Is China Becoming More Aggressive? A Neoclassical Realist Analysis

Sørensen, Camilla T. N.

doi:10.1353/apr.2013.0014

Cited by 25 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other neoclassical realists explain Chinese foreign and security policy. The intervening variables include China’s nationalism (Schweller, 2018) and state–society relations (Sørensen, 2013), its imperial history, and narratives around strong borders (Chand and Danner, 2019: 416). Verma analyzes the interaction and resource policies of India and China regarding oil in West Africa (Verma, 2013).…”

Section: Global Questions and Casesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Realist avenues to global International Relations

Foulon

Meibauer

2020

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Realism has long been criticized by global IR, but the former can contribute to the latter and thereby improve explanations of international relations. Global IR criticizes that realism supposedly applies universally, sidelines non-Western perspectives, and misunderstands much of foreign policy, grand strategy, and international affairs. Reviewing global IR’s case against realism, however, exposes avenues for realism to complement global IR. Realism can contribute to a more global understanding of international relations through its most recent variant: neoclassical realism (NCR). This newest realism allows for contextualization and historicization of drivers of state behavior. It can embrace and has already been engaging global questions and cases; global thought and concepts; and global perspectives and scholarship. Mapping 149 NCR publications produced by 96 scholars reveals a slow shift in knowledge production away from North America toward Europe and to a lesser extent Asia and Africa. Creative research designs and scholarly collaboration can put realism in fruitful conversation with global IR. This has implications for theory building and inclusive knowledge production in realism, global IR, and the wider discipline. Only when we discover new avenues for realists to travel can they contribute to a more global IR. In turn, when global IR scholars engage realism, they may be better able to address the Western versus non-Western dichotomies they challenge.

show abstract

Section: Global Questions and Casesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Realist avenues to global International Relations

Foulon

Meibauer

2020

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Perceptions of national interests and domestic support matter for Indonesian policy vis-à-vis foreign separatists (Sari 2018). NCR analyzes not only Western cases, great powers, or democracies but can also contribute to the study of non-Western cases, including smaller, postcolonial or authoritarian states (Kropatcheva 2012;Romanova 2012;Yoo 2012;Sørensen 2013;Becker et al 2016;Ichihara 2017;Gelot and Welz 2018;Gvalia, Lebanidze, and Siroky 2019). Finally, because NCR focusses on decision-makers, it introduces subjectivity and lived experience that affect leader beliefs and decision-making styles.…”

Section: Global Questions and Casesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forum: Rethinking Neoclassical Realism at Theory's End

Meibauer

Desmaele

Onea

et al. 2020

International Studies Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This forum presents a snapshot of the current state of neoclassical realist theorizing. Its contributors are self-identified neoclassical realists who delineate their version of neoclassical realism (NCR), its scope, object of analysis, and theoretical contribution. From the standpoint of NCR, they contribute to and reflect on the “end of IR theory” debate. NCR has come under criticism for its supposed lack of theoretical structure and alleged disregard for paradigmatic boundaries. This raises questions as to the nature of this (theoretical) beast. Is NCR a midrange, progressive research program? Can it formulate a grand theory informed by metatheoretical assumptions? Is it a reformulation of neorealism or classical realism or an eclectic mix of different paradigms? The forum contributors argue that NCR, in different variants, holds considerable promise to investigate foreign policy, grand strategy and international politics. They interrogate the interaction of international and domestic politics and consider normative implications as well as the sources and cases of NCR beyond the West. In so doing, they speak to theorizing and the utility of the theoretical enterprise in IR more generally.

show abstract

“…In this interpretation China is seeking hegemony and thereby challenges other actors in the international system (Roy 1994;Griese 2006;Huotari et al 2017;Benner et al 2018). Especially from a realist perspective, the aspiration for power and economic wealth are used to explain China's extensive expansion policy (Sørensen 2013). Such studies mainly focus on power politics (Zweig and Bi 2005;Dannreuther 2014;Broomfield 2003).…”

Section: Existing Cleavages In Eu-china Research: Breaking the Dichotomymentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond dichotomy?

Gurol

2020

Z Politikwiss

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

J. Gurol the conceptual implications of the state of art and points towards possible future avenues for research. 2 Empirical shortcomings in EU-China research While a lot has been written about EU-China economic affairs, their relationship in the security realm is a controversial and highly debated, yet under-researched issue. Taken that few world regions are under such scrutiny in current global politics as the EU and China, this is surprising. Albeit in very different manners, the two actors form central pillars of international politics, not only because they account for one third of global trade, but also because they represent a decisive axis in the current world order, as rightly pointed to by Shambaugh (D. Shambaugh 2005). Despite diverging political principles of interstate and region-to-state relations, including state sovereignty, territorial integrity, and intervention policies, the EU and China have developed solid and recurrent interactions in a variety of policy fields. These range from people-to-people, social and cultural contacts, over economic negotiations to foreign and security policy. In doing so, they have substantially institutionalized their relations over time (Christiansen et al. 2019). Although the main drivers of EU-China relations remain of an economic kind, meaning primarily concerns with trade, investment and intellectual property issues (Kirchner et al. 2015; Huotari et al. 2017), the security dimension of their relationship has become more significant over time. It has by now developed into a vital pillar of EU-China relations. With respect to the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (CSP) of 2003, and the Strategic Agenda for Cooperation of 2013, China and the EU have expressed the will to coordinate their foreign and security policy matters. Moreover, under the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) they agreed to align their security policies to create a "secure and stable environment from China to Europe, including Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria" (Schweisgut 2015). The expansion of EU-China security relations over time and concerning the array of security issues is an interesting and puzzling phenomenon. Although economic matters still dominate the EU-China agenda, the security domain is all but tenuous (Kirchner et al. 2015), not only because of the deepening economy-security nexus but also because of the rise of transnational security challenges like climate and energy security, maritime security or food security that equally affect the EU and China. Yet, for decades, EU-China security cooperation has been hindered by contradicting principles of foreign and security policymaking (D. L. Shambaugh et al. 2008). Although these principles are still adhered today and lead to increasing political frictions, the intensity and scope of EU-China security cooperation have widened over time. Within an overall relationship dominated by increasing mistrust and political tensions, this is interesting to look at. Despite this fact, the security domain of EU-China relations has ...

show abstract

Is China Becoming More Aggressive? A Neoclassical Realist Analysis

Cited by 25 publications

References 25 publications

Realist avenues to global International Relations

Realist avenues to global International Relations

Forum: Rethinking Neoclassical Realism at Theory's End

Beyond dichotomy?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About