Supervisor(s): Ministry of Foreign Affairs of PRC Sponsor(s): China Foreign Affairs University; China National Association for International Studies CN：11-5370/D
Foreign Affairs Review is supervised by Ministry of Foreign Affairs of PRC, and sponsored by China Foreign Affairs University. It was launched in 1984, aiming to locate its domain within looking at the world based on China and observing China from the perspective of global view, and take “big international relations” and “big diplomacy” as its main subjects. Its scope covers Chinese diplomacy, big power relations, regional and international order, as well as global governance with its distinctive features. Among the well-known Chinese journals in terms of bibliometric indicators, it has become one of the best journals in the field of international relations. Moreover, it also acts as the authorized journal for China National Association for International Studies (CNAIS).
The journal is included in CSSCI.
Editor-in-Chief Qin Yaqing
Associate Editor Zhu Liqun
Deputy Editor-in-Chief Chen Zhirui
Editorial Board Yin Jiwu, Beijing Foreign Studies University Wang Fan, China Foreign Affairs University Wang Yizhou, Peking University David M. Lampton, The
The modern international development assistance system dominated by the West has already enjoyed a history of nearly 70 years, where all kinds of drawbacks are exposed and transformation becomes imperative. In recent years, with the revival of South-South cooperation, the new development cooperation model which emphasizes such core elements as mutual respect, equality, mutual trust and win-win cooperation constitutes a challenge to the “donors-recipients” paradigm that has dominated the discourse power of development for a long time, thus promoting transformation of international development assistance and improvement of global development governance. Among the South-South development cooperation partners, The idea and practice of India's development cooperation shows the essence of development cooperation, and especially, India’s development cooperation with Africa has an exemplary significance for development cooperation. At the same time, we should also realize that South-South cooperation is a supplement instead of replacement of the North-South cooperation, and the latter is still the main channel for international development cooperation. As an emerging economy and rising ‘donor' like India, it is necessary for China to reflect on its own foreign aid in terms of ideas, mechanisms and policies, so as to promote transformation of international development assistance and support developing countries to realize their sustainable development goals.
The traditional audience cost theory focuses on leaders’ capability in creating and demonstrating audience costs during crisis negotiations. However, it cannot explain why some leaders make their choices against the preferences of their domestic audiences when audience costs are very high. Therefore, using India as an example, this paper tries to establish an explanatory framework consisting of two variables, namely public attention and the ability of domestic audiences to punish, to investigate the interaction mechanism between the strategies adopted by leaders during crisis negotiations and the domestic constraints the leaders face. India has experienced many times of international crises against its main neighboring countries, including China, Pakistan and Bangladesh, since it became independent. The strategies adopted by India during its international crisis negotiations are often considered indiscriminately tough. However, through this study, it has been found that India’s behavior in crisis negotiations, which shows indiscriminate toughness, does not contradict the domestic audience cost mechanism. On the contrary, it is the outcome of domestic constraints faced by Indian leaders, and varies only in its scopes and formats at different times under different domestic political circumstances.
This paper investigates the activities of city diplomacy that Japan has conducted in Southeast Asia. Since the late 1980s, Japan’s city diplomacy has been in the process of transition from international exchange to international cooperation. City diplomacy is no longer limited to the relation of sister cities with strong symbolic significance. The cooperation approaches are more diverse and realistic. In Southeast Asia, city diplomacy has become a critical tool that Japan’s central government and local governments adopt to obtain their political and economic interests. Changes in the attitude of the central government and the subsequent institution construction and resources input are the key factors for the successful transition of Japan’s city diplomacy. In addition, Japan’s city diplomatic practices in Southeast Asian provide essential reference for China’s local governments to undertake international activities.
The “Belt and Road” (B&R) initiative is a significant practice of economic diplomacy conducted by China during the new era. The purpose of the B&R initiative is not to challenge or replace the existing international system. Instead, it is to help to reform and improve the existing international system. Economic diplomacy not only has close interactions with the international system, but also operates in a specific international system with important effects on the maintenance and change of the international system. If we study economic diplomacy in the international system, we may find that in its operation, it follows two logics (the economic logic and the political logic) as well as two directions (liberalism and realism). The success of a country’s economic diplomacy depends on the match between these two logics and proper connection between these two directions, which is the “balancing tactics” in economic diplomacy. If the significant implementation of the B&R initiative follows these two logics and directions, and balancing tactics are used appropriately and deliberately during the implementation, the B&R initiative will certainly help to create a system effect and contribute to the reform of the existing international system. Meanwhile, the B&R initiative will also face several systemic risks and challenges. If efforts are made to create sound conditions for utilizing the balancing tactics, the systemic risks that the B&R initiative is facing can be effectively resolved.
In recent years, as people’s opinions on the development of the China-DPRK relations vary, no unanimous conclusion is drawn. In fact, with the adjustment of China’s strategic goal, factors influencing the China-DPRK relations have changed—internationalism becoming a newly important factor. According to statistics, the paper finds that there existing a markedly negative correlation between the economic cycle of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations, of the world and the import growth rate of the OECD nations, the activeness of the China-DPRK relations. During the economic expansion of the world, especially that of the OECD countries, the China-DPRK relations is chilly while dynamic during the economic contraction of the world, especially that of the OECD countries. On the basis of multiple regression analysis, it turns out that the changes of key independent variables among the three international factors are the key to form the mid-cycle of China’s foreign relations. In the past three decades, international trade, including China’s attracting international direct investment, takes place of the independent variables during the mid-cycle, forming the mid-cycle of China foreign relations after its reform and opening up. With the changes of China’s self-positioning, international capital transaction and China’s foreign investment will be key variables for its foreign relations of the next round and new mid-cycle starts. Fluctuation of the China-DPRK relations is on the very basis of the political mid-cycle. There needs a long-term historical perspective and detailed empirical analysis on the preference and expectation of the China-DPRK relations.
Diplomacy is a critical tool of pacifist foreign policy. After being defeated, Japanese politicians led by Shigeru Yoshida established three major principles, namely full economic development, light arsenal and coordination with the US on the basis of a redefinition of national characteristics. These content is known as “Yoshida Doctrine,” which depicts a blueprint for Japan’s rejuvenation. Under the joint forces of constitutional “pacifism” spirit and the nature of diplomacy, Japanese diplomacy can get rid of its pre-war expansionism and progress into the present day through trials and errors. Its main features are related to four pillars, “the Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution,” “Japanese-American alliance,” “economic center” and “historical heritage.” Among them, two major options “the Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution” and “Japanese-American alliance” differ in terms of objectives, paths and methods. Hence these rules are constantly subject to suspicion and partial modification, however, the internal resilience of “Yoshida Doctrine” still relatively stabilizes the entire structure even after the Cold War. Yet this sitzuation has dramatically changed during Abe’s second term of office, the pacifism spirit of Japanese diplomacy is under substantial test. Japan has significantly accelerated its strategic transformation and broke its fixed mindset, legal system and conventional practices over a series of key issues. The diplomatic regime is also undergoing substantial adjustment. Changes in the overall strategic form and diplomatic regime have significant diplomatic connotations for Japan and all Asian countries. Looking ahead, whether Japan can reflect history sincerely, strive for international coordination and stick to peaceful development path will be the millennial topic in Japanese diplomacy. How will a self-improving and proactive self-challenger Japan join the ever changing Asia? In face of new historical opportunities, Japan must reduce its strategic misjudgement and dedicate itself to cooperation. Without sound diplomacy in Asia, there will be no future for Japanese diplomacy.
