FeaturedArticles

3 China-Russia-US Relations and International Structure: From Multipolarity to Bipolarity?

Abstract: Unipolarism has set the theme of the international structure in the early days of post-Cold War; it then gave way to the overwhelming multipolarism. However, the rise of bipolarism in recent years has posed challenges against multipolarism, wherein, the two poles refer to China and the US, and their basic indicator is defined by the economic aggregate. Nevertheless, bipolarism has not yet gained unanimous consensus as China still has incomplete aggregative indicator. The co-existence of bipolarity and multipolarity in subjective cognition and objective reality marks a unique phenomenon of today’s international structure, and their relations can be defined by a bipolar structure in a multipolar framework, or a multipolar structure with two dominant poles. This is a mirror of the complexity and contradiction of the international structure in reality, and the status will be maintained in the long run with a trend of forming stronger bipolar structure features. As one of the poles, China should be guided by the general theory and concept of multilateralism instead of multipolarism. Decoupled from any specific international structure, multilateralism enables China to remain unaffected by changes in its own status, align its diplomatic theory with varied international structures, and contribute to hold the theoretical basis of Sino-Russian international cooperation.

Keywords: international structure, China-Russia-US, multipolar, bipolar, multilateralism

AbouttheAuthor: Zhao Huasheng is Professor at the Institute of International Studies, Fudan University.

ZhaoHuasheng

ThemedArticles-

21 A Perspective on Global Transformation in the 19th Century

Abstract:GlobalTransformation:History,ModernityandtheMakingofInternationalRelationsare an academic work devoted to discussing the origins of modern international relations and the discipline of international relations. Barry Buzan and George Lawson, who are the co-authors of the academic work, believe that modern international relations and the discipline of international relations are the products and manifestations of the revolution of global modernity. Its origins can be traced back to the global transformation extending over the 19th century (from 1776 to 1919). This book also provides an interdisciplinary approach to interpreting the three aspects of the global transformation in the 19th century, namely industrialization, the formation of the rational state, and “progressive” ideology. The interpretation of the global transformation in the 19th century from the western and non-western perspectives may lead to a highly different historical narrative. It still remains to be seen whether the third stage of global transformation (decentred globalism), which is mentioned by the two authors, has arrived.

Keywords: modernity, global transformation, international relations

AbouttheAuthor: Zhang Xiaoming is Professor at the School of International Studies, Peking University.

ZhangXiaoming

28 Barry Buzan as a Historian

Abstract: Barry Buzan is not only a world-renowned theorist of international relations, but also a historian with a unique style. His “big history” vision, his system of interpreting the world history in terms of international system, and productive sources of world history theories found in his writings, all have reached an attainment far beyond the imagination of professional historians.TheGlobalTransformation:History,ModernityandtheMakingofInternationalRelations, jointly authored by him and George Lawson, is more than a book on world history and even reconstructs the knowledge foundation of the discipline of international relations. That is because this book is concerned with not only historical transformation but also the knowledge transformation of the discipline. It is of great significance in terms of historical experience, disciplinary orientation and positioning. To be more specific, it implies a shift away from the Eurocentrism and the US centrism and elevates the discipline of international relations into a field of knowledge capable of making meaningful interaction with other disciplines. Since 2000, Barry Buzan has been trying to put the discipline of international relations into a broader historical framework, and his historical works have served as a bridges and intermediary between disciplines. As a historian among theorists of internationsl relations, he has adopted a unique approach to interpreting world history and global transformation, which is worthy of the attention from the community of social sciences.

Keywords: international system, global transformation, knowledge transformation, historian

AbouttheAuthor: Liu Debin is Professor of History and International Relations and head of the Institute of International Relations, Jilin University.

LiuDebin

35 The Discipline of International Relations in the Context of Big History

Abstract:TheGlobalTransformation:History,ModernityandtheMakingofInternationalRelations, co-authored by Barry Buzan and George Lawson, represents the discipline of international relations in the context of big history. The studies of history and international relations are inseparable from each other. Due to the impact of the scientism wave in social sciences in recent decades, the inseparable tie between them, which is otherwise a matter of common sense, has been questioned. Giving high priority to history is a hallmark of the British school of international relations. The two authors attempt to re-explore the interplay between international system and world history as well as the significant effect of history on the formation of the contemporary world. At a time when a new round of global transformation is taking place, the world is moving faster towards a polycentric or decentred world, which is referred to as “decentred globalism” by Buzan and Lawson. In this sense, the book devoted to international relations from the perspective of big history can offer a feasible approach to discuss the new global transformation.

Keywords: big history, international relations,GlobalTransformation

AbouttheAuthor: Ren Xiao is Professor of Fudan University and Director of the Center for Chinese Foreign Policy, Fudan University.

