International Relations Theory in China

Global Society, Vol. 15, No.
3, 2001
International Relations Theory in China
GUSTAAF GEERAERTS and MEN JING
Although Western theory continues to dominate the eld of international relations (IR), there is also a need to consider non-Western views on international
politics. In our view to do so is mandatory, both for the sake of the growth of
knowledge and the promotion of mutual international understanding in a
culturally differentiated world arena. In this article, we shall speci cally take a
closer look at IR theory in China. It should be pointed out from the very start,
however, that IR is a relatively new academic subject in China. Consequently,
the emergence of a well-established Chinese research tradition will undoubtedly
take some time. In its current stage, Chinese theory-building is no match for
Western theoretical achievements. Nevertheless, already at this stage it is worth
paying attention to the distinctive views articulated and championed by Chinese
IR scholars since these views constitute the basis for further theory construction,
and are also likely to affect the making of Chinese foreign policy, and hence
Chinas behaviour in the realm of international politics. As China is growing
stronger economically, politically and militarily, a growing need for understanding Chinese thinking on IR clearly manifests itself.1
This article provides a state of affairs of IR theory in China. It analyses the
issues at stake in the development of Chinese IR theory. The questions addressed
concern the Chinese conception of theory, the different stages in the development
of IR theory in China and the place of Chinese ancient culture in this process,
whether IR theory should have ``Chinese characteristics, which are the most
pressing problems with theory-building in China, and which are the main causes
for these problems? It is argued that at present there are no fully developed IR
research traditions in China. However, scholars in the eld especially the
younger generation are enthusiastic about its possible construction, notwithstanding formidable hurdles. While most scholars acknowledge the bene ts of
traditional Chinese culture to enrich the content of IR theory in China, they are
also aware that learning and understanding Western theoretical systems are
paramount. However, Western IR theory is to China a kind of external culture.
How to deal with the relations between Western culture and Chinas indigenous
cultural tradition needs to be given careful attention. Before the two can relate
comfortably to each other, they will experience some kind of uneasy dialogue
the tensions between the Western ``culture of IR theorising and the Chinese
``culture of IR theorising must be managed properly. The present article seeks
1. Gerald Chan, ``Toward an International Relations Theory with Chinese Characteristics?, Issues
& Studies, Vol. 6 (1998), pp. 2 3.

ISSN 1360-082 6 print/ISSN 1469-798 X online/01/030251-26 2001 University of Kent at Canterbury
DOI: 10.1080/1360082012006625 8
252
G. Geeraerts and M. Jing
to contribute to this process by making explicit the different positions as they

are found in the Chinese IR literature.
The Chinese Conception of Theory
The basic concept of theory in China differs markedly from the one found in
mainstream Western epistemology. While according to the latter, the function of
theory consists in explaining and predicting, theory in the Chinese conception
has to serve the purpose of socialist revolution and construction. Such a conception stresses both a theorys ideological content and effectiveness in application.
Thus, theories are strongly ideologically oriented and must be able to instruct
practice in the ``right way. Ideological soundness as well as effectiveness in
guiding policy-making are paramount in judging a theorys value. Ideologically
unsound theories are not ``revolutionary and are therefore `èmpty, whereas
theories that cannot provide guidance in action are regarded as useless or
``wrong. Owing to the speci c nature of the Chinese conception of theory,
theories can thus be classi ed as ``right theory, ``wrong theory, ``revolutionary
theory and `èmpty theory.2
Viewed from that perspective, Western IR theory is politically and culturally
bounded and only gives a partial outlook on international politics. In a book
edited by Yuan Ming following a conference on the construction of IR theory in
China, some scholars underline that ``the research conducted by Western IR
scholars is unavoidably restricted by the national and cultural environment
within which they are nested.3 Others hold that ``social sciences always have
strong marks of classes and are always aimed to serve particular interests. In the
same vein western IR theory aims to serve certain national and class interests.4
Still some other viewpoints hold that the ``development of IR theory needs to
incorporate ideas from diverse cultures, since an analysis from the cultural
perspective of only one or a minority of countries can hardly do justice to the
colourful and overall nature of the object it needs to describe and explain .5
The tradition of regarding theory as a practical guide dates to the revolutionary
period in China at the beginning of the 1900s. The spread of Marxism and
Leninism, and the subsequent success of the revolution with the help of those
theories, convinced Chinese leaders that the importance of theoretical constructs
stems from their practical applicability. As Deng Xiaoping pointed out in a Party
Congress: ``Marxism is a guidance for action. It requests people to look for
solutions to new problems according to its basic principle and methodology in
the light of changing reality.6 Nested within such a strictly con ned conception
2. Wang Jisi, ``Guoji guanxi lilun yu Zhongguo waijiao yanjiu (`ÌR Theory and Research of
Chinese Foreign Policy), Zhongguo shehui kexue jikan (Chinese Social Sciences Quarterly), Vol. 2
(1993), p. 85.
3. Yuan Ming (ed.), Kuashiji de tiaozhan: Zhongguo guoji guanxi xueke de fazhan (Facing the Challenge
of the 21st Century: International Relations Studies in China) (Chongqing: Chongqing Press, 1993), p. 10.
4. He Fang, ``Shijie geju de zhongda bianhua he Zhongguo de guoji guanxi lilun (``Great Changes
in World Pattern and Chinese IR Theory), in Yuan Ming (ed.), Kuashji de tiaozhan: Zhongguo guoji
guanxi xueke de fazhan (Facing the Challenge of the 21st Century: International Relations Studies in
China), p. 15.
5. Yuan Ming, Kuashiji de tiaozhan, p. 7.
6. Deng Xiaoping, Deng Xiaoping wenxuan (Selected Speeches and Articles of Deng Xiaoping), Vol. 3
(Beijing: Peoples Press, 1993), p. 146.
IR Theory in China
253
of theory, the construction of IR theory in China cannot but be driven by a strong

pragmatism. Theory-building must conform to the demand of the situation, and
can only gain a foothold if it is instructive and valuable in policy-making.
Notwithstanding this common pragmatic orientation, Chinese scholars have
different understandings about the nature of theories. Most senior Chinese
scholars believe that there are two schools of IR theory: Western bourgeois (said
``wrong) IR theory and Marxist Leninist or socialist (said ``right) IR theory.
Most of the younger scholars and a small number of senior scholars think that
IR theory should be a scienti c framework for analysing international politics
and international relations, and so have clearly moved closer to mainstream
Western conceptions of science. Still some others emphasise different types of
IR theory, namely, general theories and practice- or policy-orientated theories. A
general theory should be universal and largely applicable in most contexts, while
a theory with a more practical application is more context-speci c.7
The Development of IR Theory in China
Development from the 1950s to 1970s

Compared with the history of IR in the West, IR in China is a recent development.
Its construction started in response to the call of the leaders of the CCPs Central
Committee. By the time the Peoples Republic of China was founded, the bipolar
system of the Cold War was in place and sanctions led by the US, together
with other capitalist states, threatened the newly established socialist regimes
existence. Feeling ill at ease with the hostile international environment, the
national leaders came to recognise the urgency of international studies. At the
inaugural meeting of the Foreign Ministry in 1949, the then Premier Zhou Enlai
called for the establishment of an IR discipline.8 Constrained by both external
and internal factors, however, the eld remained underdeveloped. Attention
went only to the con ict between capitalism and communism and the balance
of power. The Department of Foreign Affairs at Renmin University in Beijing
was the only research institution in this eld in the early 1950s. In 1955 it was
enlarged into the Foreign Affairs College, which is under the direct control of
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Since its establishment, it has trained a large
number of diplomats and translators for China. At the beginning of the 1960s,
Chen Yi, former Minister of Foreign Affairs, suggested in his report to the CCP
Central Committee that research on international issues should be strengthened.9
In 1963, a Department of International Politics was established at Beijing University, Renmin University and Fudan University. A number of research institutes
focused on international issues were also set up.10
By the end of 1963, the then Premier Zhou Enlai presided over a forum, the
target of which was to strengthen national research on international issues. The
forum resulted in the ``Decision on Strengthening Research of International
7. Song Xinning, `Ìnternational Relations Theory-building in China, Political Science, Vol. 49
(1997), pp. 42 43.
8. Zhou Enmai, Zhou Enlai waijiao wenji (Zhou Enlais Collection of Foreign Affairs) (Beijing: Central
Document Publishing House, 1990), p. 1.
9. Yuan Ming, Kuashiji de tiaozhan, p. 255.
10. Song Xinning, `Ìnternational Relations , p. 40.
254
Issues issued by the Party Central Committee.11 As this decision closely followed
the beginning of the split between China and the Soviet Union, it can be
interpreted as an effort by China to free itself from the latters ideological control
and conceptualisation of the world.12
The features of IR study in China in the 1950s and 1960s can be summarised
as follows. First, while Marxism and Leninism were accepted as the guidance of
research, the practice of Chinese revolution and construction was studied
in relation to the changing international situation. Second, the research on
international issues directly served the needs of the state to deal with diplomatic
relations and international struggle. Third, the domain of research concentrated
on issues concerning national security.13 However, as many scholars point out,
notwithstanding the tangible progress in the study of international politics, IR
theory research was like a blank paper before the 1980s. ``There was no real IR
theory taught in China. The so-called `Theory of International Politics before
then was simply interpretations of the viewpoints of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin
and Mao Zedong . . . University courses were designed primarily to explain
Marxist theories of imperialism, colonialism, national liberation movements, and
war and peace. 14
Development from the 1980s

