中国自信的关系策略:接触、抵制、回报和施压

IF 0.8 Q2 AREA STUDIES ISSUES & STUDIES Pub Date : 2018-09-01 DOI:10.1142/S1013251118500066
Hung-Jen Wang
{"title":"中国自信的关系策略:接触、抵制、回报和施压","authors":"Hung-Jen Wang","doi":"10.1142/S1013251118500066","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the past decade, observers in Western countries have been increasingly challenged to describe China’s rising power in one of two ways: as contributing to established world systems, or as a growing threat fulfilling certain predictions made at the end of the Cold War. For some, perceptions of increasingly assertive regional behaviors confirm that China’s self-proclaimed policy of pacifism is being used to cloak selfish national interest and power goals. The current international relations (IR) literature tends to treat China’s assertiveness as evidence that it is indeed a threat, with few attempts to conceptualize assertiveness as a relational strategy. In this paper, the author uses eight current and historical cases involving four relational strategies — engagement, boycotting, reciprocation, and pressing — to examine conventional assessments of assertiveness that focus solely on perceptions of and responses to threatening statements and behaviors made in defense of Chinese national interests. In the end, this paper tries to contribute to the general IR literature that has tended to misinterpret China’s assertiveness, which is actually an identity issue regarding bilateral relationality instead of power or interest calculations.","PeriodicalId":53213,"journal":{"name":"ISSUES & STUDIES","volume":"1205 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"China’s Assertive Relational Strategies: Engagement, Boycotting, Reciprocation, and Pressing\",\"authors\":\"Hung-Jen Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1142/S1013251118500066\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the past decade, observers in Western countries have been increasingly challenged to describe China’s rising power in one of two ways: as contributing to established world systems, or as a growing threat fulfilling certain predictions made at the end of the Cold War. For some, perceptions of increasingly assertive regional behaviors confirm that China’s self-proclaimed policy of pacifism is being used to cloak selfish national interest and power goals. The current international relations (IR) literature tends to treat China’s assertiveness as evidence that it is indeed a threat, with few attempts to conceptualize assertiveness as a relational strategy. In this paper, the author uses eight current and historical cases involving four relational strategies — engagement, boycotting, reciprocation, and pressing — to examine conventional assessments of assertiveness that focus solely on perceptions of and responses to threatening statements and behaviors made in defense of Chinese national interests. In the end, this paper tries to contribute to the general IR literature that has tended to misinterpret China’s assertiveness, which is actually an identity issue regarding bilateral relationality instead of power or interest calculations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53213,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ISSUES & STUDIES\",\"volume\":\"1205 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ISSUES & STUDIES\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1142/S1013251118500066\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"AREA STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ISSUES & STUDIES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1142/S1013251118500066","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在过去的十年里,西方国家的观察家们越来越难以用两种方式来描述中国崛起的力量:要么是对现有世界体系的贡献,要么是实现冷战结束时某些预测的日益增长的威胁。对一些人来说,对日益自信的地区行为的看法证实,中国自称的和平主义政策正被用来掩盖自私的国家利益和权力目标。当前的国际关系(IR)文献倾向于将中国的自信视为其确实是一种威胁的证据,很少尝试将自信概念化为一种关系策略。在本文中,作者使用了八个当前和历史案例,涉及四种关系策略——接触、抵制、互惠和施压——来检验传统的自信评估,这些评估只关注对捍卫中国国家利益的威胁性言论和行为的看法和反应。最后,本文试图为一般的国际关系文献做出贡献,这些文献倾向于误解中国的自信,这实际上是一个关于双边关系的身份问题,而不是权力或利益计算。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
China’s Assertive Relational Strategies: Engagement, Boycotting, Reciprocation, and Pressing
In the past decade, observers in Western countries have been increasingly challenged to describe China’s rising power in one of two ways: as contributing to established world systems, or as a growing threat fulfilling certain predictions made at the end of the Cold War. For some, perceptions of increasingly assertive regional behaviors confirm that China’s self-proclaimed policy of pacifism is being used to cloak selfish national interest and power goals. The current international relations (IR) literature tends to treat China’s assertiveness as evidence that it is indeed a threat, with few attempts to conceptualize assertiveness as a relational strategy. In this paper, the author uses eight current and historical cases involving four relational strategies — engagement, boycotting, reciprocation, and pressing — to examine conventional assessments of assertiveness that focus solely on perceptions of and responses to threatening statements and behaviors made in defense of Chinese national interests. In the end, this paper tries to contribute to the general IR literature that has tended to misinterpret China’s assertiveness, which is actually an identity issue regarding bilateral relationality instead of power or interest calculations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ISSUES & STUDIES
ISSUES & STUDIES Multiple-
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
25.00%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: ISSUES & STUDIES (ISSN 1013-2511) is published quarterly by the Institute of International Relations, National Chengchi University, Taipei. IS is an internationally peer-reviewed journal dedicated to publishing quality social science research on issues ¨C mainly of a political nature ¨C related to the domestic and international affairs of contemporary China, Taiwan, and East Asia, as well as other closely related topics. The editors particularly welcome manuscripts related to China and Taiwan.
期刊最新文献
Attitude Decay, Event Salience, and Emotional Reversal: Chinese Cyber-Nationalism after Pelosi’s Visit to Taiwan Industrial Policies Under Xi Jinping: A Steering Theory Perspective Dual Elite Recruitment Logic and Political Manipulation under Xi Jinping International Norms, Policy Transfers and Energy Transition: Implications for Taiwan’s Development What Can Comparative Authoritarianism Tell Us About China Under Xi Jinping (and Vice Versa)?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1