Sponsored by Institute of World Economics and Politics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
ISSN 1006-9550 CN 11-1343/F
12 issues per year
Discipline(s): Politics, Law & Military; Economics & Finance
Current Issue: Issue 12, 2017
World Economics and Politics is supervised by Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and sponsored by Institute of World Economics and Politics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. It was launched in 1979, is a flagship in the domain of international relations research in China, aiming to combine international politics and world economy, theory and practice, domestic and international issues. The journal focuses on the comprehensive, forward-looking and innovative topics which are closely related to hot issues. Articles published mainly attach to groundbreaking scientific research from all fields of economics and international politics, particularly those with an emphasis on the overall analysis of global changes and characteristics. The journal is included in CSSCI.
This paper is to “re-problematize” the Benchmark dates in International relations studies, and to analyze how the current Western orthodox benchmark date was accepted by China and whether there existed any other references of time that were accepted and used by Chinese scholars when doing international relations studies in history. By analyzing the narrations about the beginning of modern international relations and its turning points in the studies on international relations history/theory written by Chinese scholars in the period of the Republic of China (1911–1949), the author finds the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648) and the Peace Treaty of Westphalia were hardly regarded as the start point of modern international relations in Chinese scholars’ knowledge. The current universally accepted consensus have not always existed in China but only emerged till 1980s. The awareness and recognition is a process of historical construction. Secondly, the author finds that a series of events that happened in modern Europe served as Benchmark dates in Chinese scholars’ research, such as the Spanish Succession War, the French Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, the Vienna Conference, the German Unity, the First World War and the Russian Revolution. However, their different determinations of Benchmark dates reflect different historical views they hold, such as realism, Marxism, nationalism and idealism. Finally, this paper shows that the Europe-centric and realism in international relations history narration was formed in modern China in a gradual process, and thus the reexamination of Chinese international relation scholars’ research will offer possibility for contemporary Chinese scholars to establish a new narrative of international relations history.
The Middle East is one of the weakest points in the global security system. The security issues in the Middle East are entangled and complicated, and they have acute internal and external roots. Essentially, they reflect external intervention and underdevelopment of Middle Eastern countries. In the process of the reshaping of the order in the Middle East and the transformation of Middle Eastern countries, the security issues are gradually deteriorating like “gray rhinos” and cause multiple security dilemmas. In particular, the new interventionism, tit-for-tat security concepts among Middle Eastern countries and the geopolitical game are intensifying the security dilemmas in the Middle East. The security issues in the Middle East not only endanger Middle Eastern countries, but also affect the surrounding areas and the rest of the world. Therefore, the Middle East security governance is imperative. However, the security subjects in the Middle East are complex, and they cannot work together in the short time, so the security governance is very difficult. Meanwhile, existing Middle East security mechanisms are exclusive and one-sided, and they cannot solve security issues in the Middle East. The key to resolving security issues in the Middle East lie in placing the security in the hands of countries in the region, enhancing independent security capabilities and levels, and solving security issues fundamentally by inclusive and sustainable development. The Middle East security governance should abandon the traditional security thinking, set short-term as well as mid-and long- term goals, and conduct comprehensive and overall governance at the national, regional and global levels. It should take the new security concept as core values, rely on independent security construction, get rid of “dual dependence” (depending on great powers in security, and relying on energy in development), and boost multi-level regional security cooperation. Moreover, it should promote the building of new security order in the Middle East and achieve the regional overall security by regarding universal security, sharing security and co-management of risks as goals.
Cultural resistance or cultural backlash: the comparison of causal effects of the rise of populist radical right in Western Europe
Since the end of the twentieth century, populist radical right parties in Western Europe has gained unprecedented vote shares and political influence. How can we explain the rise of populist radical right parties in contemporary Western Europe? In the existing literature on demand-side factors, there are two popular explanations, namely, globalization cultural resistance and modernization cultural backlash. The former argues that the increasing support for populist radical right parties lies in the cultural threat of immigration in the process of globalization. While the latter emphasizes the counter attack of the traditional conservatives in the face of widespread of liberal culture. In order to get a better understanding of the decisive factor in the rise of populist radical right parties across Western European countries, the main purpose of this paper is to compare the explanatory power of the two aforementioned theories. Based on the data from 2014 European Social Survey (ESS), this study uses the matching method to analyze the causal effects of globalization cultural resistance and modernization cultural backlash. We find that the influence of globalization cultural resistance is much stronger than that of modernization cultural backlash. It implies that the rise of populist radical right parties should be attributed more to globalization cultural resistance rather than modernization culture backlash.