Since the convening of the Third Plenary Session of the CCPs 11th Central
Committee in 1979, at which the well-known decisions of opening up and reform
were made, China has witnessed dramatic changes at all levels of society. As a
result, academic research on international politics also resumed its importance.
In a 1979 speech, Deng Xiaoping admitted that political science, law, sociology,
and world politics had been ignored in the past years. It was therefore high time
to make up for the ``missed lessons.15 The far-reaching reform inaugurated by
Deng received high praise from scholars who in the previous years had tried to
improve the study of international politics. ``Reform and opening up to the
outside world, together with the changes in Chinas international strategy,
provided the momentum for IR theory development in China. Without reform
and opening up policy, there would be no improvement of Chinese IR study;
without development of Chinese IR theoretical research, there would be no indepth understanding of international issues. 16
A document issued by the CCP Central Committee in 1985 concerning the
reform of courses in ideology and political theory demanded that colleges and
universities provide new courses on world politics, economy and international
11. Feng Tejun and Song Xinning (eds.), Guoji zhengzhi gailun (Introduction to International Politics)
(Beijing: Renmin University Press, 1993), p. 4.
12. Gerald Chan, `Ìnternational Studies in China: Origins and Development, Issues & Studies,
Vol. 33, No. 2 (1997), p. 48.
13. Cheng Yi and Yang Hongyu (eds.), Guoji guanxi lilun jichu (Theoretical Basis of International
Relations) (Wuhan: Huazhong Normal University Press, 1991), pp. 22 23.
15. Liang Shoude and Fang Lianqing, 1996: Guoji shehui yu wenhua (1996: International Society and
Culture) (Beijing: Beijing University Press: 1997), p. 92.
16. Yu Zhengliang and Chen Yugang, ``Zhongguo guoji guanxi de zhanlue zhuanxiing yu lilun
yanjiu ershi nian (``Twenty Years of Strategic Change and Theory Study in Chinas International
Relations), Fudan xuebao: shehui kexueban (Fudan Journal: Social Sciences), Vol. 1 (1999), pp. 13 14.
IR Theory in China
255
relations.17 Following this educational reform, almost all the colleges and
universities of the country introduced a new course entitled ``Contemporary
World Politics, Economy and International Relations. This development created
a need for new textbooks. In response, some 70 textbooks, bearing almost
indistinguishable titles and covering almost the same content, were compiled
and written by professors and scholars in almost every major city in the several
years that followed. While several editions were original in terms of content and
serious in their academic approach, most were disappointing. Although the
textbook shortage problem was solved, a most discouraging development was
that quite a few books were copied from one another and were of low quality.
In an effort to change this situation the CCP Central Committees document
``The Decision to Improve and Strengthen the Education of Ideology and Politics
in Colleges and Universities in 1987 emphasised once more that in view of new
historical circumstances it was crucial to have a comprehensive and systematic
understanding of contemporary international politics and economy.18
From the late 1980s, the international politics departments of Beijing University, Fudan University, Nanjing University, Renmin University, the Foreign
Affairs College and Nankai University began teaching IR theory courses. The
textbooks written by Chinese scholars in that period underscore the guiding role
of Marxism and Maoism in international politics. The introduction to Western
IR theory was always taken up in the last chapter of the books or as a supplement.
However, it is interesting to note that the structure of the textbooks closely
followed the changing domestic and international environment. The editions
published in the 1990s contained some striking revisions. Although Marxism
was still accorded priority something that was as always mentioned in the
preface or the rst chapter it no longer commanded so much attention. International organisations were assigned an independent chapter, and discussions
on peace and development and the New International Order also found their
way into the books.
Western IR theory also made its entry into China in the 1980s. The earliest
articles to introduce Western IR theory are Chen Lemins ``Dangdai xifang guoji
guanxi lilun jianjie (``Brief Introduction to Contemporary Western IR Theory)
and ``Guoji guanxi jiben fangfa (``Basic Methodology of IR). The earliest book
to introduce Western IR theory is Chen Hanmins Zai guoji wutai shang (On The
International Stage) and Ni Shixiong and Jin Yingzhongs Dangdai meiguo guoji
guanxi liupai wenxuan (Selected Collections of Contemporary American IR Schools).
The earliest translations of Western IR theory are James Dougherty and Robert
Pfaltzgraff s Contending Theories of International Relations and William Olson et
al.s The Theory and Practice of International Relations.19 The development of IR
theory was carried out mainly by scholars at several key universities that offered
degrees in IR programmes. However, they were few in number.
Articles on IR theory gradually appeared in a group of in uential scholarly
journals, most of which are located in Beijing and Shanghai, including: ``Guowai
17. Liang Shoude and Fang Lianqing (eds.), 1996: Guoji shehui yu wenhua (1996: International Society
and Culture), p. 293.
18. Shu Beifa et al. (eds.), Guoji zhengzhi gailun (An Introduction to International Politics) (Nanchang:
Jiangxi High Education Press, 1992), p. 1.
19. Ni Shixiong and Xu Jia, ``Zhongguo guoji guanxi lilun yanjiu lishi huigu yu sikao (``Chinas
IR Theory Study Historical Prospect and Re ection), Ou zhou (Europe), Vol. 6 (1997), p. 11.
256
shehui kexue (``Foreign Social Science), ``Guowai zhengzhi yanjiu (``Foreign

Political Studies), ``Guoji wenti yanjiu (`Ìnternational Issues Studies), ``Xiandai
guoji guanxi (``Modern International Relations), ``Shejie jingji yu zhengzhi
(``World Economics and Politics), ``Zhengzhi kexue yanjiu (``Political Science
Studies), ``Meiguo yanjiu (`Àmerican Studies), `Òuzhou (`Èurope), ``Yatai
yanjiu (`Àsia Paci c Studies), ``Guoji zhanwan (`Ìnternational Prospect),
``Weilai yu fazhan (``Future and Development), ``Guoji guancha (`Ìnternational
Observation), ``Shehui kexue (``Social Science), and ``Zhanlue yu guanli
(``Strategy and Management).
Compared with the research conducted before the 1980s, some different
features appeared after the reform. First, while the guiding principle of ``practice
is the only standard to test truth was adhered to, the policy of ``seeking truth
from facts and liberating the mind also became prominent. Second, the history
and achievements of studies in foreign IR theory were introduced. Third, both
the scope and domain of international studies were enlarged; more attention
was paid to comprehensive research in international politics and economics.20
Chinese political science scholars have focused on different issue-areas over
the past decades. Under the in uence of both external and internal politics, the
prevailing subjects and viewpoints in the study of IR changed many times. In
the 1950s and 1960s, the research was limited to imperialism, national liberation
movements, international solidarity and principles of peaceful coexistence. From
the beginning of the 1970s, Chinese scholars probed into the theories of interdependence, international cooperation, diplomatic strategy, and cultural elements
in international relations. Since the end of the 1980s, the breakdown of the
bipolar system has brought the subject of ``peace and development to the fore.
Chinese academics have since focused their attention on changes in major
international con icts, problems of the transitional period, the fundamental
features of the new era and of the new world structure, and nally the strategic
changes and foreign policies of other countries.21
In their Guoji zhengzhi gailun (Introduction to International Politics), Feng Tejun
and Song Xinning state that Chinese leaders and scholars have made signi cant
contributions on the following theoretical issues:
ve principles of peaceful coexistence;

strategic division of the three worlds;
two themes of peace and development in the world; and
new international political order.22
According to professor Yuan Ming of Beijing University, owing to the in uence

of their traditional culture, the achievements of Chinese scholars in research on
the ``balance of power are more noticeable than those of their Western colleagues. Whereas the latter stress internal relations, objective law, and microanalysis, traditional Chinese culture emphasises intuition, experience and macroinduction. Therefore, Chinese scholars are accustomed to undertake research
Relations), pp. 23 24.

