适合其解释难题的游戏，这些规则验证了他们的解释形式，从而实现了他们的研究目标。归根结底，本学科的解释本质上是多元的。因此，研究这种解释的多元性需要研究我们解释游戏的规则。
{"title":"Explanatory Games in International Relations","authors":"Enzo Lenine","doi":"10.1093/cjip/poae020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/poae020","url":null,"abstract":"Explanation plays a central role in international relations (IR). However, as different conceptions of explanation inform our conduct of practices in IR inquiry, such centrality is far from being a settled matter in the discipline. These conceptions tend to be subsumed under broad dichotomies—such as explanation vs. understanding, constitutive vs. causal explanation, and positivism vs. interpretivism—which, in turn, generate a sense of a perennially divided discipline, obfuscating in this process the explanatory pluralism that characterises IR research. In this paper, I argue that different approaches to explanation coexist in IR, with different explanatory games being played by scholars in various fields of international inquiry. Explanatory games are characterised by constitutive rules, rules of representation, rules of inference, and rules of scope, all of which provide the basis for tailoring explanations. Scholars play the game that works best for their explanatory puzzles, following a specific set of rules that validate their form of explanation and thus achieve their research goals. Ultimately, explanation in the discipline is inherently plural. Examining this explanatory pluralism, therefore, requires investigating the rules of our explanatory games.","PeriodicalId":501229,"journal":{"name":"The Chinese Journal of International Politics","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142166634","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Three tensions are said to exist in my relational theory, i.e. between ontology and behavior, between structure and process, and between substance and procedure. Underlying these tensions is a crucial question: How to identify the subject and object and understand the domination–subordination power relationship therein? These seeming inconsistencies appear if observed through a dualistic lens but may well disappear when viewed from the zhongyong dialectic, which, as an epistemological and methodological device, assumes no binary dichotomy in the first place. It believes in immanent relationality and dynamic transformability, holding that interaction based on difference rather than homogeneity generates healthy life and arguing that subject and object, structure and process, substance and procedure—all these categories constructed as dichotomous opposites are in fact mutually transformable as related parts of a whole. The evolution of global society, from international society of nation-states, to global society of humans, and to planetary society of all on earth (or beyond), clearly indicates the relational transformability across the ostensible subject–object divide. Power relations exist, but any unilateral exercise of power is ephemeral, for power over will not last, while power to will.
{"title":"The Zhongyong Dialectic: A Bridge into the Relational World","authors":"Yaqing Qin","doi":"10.1093/cjip/poae011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/poae011","url":null,"abstract":"Three tensions are said to exist in my relational theory, i.e. between ontology and behavior, between structure and process, and between substance and procedure. Underlying these tensions is a crucial question: How to identify the subject and object and understand the domination–subordination power relationship therein? These seeming inconsistencies appear if observed through a dualistic lens but may well disappear when viewed from the zhongyong dialectic, which, as an epistemological and methodological device, assumes no binary dichotomy in the first place. It believes in immanent relationality and dynamic transformability, holding that interaction based on difference rather than homogeneity generates healthy life and arguing that subject and object, structure and process, substance and procedure—all these categories constructed as dichotomous opposites are in fact mutually transformable as related parts of a whole. The evolution of global society, from international society of nation-states, to global society of humans, and to planetary society of all on earth (or beyond), clearly indicates the relational transformability across the ostensible subject–object divide. Power relations exist, but any unilateral exercise of power is ephemeral, for power over will not last, while power to will.","PeriodicalId":501229,"journal":{"name":"The Chinese Journal of International Politics","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141182508","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article reviews issues relevant to the Chinese School of International Relations (IR) theory. After 20 or more years of relentless effort, the Chinese School has achieved concrete breakthroughs, evident in the emergence of Relational Theory, Moral Realism, and Symbiosis Theory. The Chinese School has thus entered a new stage, its primary task having been upgraded from theory innovation to theory development. But to proceed further, the Chinese School needs critical responses from its Western counterparts. Owing primarily to the language barrier, as well as to the non-confrontational academic tradition within Chinese IR, and the ethnocentrism that both sides practice, the few dialogues that have taken place between the Chinese School and Western theories have tended to be problematic, with important issues either ignored or misrepresented. In order to further study a comprehensive and intensive exchange of ideas between the Chinese School and Western theories, this article categorises issues relevant to the Chinese School into three areas. They are: process of evolution; progress in theoretical studies; and the Chinese School’s future relationship with other theoretical entities (in particular, Global IR). Predominantly reliant upon the discourse analysis of Chinese School publications, this contribution seeks to provide a foundation for further exchanges between Western theories and the Chinese School.