RenXiao

44 Global Transformation and the Temporal-Spatial Complexity of International Relations

Abstract: The discipline of international relations is a specific “knowledge field” and also an academic platform with a multiple binary complexity as well as a temporal-spatial complexity. The contribution made by Barry Buzan and George Lawson is that they have laid the historical sociology foundation for the discipline of international relations from the perspective of global transformation and modernity. However this is far from enough. Researching the development of the discipline of international relations should also involve examining the integration of relevant disciplines. Moreover, the outlook on temporal-spatial value is even more important in examining the disciplinary development and the integration of disciplines in the future context. Especially the “Global Networkization” brought by the new scientific and technological revolution will lay a new temporal-spatial coordinate and disciplinary foundation for “post-human international relations”.

Keywords: global transformation, international relations, temporal-spatial value, interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary utilization

AbouttheAuthor: Yu Xiaofeng is Director of the Center for Non-Traditional Security and Peaceful Development and Professor of the School of Public Affairs, Zhejiang University.

YuXiaofeng

55 Reflection on the Responsibilities of Major Powers against the Backdrop of Global Transformation

Abstract:TheGlobalTransformation:History,ModernityandtheMakingofInternationalRelations, co-authored by Barry Buzan and George Lawson, provides a meaningful perspective on the global transformation emerging in today’s world by examining the trend of international relations from the angle of modernity. As noted in the book, global transformation has extended from the 19th century to the present, and the world is witnessing a decentred globalism. At this point, as the nature of security issues has changed profoundly, the traditional definition of the responsibilities of major powers has also changed accordingly. Major powers should balance their national interests with the interests of the system so as to overcome the common security challenges. China’s vision of building a new model of major power relations and a community with shared future for mankind is better aligned with the decentred global order, but it has been questioned by many. On one hand, it implies that China’s rise is still defined by material prosperity. On the other hand, it also means that major powers need to enhance the common understanding and mutual trust.

Keywords: global transformation, decentred global order, responsibilities of major powers

AbouttheAuthor: Cui Shunji is Professor at the School of Public Affairs, Zhejiang University.

CuiShunji

67 Driving Forces of Emerging Economies to Decentralized Globalization

Abstract: As is pointed out inTheGlobalTransformation:History,ModernityandtheMakingofInternationalRelationsby Barry Buzan and George Lawson from the historical macro-view of global development, the trend of centralized globalization has gradually given way to the trend of decentralized globalization. This article is mainly concerned with four driving forces to decentralized globalization brought by emerging economies, especially the BRIC countries (China, India, Brazil and South Africa). The four driving forces consist of one fundamental driving force and three derivative driving forces. The first fundamental driving force drives the formation of a new pattern of world economy and trade. The second driving force leads to a new pattern of global division of labor and technological development. The third driving force is for participation in global governance and the struggle for discourse power. The fourth driving force is for the new pattern of regional geopolitics. Focusing on the four driving forces, this paper discusses the potential change brought by emerging economies to the world order in the decentralized globalization and the challenges that they face.

Keywords: decentred globalization, emerging economies, driving forces

綜合國(guó)際自貿(mào)港發(fā)展趨勢(shì)和國(guó)內(nèi)自貿(mào)區(qū)發(fā)展實(shí)踐，可以預(yù)期自貿(mào)港政策將在繼承和發(fā)展自貿(mào)區(qū)試點(diǎn)成果的基礎(chǔ)上，進(jìn)一步強(qiáng)化以制度創(chuàng)新為核心，著力健全四個(gè)方面體系，具體包括：各類市場(chǎng)主體平等進(jìn)入、有序競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的投資管理體系，促進(jìn)貿(mào)易升級(jí)和通關(guān)便利的貿(mào)易監(jiān)督服務(wù)體系，深化金融開(kāi)放創(chuàng)新和有效防控風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的金融服務(wù)體系，以及符合市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)規(guī)則和治理能力現(xiàn)代化要求的政府管理體系。在具體實(shí)施中將呈現(xiàn)如下特點(diǎn)：

AbouttheAuthor: Li Jia is Associate Professor at the School of International Studies, Zhejiang University; Xu Pengbo is graduate student at School of International Studies, Zhejiang University.

LiJiaandXuPengbo

79 China’s Road to Modernity: Historical Experience and Current Possibilities

Abstract: In the form of reading note, this paper is concerned with two profound feelings and one issue after the author readsTheGlobalTransformation:History,ModernityandtheMakingofInternationalRelations, namely the criticism against the discipline of International Relations, the study of modernity from the historical perspective as well as the use of the “progressive” ideological terms. This paper also analyzes the past and the present of China’s modernity by the main driving forces of modernity, which are industrialization, the formation of the rational state and the “progressive” ideology. this paper puts forward three viewpoints. Firstly, China, as an integral part of the global transformation, has its unique feature individually but is not special in a sense. Secondly, modernization is not mean Westernization. The development of modernity, which originated in England and spread rapidly throughout Europe and then to the rest of the world, is all a process of integrating with the local country. Thirdly, the global development of modernity and the historical experience of China’s modernity can provide valuable reference for China to define its relationship with the world.