21. Yan Shengyi, Dangdai guoji guanxi (Contemporary International Relations) (Shanghai: Fudan
University Press, 1996), p. 392.
22. Feng Tejun and Song Xinning (eds.), Guoji zhengzhi gailun ( Introduction to International Politics),
pp. 36 37.
IR Theory in China
257
from a historical viewpoint. However, they are not at ease with model construction and quantitative analysis.23
Professors Yu and Cheng of Fudan University offer a detailed account of the
academic development of IR in the past 20 years. In their article they divide the
development of international politics since the late 1970s into two stages: the
opening and introduction period, which covers the decade from 1978 to 1989;
and the period of learning and assimilating new ideas, from 1989 to the present.
The study of IR in China can be divided into three parts: history, present
situation, and theory. Owing to the demand of practice, the studies of history
and of the present situation have continued uninterrupted since the founding of
the new China, but the study of theories started only after the Third Plenum of
the 11th Party Congress.
According to Yu and Chengs understanding, the studies on imperialism,
international communism, and proletarian revolution cannot be called IR theory,
as they are to a great degree limited and one-sided in their explanation of world
politics. The burgeoning introduction to Western IR theory was brought about
by changes in both the external and internal situation. The strained relationship
between China and the Soviet Union and the normalisation of relations between
China and the United States created favourable conditions for the dissemination
of Western IR theory. The emphasis on economic development and the deemphasis of ideology within the country also brought about opportunities for
Western IR theory to be studied and comprehended.24
In the rst period, important issues of IR were mostly studied from the
perspective of Marxism and Maoism. Of the major paradigms in Western IR
theory, realism was studied comparatively thoroughly, while some attention
also went to functionalism and liberalism. The most striking feature was that
the traditional research methodology, characterised by ``description-induction
and analysis-prospect, gradually lost ground while methodologies from economics and systems research became more prominent. Some serious problems
also arose in this period. First, the introduction to foreign academic works was
incomplete and unsystematic, a situation leading to a limited comprehension of
Western IR theory. Second, critical analysis and evaluation did not keep pace
with the translation of Western works, a circumstance that led to the rather ad
hoc assimilation of the latter. Third, disagreement among Chinese scholars as to
the interpretation of Western concepts as well as their theoretical limitations
hampered well-organised discussions.25
The second stage of IR theory development in China started from 1989. There
are several reasons for regarding the year 1989 as a turning point. First, the
changing systemic and domestic environment demanded a clearer understanding
of Western IR theory. Second, as the preliminary work of translation and
introduction encountered challenges, more theoretical involvement in analysis
and criticism became necessary. Third, the breakdown of the bipolar system
offered a chance for Chinese scholars to start research from the same foundation
23. Yuan Ming, Kuashiji de tiaozhan, pp. 256 257.
Relations), p. 14.
yanjiu ershi nian, p. 14.
258
as their colleagues abroad. Fourth, Deng Xiaopings analysis of IR after the Cold
War provided guidance to the scholars.26 These developments had an effect on
the education and research practice and revealed the following features. First, a
large number of books emerged on the study of Deng Xiaopings thought on
international strategy. Second, along with the intensive introduction of Western
IR theory, more attention was paid to criticism and evaluation. Third, the
construction of IR as an autonomous discipline began to take shape as works on
IR theory written by Chinese scholars emerged,27 and courses on IR theory were
offered in colleges and universities. Fourth, articles published in domestic
academic journals and seminars organised by the academic press greatly promoted the development of IR theory. Fifth, the research became more systematic,
as studies were concentrated on key issues in contemporary Western IR theory.28
There are three groups of IR scholars in China. The rst group consists of
researchers who are policy advisors working in the institutes directly under the
leadership of the authorities such as CASS (Chinese Academy of Social Sciences).
Their tasks are assigned directly by the government and are closely related to
the governments policy-making preferences. They are responsible for providing
strategic research and policy analysis reports on a regular basis. These people
are in a strict sense the mouthpiece of the government; their viewpoints always
displaying the governments attitude. The second group are professors and
researchers in colleges and universities who focus mainly on general and
theoretical international studies and teaching. Their research is more scholarly
oriented, and less in uenced by the position of the authorities. As an increasing
number have the opportunity to participate in academic exchanges with their
colleagues abroad, the knowledge they have learned in the West has increased
awareness of the necessity to undertake research in IR theory separate from
policy-making studies. The third group consists of researchers in the Chinese
Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) in Beijing and the academies of social sciences
at the municipality and provincial level. They ful l both kinds of tasks mentioned
above.29
The dramatic increase in contacts between China and the outside world as a
result of the open-door policy heightened the demand for a better understanding
of international affairs and relations among cadres, party members, academics
and students.30 At present, according to Chan, four tertiary institutions Beijing
26. Ibid., pp. 14 15.
27. The representative works on IR theory include: Zhang Jiliang (ed.), Guoji Guaxixue gailun
(Introduction to International Relations) (Beijing: World Affairs Publishing House, 1989); Cheng Yi and
Yang Hongyu (eds.), Guoji guanxi jichu lilun (Basic Theory of International Relations) (Wuhan: Huazhong
Normal University Press, 1991); Jin Yingzhong and Ni Shixiong, Guoji guanxi lilun bijiao yanjiu
(Comparative Research on International Relations Theory) (Beijing: China Social Science Publishing House,
1992); Feng Tejun and Song Xinning (eds.), Guoji zhengzhi gailun (Introduction to International Politics)
(Beijing: Renmin University Press, 1992); Liang Shoude and Hong Yinxian, Guoji zhengzhixue gailun
(Introduction to International Politics) (Beijing: Central Compilation and Translation Publishing House,
1994); Feng Shaolei et al. (eds.), Guoji guanxi xinlun (New Discourse on International Relations) (Shanghai:
Shanghai Social Science Publishing House, 1994); Wang Yizhou, Dangdai guoji zhengzhi xilun (Analysis
of Contemporary International Politics) (Shanghai: Shanghai Peoples Publishing House, 1995).
28. Yu Zhengliang and Chen Yugang, ``Zhongguo guoji guanxi de zhanlue zhuanxing yu lilun
Relations), p. 15.
30. Chan, `Ìnternational Studies in China, p. 58.
IR Theory in China
259
University, Fudan University, Renmin University and the Institute of International Relations have international politics departments. Other important
institutions on international studies include the Centre for International Studies
of State Council, the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations,
the Institute of World Economics and Politics of the Chinese Academy of Social
Sciences and the Institute for Strategic Studies of the National Defence University
in Beijing. 31
Is There a Chinese IR Theory?
There is a debate among Chinese scholars about the question of whether or not
international relations has existed since ancient China. One argument, represented by He Fang, is that as early as the Spring and Autumn Period (770 476
BC) and the Warring States Period (475 221 BC) there prevailed all kinds of
schools on how to deal with interstate relations. The rich experience of balancing
relations among states in ancient times is still valuable in the current situation.
Most of the books on interstate relations such as Zuozhuan (Ideas of Zuo Qiuming),
Guoce (State Strategy), and Guoyu (Words on States Relations), which are still used
today, were written before The Peloponnesian War.32 At that time, China was
composed of more than one hundred small, self-contained states in which
statesmen used such military strategies as hezong lianheng (vertical and horizontal
alliances, a balance-of-power strategy in present-day terminology) to manage
their external relations. They also used con ict resolution mechanisms (mostly
involving the domination of small states by large ones) to regulate and stabilise
state-to-state relationships.33
Zi Zhongyun of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences disagrees with such
arguments, however. In her understanding, IR in China has only existed since
the 19th century with the invasion by Western countries. China only had such
concepts as ``tianxia (land under heaven) and ``chengbang (city-state) in the past.
She emphasises that there was neither international relations nor IR theory in
pre-modern China.34 In fact, the system in ancient times was referred to as an
interstate system within a regional or sub-regional context, and certainly not a
global one in the true sense of the word.35
Despite the different understanding on how long IR has existed in China, all
Chinese scholars agree that Chinese ancient culture has an important in uence
on forming the worldview of Chinese leaders and Chinese foreign policy. The
art of handling interstate relations, whether in an international or a sub-regional
context, is worth studying. Song Xinning, a professor of Renmin University,
notes the tendency among Chinese scholars to look to history and culture to
extrapolate useful ideas: ``Nowadays more and more Chinese scholars turn to
traditional Chinese thinking, seeking similarities and differences between
Chinese and Western philosophical traditions, and exploring the impact of
31. Ibid., pp. 40, 63.
32. He Fang, ``Jianli Zhongguo de guoji guanxi lilun (`Èstablish Chinese IR Theory), Shijie jingji
yu zhengzhi (World Economics and Politics), Vol. 1 (1992), p. 36.
34. ``Guoji guanxi lilun taolunhui jiyao (``Summary of the Conference on International Relations
Theory), Ouzhou (Europe), Vol. 4 (1993), p. 87.
260
Chinese tradition on the thinking and behaviour of modern China. Their

attempts have materialised in some Chinese language works and articles, and
are regarded by many academics as the correct approach to building up a
Chinese IR theory. 36
Chinese attribute great value to their ancient culture; they are proud of their
long history and civilisation. They adhere to the credo, ``Forgetting the past
means betrayal. For them, history is a lesson that provides them with wisdom
and strength. As early as primary school, pupils are taught the well-known
phrases guweijinyong (make the past serve the present) and yiguweijian (learn
lessons from the past). As distinctive and rich as it is, the culture of the imperial
period continues to exert far-reaching in uence on every aspect of China to this
day. Therefore, it is meaningful to examine the viewpoints of the schools of
philosophy on state construction and interstate relations that existed in ancient
China. Their distinctive thoughts have been subconsciously absorbed into the
collective mind and are omnipresent in daily life.
Chinas Ancient Culture in Retrospect: Main Philosophical Schools