{"title":"The Chinese School of IR Theory: Ignored Process, Controversial Progress, and Uncertain Prospects","authors":"Peng Lu","doi":"10.1093/cjip/poae007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/poae007","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article reviews issues relevant to the Chinese School of International Relations (IR) theory. After 20 or more years of relentless effort, the Chinese School has achieved concrete breakthroughs, evident in the emergence of Relational Theory, Moral Realism, and Symbiosis Theory. The Chinese School has thus entered a new stage, its primary task having been upgraded from theory innovation to theory development. But to proceed further, the Chinese School needs critical responses from its Western counterparts. Owing primarily to the language barrier, as well as to the non-confrontational academic tradition within Chinese IR, and the ethnocentrism that both sides practice, the few dialogues that have taken place between the Chinese School and Western theories have tended to be problematic, with important issues either ignored or misrepresented. In order to further study a comprehensive and intensive exchange of ideas between the Chinese School and Western theories, this article categorises issues relevant to the Chinese School into three areas. They are: process of evolution; progress in theoretical studies; and the Chinese School’s future relationship with other theoretical entities (in particular, Global IR). Predominantly reliant upon the discourse analysis of Chinese School publications, this contribution seeks to provide a foundation for further exchanges between Western theories and the Chinese School.","PeriodicalId":501229,"journal":{"name":"The Chinese Journal of International Politics","volume":"47 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140759365","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Sino-Russian relations have thrived in the post–Cold War era. While the relationship has attracted ample academic attention, many of the underlying factors contributing to the bilateral rapprochement over the past three decades remain un(der)explored. This article examines the role played by one of the factors involved in this process: the development of institutional links between the two states. Bilateral institutions, which were largely absent until the mid-1990s, have rapidly proliferated into a dense network of commissions and subcommissions, working groups, and other institutionalised exchanges, encompassing virtually all sectors of interaction between China and Russia. The article employs analytical concepts borrowed from Institutionalist theory and develops criteria of analysis to assess the extent to which the process of bilateral institution-building has contributed to promoting and perpetuating Sino-Russian rapprochement, enabling the two states to forge a closer working relationship with each other. The article also examines what the limits of this process have been. It concludes that the practical impact of bilateral institution-building on policy-making has been modest; however, the institutions have come to constitute important forums to secure a regular exchange and familiarisation between senior decision-makers and stakeholders, allowing for an active communication of important information and mutual assurances regarding each country’s policy choices, intentions, and concerns.
{"title":"How Institution-Building Shapes Great Power Alignment: An Institutional Perspective on the China–Russia Partnership","authors":"Björn Alexander Düben","doi":"10.1093/cjip/poae005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/poae005","url":null,"abstract":"Sino-Russian relations have thrived in the post–Cold War era. While the relationship has attracted ample academic attention, many of the underlying factors contributing to the bilateral rapprochement over the past three decades remain un(der)explored. This article examines the role played by one of the factors involved in this process: the development of institutional links between the two states. Bilateral institutions, which were largely absent until the mid-1990s, have rapidly proliferated into a dense network of commissions and subcommissions, working groups, and other institutionalised exchanges, encompassing virtually all sectors of interaction between China and Russia. The article employs analytical concepts borrowed from Institutionalist theory and develops criteria of analysis to assess the extent to which the process of bilateral institution-building has contributed to promoting and perpetuating Sino-Russian rapprochement, enabling the two states to forge a closer working relationship with each other. The article also examines what the limits of this process have been. It concludes that the practical impact of bilateral institution-building on policy-making has been modest; however, the institutions have come to constitute important forums to secure a regular exchange and familiarisation between senior decision-makers and stakeholders, allowing for an active communication of important information and mutual assurances regarding each country’s policy choices, intentions, and concerns.","PeriodicalId":501229,"journal":{"name":"The Chinese Journal of International Politics","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140192738","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Overseas engineering projects (OEPs) significantly facilitate China’s participation in global politics and economy. Based on Pew Global Surveys from 2005 to 2019, this study investigates the relationship between China’s OEP and the country’s national image. We find that OEPs have a positive impact in this regard, but most significantly in countries participating in the Belt and Road Initiative. Specifically, China’s image gains the most positive impact from transportation and energy projects and, to the greatest extent, from those powered by financial assistance rather than by imported Chinese workers. Such a positive effect is, in addition, most pronounced in low- and middle-income countries with a low level of national governance, while it is negligible in states that are US allies. This study affords a deeper understanding of the spillover effects of overseas economic activities at both the political and social levels.
