Editor's Notes
The efforts of the United States to promote nuclear non-proliferation during the 1980s culminated in the establishment of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). The US has since enacted a leadership role in the regime, issuing warnings and imposing sanctions according to MTCR regulations. But has the US itself adhered to the MTCR? Zhao Tong and Li Bin's article Is the United States Complying with MTCR Rules? analyses this lacuna in commonly held perceptions of role of the US. The article presents detailed evidence of US export of strategic missiles and missile defence systems, and US cooperation on missile defence technology that constitute behaviour which is in contravention of the MTCR agreement. These violations, moreover, are not accidental or rooted in careless behaviour. The authors assert that the attitude of the US government, whereby it is prepared to circumvent the MTCR in order to effect the smooth implementation of missile defence cooperation, weakens overall confidence in the regime, and has a negative impact on international efforts to promote nuclear non-proliferation. This discussion on whether or not the US adheres to the MTCR enhances understanding on several levels of the evolution and maintenance of international regimes.The US recently announced plans to deploy a missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic, to guard against potential missile attacks from Iran and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. News of the proposed plan elicited a hostile response from Russia. Detailed technical calculations in Wu Riqiang's article, Who is the Target of the US Anti-Missile System Deployed in Eastern Europe?, however, show that deployment of currently available, low capacity interceptors in Eastern Europe would provide the US with adequate defence against an Iranian missile attack, and at the same time pose no threat to Russia's security interests. US development and deployment of more advanced missiles in the region, on the other hand, would substantially enlarge its capability to neutralize Russian strategic missiles. Russia's initial response was to intensify enhancements to its own missiles sufficient for them to penetrate a defence system. It later threatened unilateral withdrawal from the Intermediate Range Missile Treaty; a move that potentially imperils European security interests, as an arms race could ensue. Wu argues that a US pledge to install relatively low capability GBI interceptors in Eastern Europe would not constitute a threat to Russian security. Such a confidence-building measure could also offset the unintended negative consequences of US plans to consolidate its defences in Eastern Europe.
Why are certain international institutions confirmed by China's national legislation, while others are not? And why do international institutions at times influence national legislation, and at others have no effect? These are the questions that Wang Ronghua and Chen Hanxi pose in their article, International Institutions and Chinese Red Cross Legislation. The authors argue that it is a country's relationship with international society that influences its perceived legitimacy of international institutions and their norms. Status-quo countries generally have a positive interpretation in this regard, and are willing to accept the restrictions that international institutions impose. This acceptance creates internal and external pressure to internalize the institutions, which in turn promotes changes in the domestic legislative agenda. The authors' examination of changes in China's relationship with the International Red Cross Movement over time show that China's antagonistic relationship with a Western-dominated international society before 1971 negatively affected her perception of the legitimacy of International Red Cross norms, and consequently impeded Chinese Red Cross legislation. However, improvements in China's relationship with the international society during the early 1990s, promoted her internalization of International Red Cross norms, and eventually Chinese Red Cross legislation. This achievement owes much to the International Red Cross principle of unity, which is consistent with China's national sovereignty and territorial integrity. This consistency enabled smooth implementation of Chinese Red Cross legislation.
Ontological security-seeking, or the pursuit of a sense of existential security, has been proposed as an explanation for enduring international conflicts and other forms of state behaviour. Alanna Krolikowski's article, State Personhood in Ontological Security Theories of International Relations and Chinese Nationalism: A Sceptical View, considers the concept of ontological security as it has recently been used in international relations, and applies it to the case of contemporary China. A state-as-actor variant of ontological security theory produces expectations inconsistent with China's observed conduct and, in addition, obscures relevant aspects of Chinese nationalism. These problems, it is argued, stem from the assumption of state personhood. Current formulations of the concept would be improved if they were revised to treat individuals, rather than states, as actors. Reifying the state and treating it as a corporate actor constitutes a significant departure from the original elaboration of the concept, and ignores its location within a broader theory of modernity and globalization. The state is an evolving social institution, and transformations brought to it are among the sources of individual ontological insecurity. This article proposes another way of treating ontological insecurity, as a condition affecting situated individual actors who cope with the effects of late-modern globalization, and supports its plausibility with evidence from the Chinese context.
International political theory espoused by ancient Chinese thinkers, 2000 years ago, is still valid. Yet little research has been done in this area. The article, Xun Zi's Thoughts on International Politics and Its Implications by Yan Xuetong appraises Xun Zi's concepts of statehood and comprehensive power in relation to international authority, norms and order. The author points out the relevance of Xun Zi's views on the nature of the state and the causes of international conflict to international relations realist, institutionalist and constructivist theories. Xun Zi's belief that constraints in the international order promote its inherent stability concurs with institutionalism. His views on the nature of the state, as regards its ideas and their affect, positive and otherwise, on international conflict, lean toward realism. His belief in the constraining nature of a hierarchical international order as beneficial to its inherent stability, however, is a view more in line with institutionalism. Finally, his understanding of international norms concurs with constructivism. Yet Xun Zi's belief that political, as opposed to military and economic power is the more significant factor in realization of comprehensive power is in stark contrast to the prevalent modern trend. Xun Zi perceived political power as the foundation of comprehensive national power; whose changes provoke fluctuations among lesser powers. In due respect to the underlying theme of Xun Zi's thoughts on international politics, the author recommends that the human capital strategy be the manner of execution of China's rise from the foundation of political power.
That modern international relations theory founded on Western political thought is likely to be imbued with limitations is indisputable. Studying ancient Chinese political thought offers an excellent medium through which to enrich understanding of international relations. Chinese and foreign scholarly contributions to international relations theory research also inspire fresh viewpoints and perspectives in the field. Professor Yan's article is geared to spurring academic interest in ancient Chinese political thought. We hope for and welcome similarly discerning works of research from other scholars and colleagues for publication in our journal.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||