The rst and most in uential school of Chinese philosophy is represented by
Confucius and Mencius. The fundamental ideas of this school are that human
nature is good (xing shan), that policies should be benevolent (ren zheng), and
that China (the Middle Kingdom) should be united (da yi tong). In the Warring
States Period, there was a hot debate on human nature. Some advocated that
human nature is evil. Others thought that human nature is not innate: it is
neither good nor evil at its initial stage; whereas the third viewpoint maintained
that human nature is both good and evil. However, as already mentioned, the
school of Confucius and Mencius argued that human nature is good. Everyone
possesses the virtue of ren (humanity), yi ( justice), li (ethics), zhi (resourcefulness)
and xin (sincerity). On the basis of this assumption, Confucius suggested that
the ruler should yi de wei zheng (rule by morality), while Mencius proposed that
governance should be benevolent. They held in esteem the principle of wang dao,
which is to gain support of the people by benevolence and unite the whole of
China by morality, and oppose ba dao, which is to annex others by force. For
them, benevolent rule or the absence of it is the cause of either the rise or fall of
the state. To maintain benevolent governance, the ruler should abide by the
motto ji suo bu yu, wu shi yu ren (do not unto others what you do not wish to
have done to yourself ). People should be educated through morality rather than
being punished by torture. The ruler should give his people home and land;
taxes should be limited; exchanges and commerce should be protected; agriculture should be developed. All these political and economic prescriptions were
intended to promote uni cation of China.37
The central ideas of the philosophy of Confucius and Mencius are morality
and virtue. They accentuate the role of ethics and downplay the role of force in
domestic and interstate politics. The idealisation of human nature guides their
37. Liu Zehua and Ge Quan, Zhongguo gudai zhengzhi sixiangshi (Ancient China Political and Ideological
History) (Tianjin: Nankai University Press, 1997), pp. 44 87.
IR Theory in China
261
belief that as long as the policy of benevolence is carried out, the dream of
uni cation will be realised.
The legalist school, represented by Shen Dao, Shen Buhai, Shang Yang, and
Han Feizi, maintains that human nature is evil and that human beings are
guided by `ìnterest. Therefore, legal measures are necessary to administer the
society. In the end, the level of agricultural development and the outcome of
wars determine who holds the commanding power among states and thereby
de nes the political relationships among them. Power assumes a prominent role
in the legalist school. To grasp the reins of power is the prerequisite for engaging
successfully in political activities. For Shen Dao, it is not justice or morality that
determines who is dominant and who is subordinate in the system, but rather
the degree of power one possesses. Power is predominant, while morality and
justice are only its servants. Contrary to the school of Confucius, the legalists
held that the cultivation of human nature was insuf cient to manage state
affairs. Instead, law should rule the state. The absence of law would result in
chaos. At the same time, however, the decline of the state would also ensue if
immutable law were rigidly adhered to. Observing the evolution of history, they
drew the conclusion that one should pursue the right combination of legal
administration and power politics. In the Warring States Period, the decline of
the other six states and the rise of Qin were due to Confucianisms heavy
in uence on the former while Qin pursued the legalist prescriptions. As people
are motivated by `ìnterest, social and political relations are to a great degree
determined by the trial and error of strength. Apart from the strict control of
the state by law, strength comes from the development of agriculture and the
success in wars.38
There exists another viewpoint, distinct from the above two schools, which is
also impressive and in uential. This is the so-called qing zhong xue shuo school
(important versus less important) represented by Guan Zi. It is based on his
theory of governing the state through economic activity. As its name implies,
this school differentiates affairs according their practical importance. As nothing
is immutable, one must be able to distinguish that which is more urgent so as
to select those elements decisive in problem-solving. In accordance with legalists,
Guan Zi held that the relationship between states and people is based on
mutual interest. ``Without savings, there is no way to employ people; without
accumulation of property, there is no way to govern the state. 39
While both Confucianists and legalists advocated the development of agriculture as the basic policy of the state, Guan Zi thought that although it is
important to develop agriculture, it is more important to manage agricultural
production. If the attention was paid exclusively to production instead of
management, the returns might turn out to be the advantage of others and bring
harm to the state. Different from the legalist schools approach of governing
state by law, this school maintains that economic force is more important than
law. Whether the law is effective or not is determined not by the law itself, but
by the economic conditions in which the law is made. Only when the ruler
controls the economic lifelines can he keep the state under control. While
Confucianism regards virtue as the highest value, this school regards economic
38. Liu Zehua and Ge Quan, Zhongguo gudai zhengzhi sixiangshi, pp. 108 154.
39. Ibid., p. 223.
262
interest as the foundation of virtue; the latter derives from the former. As to the
relationship among states, Guan Zis school attaches great importance to economic war, and argues that as long as one possesses economic power, others
will be defeated.40 The school of Guan Zi therefore emphasises the role of
economics. Economic power is the decisive force. Whether a state is powerful or
not is measured by its possession of property and its capability to mobilise
property.
Despite the differences among these schools, they have some common features:
the starting point of each is to increase peace and security for the state; all are
in favour of oligarchy and endeavour to help maintain the dominance of the
ruler; all attach great importance to agricultural production, which shows the
important status of economics. Also striking is the fact that in Confucianism, the
legalist school and the `ìmportant versus less important school one nds
respectively elements of idealism, realism and pluralism (or liberal institutionalism) in Western IR theories. Formed as long as 2000 years ago, these ideas are
deeply rooted in Chinese culture. History has moved forward over two millennia,
but the basic interests for which people have struggled for ages have not
changed. State security, peace and property are universal concerns; the methods
to address them may be different, yet the ultimate aim is the same.
The Present Situation

Although traces of contemporary IR theories can be found in ancient Chinese
philosophy, those thoughts were not systematically developed into full- edged
paradigms. There is no doubt that the ideas formed in imperial China were rich
and enlightening, but they are different from the contemporary, general concepts
of IR. The latters origin can be traced back to the beginning of the world
capitalist system and the state system that emerged in Europe around the time
of the Industrial and French Revolutions. Moreover, interstate and transnational
relations among the sovereign states at the global level certainly did not exist in
pre-modern China, where states were reigned by rival kings, princes, or warlords
competing with one another for land and resources in a regional or sub-regional
context.41 While insisting that China has had IR since the eighth century BC, He
Fang nevertheless agrees that the history of modern IR theory in China has been
short and can only be traced back to the founding of New China.42
At present, scholars agree that the construction of IR theory and of an
international politics discipline in China is in its initial stages. On the whole, the
development of IR theory in China is strongly in uenced by the intensity and
range of the countrys involvement in international affairs. However, as China
is moving closer to international society following its in-depth reforms, the
future seemingly holds quite a few promises for the development of Chinese IR
theory. Feng and Song summarise some major problems that need to be
addressed. First, how to develop Marxist and Leninist views on international
politics so as to enrich Marxist theory? Second, how to learn from the scienti c
aspects of foreign IR theories and to take in the essence of world culture, while
40. Ibid., pp. 221 225.
42. He Fang, ``Jianli Zhongguo de guoji guanxi lilun (`Èstablish Chinese IR Theory), p. 36.
Land and Heaven

(qing zhong) school
Legalism
Mo Zi
Shen Dao, Sheng Buhai,
Shang Yang and Han
Feizi
Confucius and Mencius
Confucianism
States and people are linked by interests.

Agricultural production administration is
more important than agricultural production
itself.
Economic force is decisive.
Human nature is evil.

Legal measures are necessary.
Power is predominant; the development of
agriculture and the results of war decide the
comparison of state power.
All consider peace and security to be prior

for a state.
All aim at serving the dominance of the
ruler.
All attach great importance to agricultural
production.
Similarities
Human nature is good.

Benevolent governance, virtue and morality
are stressed and the role of force is

downplayed.
Differences
Representative(s)
of school
Name of school
Table 1. Comparisons of the three major schools of thought
IR Theory in China
263
264
eliminating the errors and ideological foundation of capitalist theories? Third,

how to construct IR theory and international politics in China on the basis of
useful foreign theoretical developments suited to Chinese practice?43
Should IR Theory Construction in China Have Chinese Characteristics?