{"title":"The Effect of China’s Overseas Engineering Projects on National Image: Empirical Analysis Based on Global Survey Data","authors":"Zhen Qi, Yixiao Zhou, Gongyan Yang","doi":"10.1093/cjip/poad016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/poad016","url":null,"abstract":"Overseas engineering projects (OEPs) significantly facilitate China’s participation in global politics and economy. Based on Pew Global Surveys from 2005 to 2019, this study investigates the relationship between China’s OEP and the country’s national image. We find that OEPs have a positive impact in this regard, but most significantly in countries participating in the Belt and Road Initiative. Specifically, China’s image gains the most positive impact from transportation and energy projects and, to the greatest extent, from those powered by financial assistance rather than by imported Chinese workers. Such a positive effect is, in addition, most pronounced in low- and middle-income countries with a low level of national governance, while it is negligible in states that are US allies. This study affords a deeper understanding of the spillover effects of overseas economic activities at both the political and social levels.","PeriodicalId":501229,"journal":{"name":"The Chinese Journal of International Politics","volume":"29 37","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139148060","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Joanne Wallis, Geyi Xie, William Waqavakatoga, Priestley Habru, Maima Koro
Metropolitan powers are concerned that China is seeking to influence Pacific Island countries and reshape Pacific Islands’ regional order in its favour. But there is a risk that the effectiveness of China’s efforts has been overinterpreted by metropolitan powers. In this article we analyse the effectiveness of one element of China’s activities: the deployment of narrative power. We do this by examining the reception and role of China’s strategic narratives in the Pacific Islands. We analyse how China’s strategic narratives have been interpreted, adopted, and/or instrumentalised by Pacific Island countries and leaders using case studies of three key regional states: Fiji, Solomon Islands, and Samoa. We conclude that while Fijian, Solomon Islands, and Samoan leaders have incorporated elements of China’s strategic narratives into their discourse, they have done so using their own interpretations and, at times, instrumentalised those narratives for their own purposes. We conclude that this suggests that narrative power is more limited than it is often assumed. However, we acknowledge that narrative power may have indirect effects, with China’s narratives in the Pacific Islands region, as well as their instrumental adoption by Pacific Island countries, motivating changes in the policies and narratives of metropolitan powers.
{"title":"Ordering the Islands? Pacific Responses to China’s Strategic Narratives","authors":"Joanne Wallis, Geyi Xie, William Waqavakatoga, Priestley Habru, Maima Koro","doi":"10.1093/cjip/poad015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/poad015","url":null,"abstract":"Metropolitan powers are concerned that China is seeking to influence Pacific Island countries and reshape Pacific Islands’ regional order in its favour. But there is a risk that the effectiveness of China’s efforts has been overinterpreted by metropolitan powers. In this article we analyse the effectiveness of one element of China’s activities: the deployment of narrative power. We do this by examining the reception and role of China’s strategic narratives in the Pacific Islands. We analyse how China’s strategic narratives have been interpreted, adopted, and/or instrumentalised by Pacific Island countries and leaders using case studies of three key regional states: Fiji, Solomon Islands, and Samoa. We conclude that while Fijian, Solomon Islands, and Samoan leaders have incorporated elements of China’s strategic narratives into their discourse, they have done so using their own interpretations and, at times, instrumentalised those narratives for their own purposes. We conclude that this suggests that narrative power is more limited than it is often assumed. However, we acknowledge that narrative power may have indirect effects, with China’s narratives in the Pacific Islands region, as well as their instrumental adoption by Pacific Island countries, motivating changes in the policies and narratives of metropolitan powers.","PeriodicalId":501229,"journal":{"name":"The Chinese Journal of International Politics","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139161984","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Economic Openness and Great Power Competition: Lessons for China and the United States","authors":"David A Lake","doi":"10.1093/cjip/poy010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/poy010","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":501229,"journal":{"name":"The Chinese Journal of International Politics","volume":"18 5","pages":"237-270"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138511386","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：