Is China a Responsible Stakeholder?
Whether China is a responsible stakeholder is evaluated from employing three sets of standards: normative, ‘aspirational’ ones (that which make a good community member and an upstanding citizen); rational choice (acting in line with shared or complementary self-interest); and power analysis (whether China is upsetting an established world order or contributing to the formation of a new one?). In the process, not merely China but the standards themselves are examined.
Great Powers and Responsibility - The Genealogy of China as a Responsible Great Power in Managing Africa's Development
The dissertation investigates the relationship between great powers and responsibility through an analysis of the direct equation of greatness with responsibility in the concepts of ʻresponsible power’ and ʻresponsible stakeholder’ in both the discourse of the practitioners of international politics, and in theoretical literature. Preponderant power is thought to come with corresponding responsibilities set by the international social order, and it is meeting these responsibilities that secures the state the status of a great power, hence transforming the fact of great power into a right. The equivalence between greatness and responsibility, however, is paradoxical if the latter stands for accountability for the fulfilment of obligations. Such an understanding of responsibility is fully internal to a pre-given structure of order with its norms, social and functional roles, and criteria of legitimacy. The assertion of greatness, on the other hand, requires an actor to reveal itself outside any pre-given standard, and to have its own standards recognised as equal – hence the historical centrality of war to claiming great powerhood. Asserting one's greatness by fulfilling the required responsibilities therefore seems paradoxical. Still, the ʻresponsible power’ discourse also provided the rationale for the European Union's invitation to a rising China to jointly take on the responsibility of managing Africa's development despite the fact that China was not perceived to be a responsible power
Sovereignty in World Politics: A Glance at the Conceptual and Historical Landscape
Sovereignty is one of the foremost institutions of our world: it has given political life a distinctive constitutional shape that virtually de®nes the modern era and sets it apart from previous eras. As A. P. d'Entreves puts it: `The importance of the doctrine of sovereignty can hardly be overrated. It was a formidable tool in the hands of lawyers and politicians, and a decisive factor in the making of modern Europe.' And not only Europe: in the past century or two sovereignty has become a cornerstone of modern politics around the world. Sovereignty expresses some core ideas of political modernity including the fundamentally important notion of political independence. It was originally an institution of escape from rule by outsiders and to this day it remains a legal barrier to foreign interference in the jurisdiction of states. The basic norm of the UN Charter (Article 2) enshrines the principle of equal sovereignty and its corollary, the doctrine of non-intervention. The institution is, shall we say, a basic element of the grammar of politics. It exists as a normative postulate or premise or working hypothesis of modern political life. It may not always be explicitly acknowledged as such and may, like an iceberg, be mostly hidden from view. But it silently frames the conduct of much of modern politics nevertheless. Sovereignty is like Lego: it is a relatively simple idea but you can build almost anything with it, large or small, as long as you follow the rules. The British (English) used sovereignty to separate themselves from the medieval Catholic world (Latin Christendom). Then they used it to build an empire that encircled the globe. Then they used it to decolonize and thereby created a multitude of new states. It has other uses besides these. My purpose is to investigate sovereignty in international relations in basic outline. Limitations of space dictate that this essay can only be an abridgement of a large historical subject. The main questions, although by no means the only ones, that can and I believe should be asked of sovereignty are the following: What is sovereignty? What is its character and modus operandi ? Who are the principals and agents of sovereignty? Who are the subjects of sovereignty? What would be involved in going beyond sovereignty in world politics? What are the values that sovereignty can be seen to uphold and defend? The remainder of the essay is devoted to suggesting some responses to these questions, starting with the ®rst and ending with the last.