From the previous analysis it is clear that IR theory development in China is
still in its infancy and has not yet received any continuous systematic treatment.
China did not emphasise the construction of IR theory until the 1980s when
such demand was stimulated by its further opening to international society and
the corresponding need to deepen its understanding of the outside world. Yuan
Ming maintains that ``China belongs to the world, but at the same time, it has a
political and cultural tradition distinct from that of the West owing to its unique
and long history.44 As Chinese believe that theory is the guidance of action, the
task of building IR theory is then to present a theoretical basis to instruct Chinas
behaviour in world politics. Scholars in related institutes and professors in
colleges and universities are encouraged to conduct research to nd a way for
China to confront the changing world structure. The incentive for IR theorybuilding, then, is strongly policy-orientated.
Whereas all Chinese scholars agree that there is an urgent need to establish
the discipline of IR and to construct IR theory in China, opinions differ as to
whether Chinese characteristics should be stressed in theory construction or not.
The term ``Chinese characteristics appeared rst in Deng Xiaopings speech.
Soon after that, it became the norm in every eld. Having designed the essential
policy of reform and of opening up for more than a billion Chinese people,
Deng enjoys paramount status in contemporary China. Under his leadership,
productivity increased tremendously and peoples standard of living dramatically improved. In order to legalise the market-oriented reform and consolidate
the leadership of Chinese Communist Party, Deng de ned the development in
China as socialism with ``Chinese characteristics. The 14th Party Congress,
which was held after Deng made his famous speech during a tour to the south
of China in 1992, established as the Partys guiding position Dengs theory of
constructing socialism with ``Chinese characteristics. This general policy guideline came to further prominence when the 15th Party Congress called for pushing
the socialist cause with Chinese characteristics towards the 21st century in an
all-encompassing way.45 In a sense, ``Chinese characteristics connotes a kind of
authority or legitimacy. No wonder, then, that in such a political climate the
development of IR studies in China became highly politicised.
43. Feng Tejun and Song Xinning (eds.), Guoji zhengzhi gailun ( Introduction to International Politics),
pp. 36 37.
44. Yuan Ming, ``Xifang guoji guanxi yanjiu zai Zhongguo: huigu yu sikao (``Western IR Research
in China: Retrospect and Re ection), in Liang Shoude (ed.), Guoji zhengzhi lunji (Essays on International
Politics) (Beijing: Beijing Press, 1992), p. 46.
45. Jiang Zemin, Gaoju Deng Xiaoping Lilun weida qizhi ba jianshe you Zhongguo tese shehui zhuyi
zhiye quanmian tuixiang ershiyi zhiji (Holding High the Great Banner of Deng Xiaoping Thought to Put
Forward the Construction of Socialist Cause with Chinese Characteristics to the 21st Century) (Beijing:
Renmin Publishing House, 1997), p. 1.
IR Theory in China
265
The Limitations of Marxist Theory

The Chinese leadership endeavours to ensure that the discipline of international
politics is strictly guided and systematically controlled. Political leaders emphasise that Marxism should be the guiding principle in the construction of IR
theory. He Fangs interpretation of this motivation rests upon two reasons. First,
Chinas Constitution clearly stipulates that Marxism should be taken as the
guidance of action. Second, more than a hundred years of IR history have proven
the correctness of Marxisms basic principles.46 In other words, as Marxism is
proven correct by past human experience, it should also be valid as the guiding
principle for IR theory-building. In a directive issued by the Partys Central
Committee on how to reform the teaching of politics, the position of Marxism
is paramount: the basic principle of Marxism is `ùniversally truthful across the
Four Seas; the teaching of Marxism must be modernised; tertiary education in
Marxism and political theory has to focus on the history of Chinese revolution.47
As Stephen Chan remarks, China is still of cially a Marxist Leninist Maoist
state. The published works of of cial institutions such as universities and
research academies provide ample evidence of this.48 Hence, developing IR
theory in China without mentioning Marxism is simply impossible. A brief
consultation of Chinese books on IR reveals Marxism to be the most frequently
used term without fail. In a book on IR published in 1995, the authors emphasise
the necessity of offering a course on Marxist theory and ideological and political
education in order to help students ``further understand Chinas position and
role in international affairs so as to increase national pride and the con dence
of the success of socialism.49 Another book on the same subject points out that
the research of IR theory and the construction of IR theory with ``Chinese
characteristics must be correctly guided. This guidance resides in Marxism,
Leninism and Maoism. Class analysis is the basic method for studying IR theory.
Consequently, IR theory is divided into Western IR theory and socialist IR
theory.50
The above indicates that there is strong ideological in uence on the study of
international politics. However, if objectivity and accuracy in the analysis of
international affairs are to be achieved, the role of ideology needs to be overcome.
Moreover, building IR theory with the guidance of Marxism is not an easy task.
As Samuel S. Kim points out, the greatest obstacle in the construction of a
Marxist theory of IR with ``Chinese characteristics stems from the fact that
Marxism in its original form and design was never meant to be a theory of IR.
Different classes in society instead of sovereign states and interstate relations or
organisations and transnational class struggle instead of power competition
among states were the central concerns of classical Marxist thought. It was in
fact Lenin who developed the so-called Marxist theory of imperialism and war:
46.
47.
48.
Light
49.
He Fang, ``Jianli Zhongguo de guoji guanxi lilun (`Èstablish Chinese IR Theory), p. 36.
Chan, `Ìnternational Studies in China, p. 8.
Stephen Chan, ``Beyond the North-West: Africa and the East, in A. J. R. Groom and Margot
(eds.), Contemporary International Relations: A Guide to Theory (London: Pinter, 1994), p. 245.
Reform and experiment text compilation group on Marxist theory in Gansu Province, Guoji
guanxi gailun (Introduction to International Relations) (Lanzhou: Peoples Publishing House, 1995), p. 3.
Relations) (Wuhan: Huazhong Normal University Press, 1991), pp. 4 5.
266
the contradictions in the capitalist economic system nd their expression in

imperialism and imperialist wars are inevitable as long as capitalism exists.51
Kim also notices the reinterpretation of Marxist theory in China since the
1980s. Deng Xiaoping and other Chinese leaders realised the error of the
theory of inevitable (imperialist) war and publicly announced that peace and
development should be the central themes in the contemporary world arena.
Every theory has its limitations. Marxism might have been correct at the time
of its development. However, with the changing world situation, and especially
since the creation of nuclear weapons, it has become obsolete. Class struggle has
given place to con icting of state interests; hegemony and power politics are
understood as the causes of wars.52
Debate between the Old and Young Generations

