秩序世界中的中国:重新思考北京国际关系中的服从与挑战

IF 4.8 1区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS International Security Pub Date : 2019-10-01 DOI:10.1162/isec_a_00360
A. Johnston
{"title":"秩序世界中的中国:重新思考北京国际关系中的服从与挑战","authors":"A. Johnston","doi":"10.1162/isec_a_00360","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Many scholars and policymakers in the United States accept the narrative that China is a revisionist state challenging the U.S.-dominated international liberal order. The narrative assumes that there is a singular liberal order and that it is obvious what constitutes a challenge to it. The concepts of order and challenge are, however, poorly operationalized. There are at least four plausible operationalizations of order, three of which are explicitly or implicitly embodied in the dominant narrative. These tend to assume, ahistorically, that U.S. interests and the content of the liberal order are almost identical. The fourth operationalization views order as an emergent property of the interaction of multiple state, substate, nonstate, and international actors. As a result, there are at least eight “issue-specific orders” (e.g., military, trade, information, and political development). Some of these China accepts; some it rejects; and some it is willing to live with. Given these multiple orders and varying levels of challenge, the narrative of a U.S.-dominated liberal international order being challenged by a revisionist China makes little conceptual or empirical sense. The findings point to the need to develop more generalizable ways of observing orders and compliance.","PeriodicalId":48667,"journal":{"name":"International Security","volume":"8 1","pages":"9-60"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"80","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"China in a World of Orders: Rethinking Compliance and Challenge in Beijing's International Relations\",\"authors\":\"A. Johnston\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/isec_a_00360\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Many scholars and policymakers in the United States accept the narrative that China is a revisionist state challenging the U.S.-dominated international liberal order. The narrative assumes that there is a singular liberal order and that it is obvious what constitutes a challenge to it. The concepts of order and challenge are, however, poorly operationalized. There are at least four plausible operationalizations of order, three of which are explicitly or implicitly embodied in the dominant narrative. These tend to assume, ahistorically, that U.S. interests and the content of the liberal order are almost identical. The fourth operationalization views order as an emergent property of the interaction of multiple state, substate, nonstate, and international actors. As a result, there are at least eight “issue-specific orders” (e.g., military, trade, information, and political development). Some of these China accepts; some it rejects; and some it is willing to live with. Given these multiple orders and varying levels of challenge, the narrative of a U.S.-dominated liberal international order being challenged by a revisionist China makes little conceptual or empirical sense. The findings point to the need to develop more generalizable ways of observing orders and compliance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48667,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Security\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"9-60\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"80\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Security\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00360\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Security","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00360","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 80

摘要

美国许多学者和政策制定者接受这样一种说法,即中国是一个挑战美国主导的国际自由秩序的修正主义国家。这种叙述假定存在一种单一的自由秩序,而且对它构成挑战的东西是显而易见的。然而,秩序和挑战的概念没有得到很好的操作。至少有四种合理的秩序运作方式,其中三种或明或暗地体现在主导叙事中。从历史上看,这些人倾向于假设美国的利益和自由秩序的内容几乎是相同的。第四种运作化将秩序视为多个国家、次国家、非国家和国际行为体相互作用的紧急属性。因此,至少有8个“特定问题的命令”(例如,军事、贸易、信息和政治发展)。中国接受其中一些;有些被拒绝;还有一些是中国愿意接受的。考虑到这些多重秩序和不同程度的挑战,美国主导的自由国际秩序受到修正主义中国挑战的说法在概念上或经验上都没有什么意义。研究结果指出,需要开发更普遍的方式来观察命令和遵守。
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 in a World of Orders: Rethinking Compliance and Challenge in Beijing's International Relations
Abstract Many scholars and policymakers in the United States accept the narrative that China is a revisionist state challenging the U.S.-dominated international liberal order. The narrative assumes that there is a singular liberal order and that it is obvious what constitutes a challenge to it. The concepts of order and challenge are, however, poorly operationalized. There are at least four plausible operationalizations of order, three of which are explicitly or implicitly embodied in the dominant narrative. These tend to assume, ahistorically, that U.S. interests and the content of the liberal order are almost identical. The fourth operationalization views order as an emergent property of the interaction of multiple state, substate, nonstate, and international actors. As a result, there are at least eight “issue-specific orders” (e.g., military, trade, information, and political development). Some of these China accepts; some it rejects; and some it is willing to live with. Given these multiple orders and varying levels of challenge, the narrative of a U.S.-dominated liberal international order being challenged by a revisionist China makes little conceptual or empirical sense. The findings point to the need to develop more generalizable ways of observing orders and compliance.
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
International Security
International Security Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: International Security publishes lucid, well-documented essays on the full range of contemporary security issues. Its articles address traditional topics of war and peace, as well as more recent dimensions of security, including environmental, demographic, and humanitarian issues, transnational networks, and emerging technologies. International Security has defined the debate on US national security policy and set the agenda for scholarship on international security affairs for more than forty years. The journal values scholarship that challenges the conventional wisdom, examines policy, engages theory, illuminates history, and discovers new trends. Readers of IS discover new developments in: The causes and prevention of war U.S.-China relations Great power politics Ethnic conflict and intra-state war Terrorism and insurgency Regional security in Africa, Asia, Europe, and Latin America U.S. foreign and defense policy International relations theory Diplomatic and military history Cybersecurity and defense technology Political economy, business, and security Nuclear proliferation.
期刊最新文献
Collective Resilience: Deterring China's Weaponization of Economic Interdependence Reviewers for Volume 47 Bargaining with the Military: How Presidents Manage the Political Costs of Civilian Control The Peril of Peaking Powers: Economic Slowdowns and Implications for China's Next Decade The Institutional Origins of Miscalculation in China's International Crises
×
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