From Ideology to Pragmatism: China’s Position on Humanitarian Intervention in the Post-Cold War Era

Jonathan E. Davis
{"title":"From Ideology to Pragmatism: China’s Position on Humanitarian Intervention in the Post-Cold War Era","authors":"Jonathan E. Davis","doi":"10.1163/9789004249059_006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Article fills a gap in the literature by examining in depth China’s state practice and official pronouncements in respect of nine post-Cold War cases typically cited by academics when considering the international legal status of humanitarian intervention. The majority of today’s commentary and scholarship holds that the People’s Republic of China’s position on sovereignty and intervention remains inflexible and absolutist, much as it was for the PRC’s first four decades. This Article contends that this view is outdated and overly simplistic: while China continues to champion a strong conception of state sovereignty in interstate relations, it has signaled a shift from an ideological insistence on noninterference toward a more pragmatic approach to humanitarian crises. In particular, this can be seen in China’s willingness to acquiesce in and even actively support multilateral humanitarian interventions that obtain both Security Council authorization and target state consent, as well as in China’s willingness to use its growing economic and diplomatic leverage to help secure consent to intervention.","PeriodicalId":439669,"journal":{"name":"Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"36","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004249059_006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 36

Abstract

This Article fills a gap in the literature by examining in depth China’s state practice and official pronouncements in respect of nine post-Cold War cases typically cited by academics when considering the international legal status of humanitarian intervention. The majority of today’s commentary and scholarship holds that the People’s Republic of China’s position on sovereignty and intervention remains inflexible and absolutist, much as it was for the PRC’s first four decades. This Article contends that this view is outdated and overly simplistic: while China continues to champion a strong conception of state sovereignty in interstate relations, it has signaled a shift from an ideological insistence on noninterference toward a more pragmatic approach to humanitarian crises. In particular, this can be seen in China’s willingness to acquiesce in and even actively support multilateral humanitarian interventions that obtain both Security Council authorization and target state consent, as well as in China’s willingness to use its growing economic and diplomatic leverage to help secure consent to intervention.
从意识形态到实用主义:后冷战时期中国对人道主义干预的立场
本文通过深入考察学者在考虑人道主义干预的国际法律地位时通常引用的九个冷战后案例中中国的国家实践和官方声明,填补了文献的空白。今天的大多数评论和学术研究都认为,中华人民共和国在主权和干预方面的立场仍然是僵化和专制的,就像中华人民共和国最初的四十年一样。本文认为,这种观点已经过时,而且过于简单化:虽然中国继续在国家间关系中捍卫国家主权的强烈概念,但它已经标志着从意识形态上坚持不干涉向更务实的人道主义危机方法的转变。特别是,这可以从中国愿意默许甚至积极支持获得安理会授权和目标国同意的多边人道主义干预,以及中国愿意利用其日益增长的经济和外交影响力来帮助获得对干预的同意中看出。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信