Along with the deepening of reform in China, the increasing degree of communication with the outside world, and with it, an enriched knowledge of the contemporary world, IR theory construction in China is undergoing a process of
fundamental change. It is moving from the domain of politicians to the academic
realm. Put differently, whereas in the past the purpose of serving the practical
policy-making was omnipresent there now seems to be more space for pure scholarly research. Different generations of scholars have adopted different opinions in
this process, and this has led to a hot debate. Those who advocate constructing IR
theory with ``Chinese characteristics as an urgent and necessary effort are mostly
scholars from the older generation. Most of them were educated in the 1950s. They
are strongly in uenced by the politics and ideology of the era in which their
intellectual way of thinking and belief systems gradually matured. When the
reform policy was implemented, they became the leading scholars, as they were
the most advanced at that time. However, they have little experience in living or
working abroad, they do not master foreign languages and they have not kept
pace with the latest advancements in the IR discipline. Contrary to the conservative elders are the younger liberal scholars who grew up after the Cultural Revolution. They are dauntlessly against enforcing ``Chinese characteristics upon IR
theory construction. Many of them have visited or studied in the West. Such
academic exchanges and the access to Western scholarly works brings them closer
to the Western interpretation of IR theory. Owing to their distinct backgrounds
and academic experience, clashes between the two generations are inevitable.
Liang Shoude, one of the senior scholars who resolutely supports the stressing
of Chinese characteristics in IR theory-building in China, has published several
articles to explain his unwavering stand.53 In his opinion, although the develop51. Samuel S. Kim, ``Chinas International Organisational Behaviour , in Thomas W. Robinson
and David Shambaugh (eds.), Chinese Foreign Policy: Theory and Practice (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1995), p. 416.
52. Samuel S. Kim, ``Chinas International Organisational Behaviour , p. 416.
53. See Liang Shoude, ``lun guoji zhengzhixue de `Zhongguo tese (`Òn `Chinese Characteristics in
International Politics), Guoji zhengzhi yanjiu (International Politics Study) (Beijing: Beijing University
Press, 1991); Liang Shoude, Guoji zhengzhixue gailun (An Introduction of International Politics) (Beijing:
Central Editing and Translating Press, 1994); Liang Shoude (ed.), Guoji zhengzhi lunji (Essays on International Politics) (Beijing: Beijing Press, 1992); Liang Shoude, ``Lun guoji zhengzhixue lilun de `Zhongguo tese (`Òn `Chinese Characteristics in International Political Theory), Waijiao xueyuan xuebao
( Journal of College of Foreign Affairs), Vol. 2 (1997), pp. 40 46; and Liang Shoude, ``Constructing an International Relations Theory with Chinese Characteristics , Political Science, Vol. 49 (1997), pp. 23 39.
IR Theory in China
267
ment of Chinas own theories on international politics is still at its initial stages,
Chinese theory of IR is not a blank paper. `Ìn terms of theoretical construction,
Chinese scholars began by formulating theories on imperialism, colonialism, and
peace and war. The most active decade in this effort was the 1960s. Studies in
the 1970s focused on theorising the `Three Worlds, the `Great Triangle and
`Multipolarity, all of which have ``Chinese characteristics. 54 His argument in
favour of emphasising ``Chinese characteristics is that not only international
political theory, but also any other branch of social sciences has a set of countryspeci c characteristics. This is an objective reality, whether one accepts it or not.
Generally speaking, a social science theory, including international political
theory, must have three essential elements: basic concepts, complete system, and
clear characteristics. Therefore, highlighting the ``characteristics of a theory is
not a response to the demands of political ideologies. Rather it is an inherent
law of theorisation itself.55 In Liang Shoudes logic, ``China is a big power, and
as a big power, China should have its own understanding of IR. For him, ``China
is a rapidly developing big power; China is a political big power with a
comparatively strong comprehensive capability; China is a socialist big power
with Chinese characteristics; China should be independent in the multifaceted
world.56
Li Shisheng argues that it is urgent for China to develop its own IR theory
because both international politics since the 1990s and Chinas foreign policy
after the reform underwent substantial changes both of which are in need of
theoretical explanation. In order to construct IR theory in China two conditions
need to be met. First, the research achievements from abroad should be assimilated using good judgement. Second, research on Marxist IR theory should be
strengthened. 57 Li emphasises that the establishment of an IR theory with
``Chinese characteristics necessitates a combination of practice with the guiding
principle of Marxism. For him such is the fundamental method to develop
research.58
He Fang is also in support of establishing IR with ``Chinese characteristics.
In his opinion, social sciences, aiming to serve the practice, are always stamped
with a particular class-consciousness. In the same vein, IR theory is developed
to serve the interests of a certain state and a certain class. IR theory with Chinese
characteristics should possess the following features: rst, it should use basic
Marxist principles as a guide; second, it should inherit and promulgate the
virtues of Chinas culture and tradition; and nally, the maintenance of national
interests should be in harmony with striving for world peace and development.59
Xi Runchang, in a speech given at a conference on IR theory, stated: ``we
should establish a Chinese school of IR theory instead of stepping into others
54. Liang Shoude, ``Lun guoji zhengzhixue lilun de Zhongguo tese, p. 41.
55. Ibid., p. 42.
56. Ibid., pp. 4 45.
57. Li Shisheng, ``Guanyu chuangjian guoji guanxi lilun tixi de jiben gousi (`Àbout Basic Ideas
on Building the System of International Relations Theory), in Liang Shoude (ed.), Guoji zhengzhi
lunji (Essays on International Politics) (Beijing: Beijing Publishing House, 1992), pp. 97 98.
58. Li Shisheng, ``Guanyu guoji guanxixue jianshe de jige wenti (`Àbout Several Problems in the
Construction of International Relations Discipline), Waijiao xueyuan xuebao ( Journal of Foreign Affairs
College), Vol. 3 (1996), p. 3.
59. He Fang, ``Jianli Zhongguo de guoji guanxi lilun (`Èstablish Chinese IR Theory), pp. 36 37.
268
shoes.60 Yu Zhengliang and Chen Yugang point out that the sequence `ìntroduction criticism bringing in new ideas is a natural tendency in Chinese academic development. The management of great power relations in the mid-1990s
provided a good chance for Chinese scholars to develop their IR theory with
``Chinese characteristics.61
Contrary to the viewpoint above, scholars of the younger generation, especially
those who have the experience of studying in the West, think it is unscienti c
or unnecessary to highlight the so-called ``Chinese characteristics. Song Xinning,
an IR scholar of the younger generation, provides a comprehensive summary of
the dissenting voices, as follows:
The term ``Chinese characteristics has mainly political and ideological orientations. It is closely related to the so-called ``theory of socialism with Chinese
characteristics. Instead of being a theory, many scholars take it to be a
political strategy or even a tool for administering the transformation phase to
a ``socialist market economy. They think it unnecessary to adopt the term
``Chinese characteristics in IR theory studies.
The term is not scienti c by academic standards. Theory-building in IR should
strive for universality, generality and empirical content rather than cultural
speci city, interpretation and form. If there should be an IR theory with
``Chinese characteristics, then philosophy, sociology, psychology and other
disciplines should also be designated with ``Chinese characteristics.
Too much attention is paid to policy-oriented studies while the development
of general theory is ignored. The search for an IR theory with ``Chinese
characteristics will only augment this very weakness. General theoretical
studies should not be labelled with ``Chinese characteristics as they are
different from Chinese viewpoints on international affairs and foreign policy.
University professors should familiarise students with the basic knowledge
and theoretical frameworks of IR, rather than merely offering interpretations
of the positions of government leaders on Chinas foreign policy.
Through its policy of reform, China seeks to integrate into the political and
economic practices of the international society, and to nd its place in the
international social science community. Yet, emphasis on ``Chinese characteristics will separate Chinese scholars from the development of IR studies
abroad and hamper the understanding between the Chinese scholars and their
counterparts in the outside world.
Arguments for ``Chinese characteristics are not accurate or theoretically
justi able. Sticking to ``Chinese characteristics will lead to dogmatism, rigidity
and conservatism.62
There exists a third view in the debate. According to this view, as a big country,
China is different from medium-sized and small countries, and should have and
will have its own international political and economic perspective. Wang Yizhou,
a younger generation researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
60. ``Guoji guanxi lilun taolunhui jiyao (``Summary of the Conference on International Relations
Theory), p. 87.
61. Yu Zhengliang and Chen Yugang, ``Zhongguo guoji guanxi de zhanlue zhuanxing yu lilun
yanjiu ershi nian (``Twenty Years Strategic Change and Theory Study in Chinas International
Relations), p. 15.
62. Song Xinning, `Ìnternational Relations , pp. 48 49.
IR Theory in China
269
(CASS), represents such line of reasoning. For him it suf ces to look at contemporary international affairs to see that every big power has its own understanding
of international politics. The only difference is that some big powers have
systemised and theorised their understanding, while others have not. In a
sense, ``Chinese characteristics is the Chinese perspective, experience and
understanding of international politics. If this perspective is improved with
precision, comprehension, depth, and systemic completeness, a theory with
``Chinese characteristics will automatically follow. However, the fundamental
requirement for China to have its own international political theory is that
Chinese scholars comprehensively understand and grasp the research achievements of foreign countries, especially those from Europe and America, before
establishing their own theory.63
Wang Yizhou expresses this viewpoint on several occasions. In an article
published in 1995,64 as well as in his book Analysis of Contemporary International
Politics,65 he argues that since IR theory in China is a relatively new discipline
and Chinese scholars are currently at the stage of learning from Western scholars,
it is premature to stress ``Chinese characteristics. Chinese scholars should rst
learn and understand the developments in the West. However, talking about
``Chinese characteristics is not implausible. When China will have developed
its own concepts, frameworks, and theories, a genuine Chinese school of IR
theory will have emerged.
Why Is It Necessary to Construct a Chinese IR Theory?

On the whole, the argument in favour of ``Chinese characteristics constitutes
the mainstream position of the Chinese IR community. Gerald Chan provides
an interesting explanation as to why this is: underlying the effort of developing
a Chinese theory of IR is perhaps the latent fear among established scholars that
their status and positions might be threatened. They need to protect their
burgeoning research from being overwhelmed by the much richer and betterdeveloped research traditions of the West. In other words, once the Chinese
theory of IR is mature and solid enough, it will no longer be necessary to
emphasise ``Chinese characteristics. In order to support his idea, Chan draws a
parallel with the issue of Chinese sovereignty: whenever China becomes strong
enough, it will be less sensitive to threats to its national interests and
sovereignty. 66
According to the statistics of Professor Gerald Chan, four conferences have
been held on the subject of IR theory construction with Chinese characteristics.
Two of them were attended only by domestic scholars. The other two were
`ìnternational, as they attracted a few well-known American IR scholars. The
details of the conferences are represented in Table 2.
An alternative explanation for the emphasis on ``Chinese characteristics in IR
63. Wang Yizhou, ``Zhongguo guoji zhengzhi lilun yanjiu de jige wenti (``Several Problems in the
Research of International Political Theory in China), Ou zhou (Europe), Vol. 6 (1998), p. 29.
64. Wang Yizhou, ``Lizudian he fangfalun (``Basis and Methodology), Ouzhou (Europe), Vol. 3
(1995), pp. 86 87.
65. Wang Yizhou, Dangdai guoji zhengzhi xilun (Analysis of Contemporary International Politics)
(Shanghai: Peoples Publishing House, 1995), preface, p. 11.
66. Chan, ``Toward an International Relations Theory with Chinese Characteristics? , pp. 12 13.
6 May 1994
December 1994 Beijing
Beijing
Beijing
China and the world

in the 21st century
IR theory in China
The development of
IR theory in China
The development of a
system of study of IR
with Chinese
characteristics under
the guidance of
Marxism
Subject
Participants
Huan Xiang, a noted diplomat and