Keywords:TheGlobalTransformation, Modernity, China

AbouttheAuthor: Wang Jiangli is Associate Professor at the Department of Political Science at School of Public Affairs, Zhejiang University.

WangJiangli

92 China, Modernity and the Long 19th Century

Keywords:TheGlobalTransformation, China, modernity

AbouttheAuthor: Yan Zhen is Assistant Professor at the School of International and Public Affairs, Jilin University.

YanZhen

99 Response to Chinese Scholars’ Discussion onTheGlobalTransformation

Abstract: This paper is a response to the viewpoints of the Chinese scholars who have participated in the discussion. We believe that it is wrong and harmful to equate “modernization” with “westernization” or consider them as overlapping with each other. Modernity is the aggregate of numerous concepts and practices that challenge “all” societies in the world including those in the western world. Due to the difference in space, time and actual condition, there has been a remarkable difference between a pre-modern complex and a modern complex. As to the inspiration of our viewpoints to the development of China’s discipline of international relations, we suggest that Chinese scholars should integrate Chinese history into the research of international relations, contribute to the building of a more global international relations. Chinese scholars should also contribute to the debate over the construction of the future international order. We believe that the world is reaching the stage where the decentred pluralism is taking deep root. The facts in the past five years have confirmed our judgment except that the world is currently moving towards contested deep pluralism.

Keywords: modernization, westernization, China’s international relations, contested deep pluralism

AbouttheAuthor: Barry Buzan is Professor at the London School of Economics and Political Science，UK; George Lawson is Professor at the London School of Economics and Political Science, UK.

BarryBuzanandGeorgeLawson

GlobalGovernance

109 Comprehensive National Security System, Community with Shared Future for Mankind and Biosecurity Governance

Abstract: In terms of motivation, biosecurity can be classified as intentional or unintentional. And in terms of level, it consists of the relationship between biology and security as well as the relationship between biotechnology and security. Biology and security are mainly concerned with the security threats posed by microorganisms which are represented by germs. Biotechnology and security mainly refer to the security threats posed by the development of life science technologies represented by genetic technologies, the management capabilities of biological laboratories as well as the biochemical weapons aimed at spreading germs. Current threats to biosecurity are posed by major infectious diseases, whose negative impact reflects the organic unity of the external and the internal, the self and the common as well as the international and the domestic in terms of international-domestic interaction. Biosecurity is reflected in the 11 parts of the comprehensive national security system, and it is also necessary and feasible to see biosecurity as an independent part of the system. China is taking firm steps to push forward the national biosecurity governance. In addition to peace and security, greening, cleanness, beauty and health are also indispensable elements of building a community with shared future for mankind. Biosecurity has been closely associated with two issues, namely human security and health. Ideological conflicts represented by institutional bias, racial discrimination, conspiracy and the “New Cold War” are mushrooming in the realm of biosecurity, which has greatly undermined the effectiveness of biosecurity governance and contradicted the objective fact that human should build a community with shared future and common interests in the face of biosecurity. Although the human society has made progress in the international laws and international institutions regarding the prevention and control of infectious diseases, it is difficult for them to play a more constructive role only within the framework of global health governance. Building a global biosecurity system and strengthening biosecurity cooperation among countries will help to push forward the global biosecurity governance.

Keywords: biosecurity, major infectious diseases, comprehensive national security, community with shared future for mankind

AbouttheAuthor: Niu Song, Research Fellow at the Middle East Studies Institute, Shanghai International Studies University.

NiuSong

MajorPowerRelations

129 Analysis of the Trump Administration’s Technology Containment Policies Against China

Abstract: Science and technology plays a key role in promoting the progress of human history and the change of international order, so major powers are sparing no efforts to compete for a dominant position in this realm. The US government’s technology containment policies against China imply that an established power tends to implement the technological protectionism amid the evolution of international structure. Since 2018, the US has been trying to decouple itself from China through expert control, investment review and increasing restrictions on visa. The US has already put in place the preliminary strategic policies against China’s technological development. This is the result of the US protecting its hegemonic position from the perspective of strategic competition between China and the US. Consequentially, it will deliver a blow to some high-tech enterprises in both China and the US, reshape the global supply chain, and halt the technological cooperation between the two countries. Considering that the US allies and countries concerned are not likely to risk plunging into the technological protectionism against China, the US will find it hard to form an alliance aimed at containing China’s technological rise.

Keywords: the US’s policies towards China, technological competition, evolution of international structure

AbouttheAuthor: Zhai Maiyun is doctoral student at the School of International Studies, Renmin University of China; Li Qingsi is Professor at the School of International Studies, Renmin University of China.

ZhaiMaiyun&LiQingsi