Military-industrial interest groups and Japan’s national security policy: pork barrel politics under Abe’s administration
The change in Japan’s security policy is an important weather vane for observing its tendency of becoming a military power. The importance of analysis from perspectives of the international system and country has to be recognized when observing the formulation and changes of Japan’s security policy. Nevertheless, it is not enough to provide a “complete picture” of the logic behind changes in Japan’s security policy only by relying on the two perspectives. Therefore, domestic political and economic process has to be brought into the analytical framework. Military-industrial interest groups, as important actors in domestic politics, not only have the realistic demand to maximize their interests, but also have political intention of promoting national economic growth and making Japan a political and military power. The paper, with Japan’s military-industrial interest groups as the object of analysis and the pork barrel politics of the “iron triangle of politics, bureaucracy and finance” as analytical mechanism, discusses in detail the role of military-industrial interest groups in the formulation and changes of Japan’s security policy. Affected by the international environment and Japan’s domestic politics during the Cold War, Japan’s security policy is low-key at that time, the pork barrel of military-industrial interest groups to Japanese government is negative. After the Cold War, with the continuous economic recession, Japanese government started the process of becoming a political and military power. Military-industrial interest groups seek to break restrictions on military production departments in pursuit of economic interests, and on this basis, they lobby the government to increase defense budgets and adjust policies for defense industry, which provides an important explanation mechanism for the increasingly aggressive Japanese security policy. Finally, the paper examines in detail the Japanese government’s strong pork barrel politics to military-industrial interest groups under the Abe’s administration, and finds a logical explanation for its aggressive security policy.
Study on the puzzle why great powers selectively recognize the independence of “non-recognized de facto states” in the international community
Nowadays, secessionism is a serious threat to the stability of the world. The existing Chechen secessionism in Russia and the secessionist demands of Scotland, Kurds and Catalonia in the United Kingdom, Middle East and Spain respectively, all have impacts on regional security and international stability. A critical question arising from these secessionist phenomena is how the international community should deal with the pursuit of international recognition by these “non-recognized de facto states.” Up to now, the international community, especially great powers, always hold different, even opposite standpoints over the recognition of these non-recognized de facto states. Why do great powers selectively recognize the independence of these political actors? The existing research from the perspectives of international law and international relations cannot fully explain the puzzle. This paper argues that whether a non-recognized de facto state can acquire the recognition of great powers depends on two factors, namely, the quasi-national capabilities of the actor and strategic considerations of great powers. By analyzing the recognition status of the independence of Slovenia and Croatia, Kosovo and South Ossetia by great powers, this paper finds out that only when quasi-national capabilities of non-recognized de facto states can maintain its independence and its formal independence conforms to the strategic considerations of great powers can the independence of these actors be recognized by great powers. The analytical framework and conclusion of this paper can provide some practical and theoretical insights for the international community to deal with the recognition of non-recognized de facto states.
Imaginary enemy is a vital factor to drive the rise of the United States Navy (USN), but the influence of imaginary enemy on boosting the building of the USN differs at various historical stages. Existing studies suggest that imaginary enemies mainly stimulate the USN to make war plans and prepare for wars accordingly. Nevertheless, they have not revealed the real situation that different imaginary enemies cause different results of the naval building of the US. Focusing on the question of how imaginary enemies impact the building of the USN, the author finds out that the concept of imaginary enemy acts on the policy-making process of the US naval building under the leadership of dual civil officials. That concept urges naval officers, executive and legislative leaders closely to interact on the resource investment of naval building. However, they have notably different attitudes towards the naval building. These differences shape various historical results of the building of the USN. The US successively set the UK, Germany and Japan as primary imaginary enemies in the period of 1890–1922. The US accelerated naval building before the Spanish-American War and sharply raised the speed of naval building before the First World War, but suspended the naval building after the First World War. These three historical cases well prove the main argument of the paper, that is, under stable structure of military-political relations, the US always builds the navy by targeting at the primary imaginary enemy, and its naval building targeting at the secondary imaginary enemy gives way to the needs of dealing with the primary enemy. Moreover, these cases demonstrate the specific process that military and political elites of the USN sets imaginary enemies, formulate war plans and strive for resources for the naval building.