83 participants from Beijing, Shanghai,
president of the State Councils Centre Guangzhou, Nanjing, Hangzhou,
for International Studies; co-hosted by Wuhan, and other cities
the Shanghai Institute for International
Studies, the International Relations
Assocation of Shanghai, the Shanghai
Foreign Languages College, the China
Institute of Contemporary
International Relations, and the
American Studies Centre at Fudan
University
The Institute of International
Some well-known IR specialists from
Relations at Beijing University
overseas such as Adam Roberts, Robert
Scalapino, Claude Cadart, Harry
Harding, Miles Kahler, Kenneth Waltz,
Watanabe Akio, Robert Gilpin, and
Sakurai Makoto, joined the local
scholars
Co-hosted by the China Research
35 participants from the Foreign Affairs
Society of History of History of
College, the Central Party School, the
International relations and Beijing
University of Political Science and Law,
Universitys Department of
Beijing Foreign Languages University,
International Politics
the China Institute of Comtemporary
International Relations, the Institute of
International Relations, the Peoples
University of China, Beijing Normal
University
The Department of International
70 scholars from the United State
Politics and the Institute of
(including Robert Scalapino and Harry
International Relations, both at
Harding), Russia and China
Beijing University
Organisers
The table is designed on the basis of Gerald Chans ``Toward an International Relations Theory with Chinese Characteristics?, Issues & Studies,
Vol. 6 (1998), pp. 5 7.
17 19 June
1991
Shang-hai
9 13 August
1987
Place
Time
Number
Table 2. Conferences held on the development of IR theory with Chinese characteristics in Chinaa
270
IR Theory in China
271
theory construction might be that Chinese people are proud of their unique
culture and the astounding speed of the countrys economic development since
the end of the 1970s. Encouraged by the increase of national power, Chinese are
gaining con dence in speaking about their own perspective when dealing with
international issues. They regard their country as a big power, equivalent to the
global status enjoyed by the United States. The Wests domination of IR theory
should be soon be rivalled by Chinas increasing participation in world affairs.
No matter which motivation or justi cation for stressing ``Chinese characteristics is used, it is worth noting that this effort is inimical to the healthy
development of IR theory in China. Overstressing ``Chinese characteristics will
not only prevent Chinese scholars from developing a profound and critical
understanding of well-developed Western theories, but also runs counter to
Chinas deepening involvement in the networks of the international system. As
a result, China will fail to make the link with the mainstream of IR study in the
academic world. At the same time, the evolution of ``Chinese characteristics is
not likely to enhance Chinas prestige abroad.67
Dif culties Facing IR Theory-building in China
How to Evaluate Western IR Theory

To construct IR theory in China, it is necessary for Chinese scholars to draw
upon Western theoretical achievements. All scholars acknowledge the Western
theoretical achievements of the past years, although they differ on how to
evaluate and judge the various paradigms. Some scholars maintain that as
diplomatic practice is ideologically in uenced, Chinas foreign policy is guided
by Chinese theories, while Western foreign policy-making is based on Western
IR theories. Thus, the purpose of becoming acquainted with Western theories is
no more than grasping the foundation of Western policies. Some other scholars
are even hostile towards Western IR theory, as they believe that Western theories
often depreciate and attack Marxism and Leninism and preach the weakening
of national sovereignty, which is altogether harmful to Chinas political practice.68
To those having a relatively comprehensive understanding of Western IR
literature and who have personal contacts with Western scholars, Western
approaches appear to be attractive at rst glance, but lose their appeal when one
probes further into their relevance to Chinese conditions. They insist that theories
formed in the West are remote from Chinese realities, and are thus not fully
applicable to Chinas foreign policy. The differences in political systems and
history demand disparate theories. Under such circumstances, a deeper understanding of Chinese conditions and world history through conventional methods
may be more urgent than an intensive training in Western theories.69
Due to different social historical conditions, the gap between Chinese and
Western scholars with regard to the understanding of IR theories is striking.
However, some younger Chinese scholars and students of IR are making efforts
67. Ibid., pp. 18 19.
68. Wang Jisi, `Ìnternational Relations Theory and the Study of Chinese Foreign Policy: A Chinese
Perspective , in Thomas W. Robinson and David Shambaugh (eds.), Chinese Foreign Policy: Theory
and Practice (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), p. 495.
69. Wang Jisi, `Ìnternational Relations Theory, p. 497.
272
to narrow the gap and bridge the academic differences through the introduction
of Western works. They are disappointed with what they regard as oversimpli ed
and dogmatic Chinese theories, and hope to make use of Western IR theories to
broaden their outlook. Nevertheless, more established scholars regard their work
as simply `èxchanging one dogmatism for another.70
Problems in IR Theory-building
The domestic reform brought about a revival of scholarship on IR. However,
despite the impressive quantity of literature with Marxist inclinations, a coherent
or of cially authoritative Chinese IR theory has not yet emerged. The sheer
volume of publications stands in sharp contrast with the striking weakness of
theoretical insight. However rich in descriptive analysis, the literature lacks in
theoretical generalisation.71 The theoretical study of IR is separate from the study
of speci c international issues. Scholars who study concrete issues in world
politics must simply be satis ed with description of the cases. Theoretical
analysis and systemic studies are ignored. There is only inductive description,
but no deductive generalisation. Apart from abundant works on realism, criticism
and evaluation of other schools are few in number. One of the factors stunting
the growth of more diversi ed theories is that such sub- elds as world order
studies, strategic studies, international political economy, and comparative foreign policy have yet to develop.72
The development of IR theory in China is either restricted by domestic
circumstances or by problems in the research system. On the one hand, research
in IR theory is too strongly in uenced by political ideology and too closely
related to policy-making. It has to serve the practical considerations of the
political leaders. To some scholars, the major cause of the backwardness of IR
theory in China is this overemphasis on linkage between research and policymaking. It seems that the aim of IR studies is nothing but to serve the
governments foreign policy-making. Policy-makers are not interested in theory
but in strategy or tactics. However, if social scientists pay too much attention to
what the government requires, they will not be scientists but rather aides and
staff to government of cials.
Without academic independence there can be no scienti c theory in any eld.73
In of cial interpretations of Chinese political history since 1949, Chinese foreign
policy is described as almost perfectly formulated and implemented. This limits
the scope of any possible debate about IR theory.74 Gerald Chan describes the
state of academic pursuit in China as a kind of pluralism within a milder form
of authoritarianism.
Indeed, compared with the past, the development of IR studies in China has
become moderately more pluralistic. Researchers now have room to conduct
research in their area of interest. Nevertheless, the development of international
studies in China remains dependent on the thinking and behaviour of the
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
Ibid., pp. 496 497.

Samuel S. Kim, ``Chinas International Organisational Behaviour , p. 401.
Wang Jisi, `Ìnternational Relations Theory, p. 483.
Song Xinning, `Ìnternational Relations , p. 57.
Wang Jisi, `Ìnternational Relations Theory, p. 483.
IR Theory in China
273
Communist Party and its top leaders.75 A serious problem is that the contact
between scholars and policy-makers is very limited. Moreover, few people are
both scholars and decision-makers; few scholars participate in decision-making
in international affairs, and few of them participate in discussions about the
resolution of international problems.76 ``Structurally, the government and the
Party run their own research institutions and units, from which they draw
advice for making policies. They seldom rely on suggestions made by academics
in universities. 77 Policy-makers are not interested in the construction of IR
theory in an academic sense, while scholars are not able to get access to the rst
hand information they need for their research. ``Theoretical research is usually
conducted by university-based scholars whose knowledge about actual government policy is extremely limited, while government-af liated research institutes
devote most of their resources to policy-oriented research and area studies, and
have better access to policy-making. 78
In addition to the above problems comes ``the lack of a free ow of information
and the absence of a nation-wide organisation to coordinate the study of IR
theory.79 Departmentalism has a negative impact on theoretical development. In
China the contour of disciplines and institutions is set out clearly and the divisions
in the range of study are strict. Moreover, communication among different disciplines and institutions is limited. According to Gerald Chan, three theoretical
constraints must be overcome in order to make a breakthrough in the study of
international politics. The rst concerns the segregation of politics from economics. Politics should be combined with economics together in developing
research, but some major universities in China still maintain separate departments
of international politics and international economics. The second constraint refers
to the segregation of international issues from domestic affairs. Such division has
long existed in China, in academic studies as well as in political practice. The third
theoretical barrier is the segregation of IR theory from IR history.80
Still another reason for the state of underdevelopment of IR theory in China
is the poor understanding of the substantive body of Western IR theory. In terms
of scholarly undertaking, it is by no means easy for younger scholars trained in
China to come to grips with contemporary Western political theories without a
more or less systematic understanding of Western political thought.81 Generally
speaking, although a growing number of Western works are translated and an
increasing number of academic exchanges are in progress, the understanding of
Western IR theories among Chinese scholars is still very limited. There are too
many translations and introductions to Western theories compared with the
number of works engaged in profound reconstruction and analysis. Moreover,
in the translations too much attention is focused on the works of the realist
paradigm, while publications on the approaches of other schools such as pluralism, idealism, normative theories or critical theories receive scant attention.82
76. Xu Jia, ``Jiushi niandai Zhongguo guoji guanxi lilun yanjiu saomiao (`À Sketch of the Research
of IR Theory in China in 1990s), International Outlook, Vol. 3 (1997), p. 18.
80. Ibid., p. 12.
82. Chan, `Ìnternational Studies in China, pp. 12 13.
274
There is also a serious problem of translation. Since most Chinese students do

