Prevention as a norm cluster? Mapping China's contestation on atrocity prevention

IF 3.9 1区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Qiaochu Zhang
{"title":"Prevention as a norm cluster? Mapping China's contestation on atrocity prevention","authors":"Qiaochu Zhang","doi":"10.1093/ia/iiad224","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article argues that China's rhetorical support for prevention at the United Nations obscures its underlying contestation of atrocity prevention in both conception and practice. It introduces a novel conceptual framework, coined as the two-level norm cluster of prevention, which includes three conceptually aligned yet distinct parts: operational conflict prevention, direct atrocity prevention and root-cause prevention. Drawing on interviews and policy documents, this article finds that China conflates direct atrocity prevention with operational conflict prevention, with a preference for the agenda of conflict prevention, as seen in China's divergent commitments to preventing armed conflicts and peacetime atrocities. This conflation represents a deliberate political choice rather than a result of misunderstanding or lack of knowledge regarding their distinctions. China also endorses a strong linkage between direct atrocity prevention and development-focused root cause prevention. Despite China's growing assertiveness in shaping liberal norms and the favourable perception of its development-focused approaches among elite groups in host states, the Chinese government hesitates to officially promote the scholarly concept of developmental peace and present it as an alternative to the existing liberal principles. This reluctance reflects China's intention to avoid explicit confrontation with liberal norms and its concerns about the potential failure of norm entrepreneurship.","PeriodicalId":48162,"journal":{"name":"International Affairs","volume":"54 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiad224","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article argues that China's rhetorical support for prevention at the United Nations obscures its underlying contestation of atrocity prevention in both conception and practice. It introduces a novel conceptual framework, coined as the two-level norm cluster of prevention, which includes three conceptually aligned yet distinct parts: operational conflict prevention, direct atrocity prevention and root-cause prevention. Drawing on interviews and policy documents, this article finds that China conflates direct atrocity prevention with operational conflict prevention, with a preference for the agenda of conflict prevention, as seen in China's divergent commitments to preventing armed conflicts and peacetime atrocities. This conflation represents a deliberate political choice rather than a result of misunderstanding or lack of knowledge regarding their distinctions. China also endorses a strong linkage between direct atrocity prevention and development-focused root cause prevention. Despite China's growing assertiveness in shaping liberal norms and the favourable perception of its development-focused approaches among elite groups in host states, the Chinese government hesitates to officially promote the scholarly concept of developmental peace and present it as an alternative to the existing liberal principles. This reluctance reflects China's intention to avoid explicit confrontation with liberal norms and its concerns about the potential failure of norm entrepreneurship.
预防作为一种规范集群?绘制中国在预防暴行方面的争议图
本文认为,中国在联合国对预防工作的口头支持掩盖了其在概念和实践上对预防暴行的潜在争议。文章提出了一个新颖的概念框架,被称为两级预防规范集群,其中包括三个概念一致但又截然不同的部分:冲突行动预防、直接暴行预防和根源预防。本文通过访谈和政策文件发现,中国将直接暴行预防与行动性冲突预防混为一谈,偏重于冲突预防议程,这一点从中国对预防武装冲突与和平时期暴行的不同承诺中可见一斑。这种混淆是一种有意的政治选择,而不是对两者区别的误解或缺乏了解的结果。中国还赞同将直接预防暴行与注重发展的根源预防紧密联系起来。尽管中国在塑造自由主义准则方面越来越自信,而且东道国的精英群体对中国以发展为重点的方法也有好感,但中国政府在正式推广发展和平这一学术概念并将其作为现有自由主义原则的替代方案时却犹豫不决。这种不情愿反映出中国有意避免与自由主义准则的明确对抗,以及对准则创业可能失败的担忧。
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
International Affairs
International Affairs INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
24.40%
发文量
255
期刊介绍: International Affairs is Britain"s leading journal of international relations. Founded by and edited at Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, it has not only developed a much valued insight into European policy debates but has also become renowned for its coverage of global policy issues. Mixing commissioned and unsolicited articles from the biggest names in international relations this lively, provocative journal will keep you up-to-date with critical thinking on the key issues shaping world economic and political change.
×
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