not possess the capability to read Western works in the original version, their
study of Western perspectives is heavily dependent on the translated books.
Thus, the quality of translations is crucial to the understanding of those ideas.
However, for some of the original concepts it is extremely dif cult to nd exact
counterparts in Chinese, something that hampers a correct understanding of the
original meaning of the works. At the same time, fewer and fewer quali ed
scholars are willing to do translations, due to the hardship of the work and low
pay.83
The poor nancial situation in the academic eld also constrains the development of IR theory as a discipline. Library holdings are woefully inadequate due
to budgetary dif culties. Academic institutions are short of funding for research
and for purchasing library material and equipment. ``Books published in the
West are very expensive in China. Except in a few key institutions, most scholars
can only rely on old books and dated materials, and consequently are out of
touch with recent developments in Western IR study or Western analyses of
current affairs. Poor pay means that individual Chinese scholars nd it extremely
dif cult to maintain contacts with overseas colleagues by phone, fax, or international travel. 84 This frustrating situation weighs heavily on the enthusiasm of
scholars in academic research. Furthermore, as economic development stimulates
business involvement and quite a few people are becoming rich through these
activities, many scholars are attracted by material temptations and turn to more
lucrative professions than those to be found in academic research. Furthermore,
among those younger scholars and researchers who have been sent abroad for
further training, few have nished their studies and even fewer have returned
the majority do not seem prepared to come back to China soon.85
Moreover, the academic level of scholars also needs improvement. Despite the
fact that there are about 100 institutions in international studies in China, over
90% of them are policy-oriented. Only a very small number of scholars are
devoted to the teaching of or research on IR. Each year there are only 150
undergraduate degrees, 140 postgraduate degrees including 100 masters level
and 40 PhD level in IR in the entire country. Although nearly 2000 faculty
members in Chinas colleges and universities currently teach the course ``Contemporary World Political Economy and International Relations, most of them have
little or no background in IR studies or related disciplines. Many IR scholars do
not even have any background in political science. Except for major universities
such as Peking, Fudan, Renda and the Foreign Affairs College, university
professors have very few opportunities to go abroad or invite foreign scholars
to teach at their campuses.86 The quality of some academic books and articles are
questionable owing to the writers poor knowledge of international politics. It is
common for quotations to lack references to sources, and for notes, bibliographies
or indexes to be completely absent.
In his article on the problems of international politics research in China, Wang
Yizhou lists the following points: `Ùntil now, there is no adequate book on the
83. Wang Yizhou, Dangdai Guoji Zhengzhixilun (Analysis of Contemporary International Politics), p. 6.
IR Theory in China
275
object and methodology of international politics in China. We lack a systematic

and comprehensive study of international political theory. We lack a comprehensive introduction to and analyses of contemporary international political masterpieces, especially regarding the major works of important authors after the
1980s. Although there are some translations of Western works, they are not as
comprehensive as they should be. We lack the enlightenment and encouragement
of philosophical ideas. We lack the cooperation and help from other social
science disciplines as well as natural sciences. We lack approaches going beyond
pragmatism. 87
Causes of the Problems

As the history of IR theory development in the West shows, it will require a
certain amount of time before international politics moves from the domain
of politicians to the academic realm. The unfavourable external and internal
environment in which the IR discipline in China had to develop since 1949
hindered its normal development. As Yuan Ming points out: ``Between 1949 and
1978, the Western blockade policy and Chinas choice of yi bian dao (leaning
toward one side) deprived it of the opportunity to systematically learn from the
achievements of Western IR research development.88 After the founding of the
Peoples Republic of China in 1949, the Western world was antagonistic towards
China. Ideological differences became an insurmountable barrier and exchanges
and communications were impossible during that period. The isolation, in a
certain sense, slowed down Chinas academic progress in IR theory construction.
It was not until 1980s that Western thoughts found access to China. The distinct
Western systemic framework and methodology are not easy to digest, which
makes for a longer and more dif cult process of learning and exchange.
Domestically, China was for a long time haunted by a radical ideological
movement. The ``Left deviation of the revolutionary line led to the persecution
of a large number of intellectuals in those years, a painful experience which
prevented scholars from plunging into pure academic research, in fear of being
criticised by the authorities on the basis of various excuses. On the other hand,
years of political campaigns in the Culture Revolution pushed the country to
the verge of poverty. A serious shortage of funds hampered the improvement of
academic research.
Notwithstanding these hurdles, IR theory in China has made remarkable
progress thanks to the increasing number of academic exchanges with the West.
Moreover, Chinas active participation in world affairs has created a favourable
condition for a more independent and scholarly development of IR theory.
Conclusion
In this article we have tried to provide a state of affairs of IR theory in China.
In so doing we have analysed the issues at stake in the development of Chinese
87. Wang Yizhou, ``Zhongguo guoji zhengzhi lilun yanjiu de jige wenti (``Several Problems in the
Research of International Political Theory in China), p. 32.
88. Yuan Ming, ``Xifang guoji guanxi yanjiu zai Zhongguo: huigu yu sikao (``Western IR Research
in China: Retrospect and Re ection), p. 46.
276
IR theory. The questions addressed concern the place of Chinese ancient culture
in the development of IR theory in China, whether IR theory should have
``Chinese characteristics, which are the most pressing problems with theorybuilding in China, and which are the main causes for these problems? What
became clear is that at present there are no fully developed IR research traditions
in China. However, scholars in the eld especially the younger generation
are enthusiastic about its possible construction, notwithstanding formidable
hurdles. While most scholars acknowledge the bene ts traditional Chinese
culture to enrich the content of IR theory in China, they are also aware that
learning and understanding Western theoretical systems is paramount. However,
as Yuan Ming warns, Western IR theory is to China a kind of external culture.
How to deal with the relations between Western culture and Chinas indigenous
cultural tradition needs to be given careful attention.89 Gerald Chan also points
out the possibility of cultural clashes. Before the two can relate comfortably to
each other, they will experience some kind of uneasy dialogue the tensions
between the Western ``culture of IR theorising and the Chinese ``culture of IR
theorising must be managed properly if the status of Chinese school is to be
promoted from a ``peripheral position to a ``semi-peripheral position.90
There is no doubt that Western IR theory still takes the lead in contemporary
IR while the Chinese school is currently ``peripheral at best. However, the
development of IR theory in China deserves greater attention. Understanding
Chinese theory construction is conducive to a better comprehension of Chinese
foreign policy. As China grows stronger in state power, it also becomes more
mature in dealing with international relations. It is quite possible that the
combination of increasing experience and a rich cultural heritage will help China
produce its own well-developed contribution to the further development of IR
theory.
89. Yuan Ming (ed.), Kuashiji de tiaozhan, pp. 255 256.

90. Chan, ``Toward an International Relations Theory with Chinese Characteristics? , p. 28.

International Relations Theory in China - Gustaaf Geeraerts and Men Jing

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

International Relations Theory in China - Gustaaf Geeraerts and Men Jing

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Global Society, Vol. 15, No.

GUSTAAF GEERAERTS and MEN JING

& Studies, Vol. 6 (1998), pp. 2 3.

G. Geeraerts and M. Jing

to contribute to this process by making explicit the different positions as they

of theory, the construction of IR theory in China cannot but be driven by a strong

Development from the 1950s to 1970s

G. Geeraerts and M. Jing

Development from the 1980s

G. Geeraerts and M. Jing

shehui kexue (``Foreign Social Science), ``Guowai zhengzhi yanjiu (``Foreign

ve principles of peaceful coexistence;

According to professor Yuan Ming of Beijing University, owing to the in uence

Relations), pp. 23 24.

G. Geeraerts and M. Jing

G. Geeraerts and M. Jing

Chinese tradition on the thinking and behaviour of modern China. Their

Chinas Ancient Culture in Retrospect: Main Philosophical Schools

G. Geeraerts and M. Jing

The Present Situation

Land and Heaven

Shen Dao, Sheng Buhai,

Shang Yang and Han

Confucius and Mencius

States and people are linked by interests.

Human nature is evil.

All consider peace and security to be prior

Human nature is good.

are stressed and the role of force is

Table 1. Comparisons of the three major schools of thought

G. Geeraerts and M. Jing

eliminating the errors and ideological foundation of capitalist theories? Third,

Should IR Theory Construction in China Have Chinese Characteristics?

The Limitations of Marxist Theory

G. Geeraerts and M. Jing

the contradictions in the capitalist economic system nd their expression in

Debate between the Old and Young Generations

G. Geeraerts and M. Jing

Why Is It Necessary to Construct a Chinese IR Theory?

December 1994 Beijing

China and the world

Huan Xiang, a noted diplomat and

G. Geeraerts and M. Jing

How to Evaluate Western IR Theory

G. Geeraerts and M. Jing

Ibid., pp. 496 497.

G. Geeraerts and M. Jing

There is also a serious problem of translation. Since most Chinese students do

object and methodology of international politics in China. We lack a systematic

Causes of the Problems

G. Geeraerts and M. Jing

89. Yuan Ming (ed.), Kuashiji de tiaozhan, pp. 255 256.

S-ar putea să vă placă și