Beyond the Duality of Normativity and Pragmatism
A Practice-Based Reading of European and Chinese Foreign Policy
In: European Review of International StudiesSearch for other papers by Andreas Grimmel in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Julia Gurol in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
One of the EU’s key foreign policy objectives is to promote the values enshrined in its treaties, such as democracy, the rule of law and human rights. The EU’s self-conception of being a “rule maker” rather than a “rule taker” in international relations, however, is increasingly contested both by internal (e.g., democratic backsliding or a general tendency towards nationalist politics) as well as external challenges (e.g., the return of bilateralism or the rise of new actors). China’s Belt and Road Initiative (bri) is often understood as the most serious opposition on the external side to the EU’s model of international cooperation and global governance, in that it promotes a pragmatic instead of a norm-based approach, at least at first glance. The Chinese foreign policy model that the bri reflects, explicitly favours open membership, flexibility and economic gains over multilateral institutions and norm-based action. By drawing on original interviews and analysing central policy documents, this article shows how the juxtaposition of normativity and pragmatism has shaped the political and academic discourse on the EU’s foreign policy and idea of global governance. It argues that this duality of normativity versus pragmatism is misleading because it overlooks the fact that the EU and China both (a) constitute the framework for a certain practice and (b) are rooted in practice. Drawing on Kagan’s cultural thesis of foreign policy, it questions the real meaning of this juxtaposition and applies a practice-based reading to the EU’s and China’s modes of foreign policy making. The article further shows that scrutinising foreign policy through the prism of practice can provide a more context-sensitive and encompassing understanding of how the EU and China construct their foreign policies as well as of possible conflicts that arise from them.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Acharya, Amitav. ‘Regionalism Beyond EU-Centrism’. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism, eds. Tanja A. Börzeland Thomas Risse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), pp. 109–130.
-
Adler-Nissen, Rebecca. ‘Towards a Practice Turn in EU Studies: The Everyday of European Integration: Towards a Practice Turn in EU Studies’. Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 54, no. 1 (2016), pp. 87–103.
-
Aggestam, Lisbeth. ‘Introduction: Ethical Power Europe?’. International Affairs, vol. 84, no. 1 (2008), pp. 1–11.
-
Björkdahl, Annika. ‘Norm-Maker and Norm-Taker: Exploring the Normative Influence of the EU in Macedonia’. European Foreign Affairs Review, vol. 10, no. 2 (2005), pp. 257–278.
-
Breslin, Shaun. ‘China and the Global Order: Signalling Threat or Friendship?’. International Affairs, vol. 89, no. 3 (2013), pp. 615–634.
-
Cheng, Zhangxi. ‘Building the Belt and Road Initiative? Practices En Route’. The Pacific Review, vol. 33, no. 5 (2019), pp. 1–25.
-
Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. ‘China’s Policy Paper on EU’, 2003, avalaible at: www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/topics_665678/ceupp_665916/t27708.shtml.
-
Cornut, Jérémie. ‘Diplomacy, Agency, and the Logic of Improvisation and Virtuosity in Practice’. European Journal of International Relations, vol. 24, no. 3 (2018), pp. 712–736.
-
Duchâtel, Mathieu, Oliver Bräuner and Zhou Hang. ‘Protecting China’s Overseas Interests: The Slow Shift Away from Non-Interference’. SIPRI Policy Paper 41. Stockholm: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2014.
-
Eriksen, Erik Oddvar. The Normativity of the European Union (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014).
-
European Commission. EU-China–A Strategic Outlook (Strasbourg, 12.3.2019 JOIN (2019)5 final).
-
European External Action Service. ‘Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe - A Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy’. European External Action Service, 2016.
-
European Union. ‘European Security Strategy - A Secure Europe in a Better World’, 2003.
-
European Union. ‘European Union Global Strategy-Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe–A Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy’, 2016.
-
Finamore, Salvatore. ‘Normative Differences in Chinese and European Discourses on Global Security: Obstacles and Opportunities for Cooperation’. Chinese Political Science Review, vol. 2, no. 2 (2017), pp. 159–178.
-
Forough, Mohammadbagher. ‘Intervention with Chinese Characteristics: The Belt and Road Initiative Reconfiguring (Afro-)Eurasian Geo-Economics’. Conflict, Security & Development, vol. 19, no. 3 (2019), pp. 275–281.
-
Freyburg, Tina, Sandra Lavenex, Frank Schimmelfennig, Tatiana Skripka and Anne Wetzel. ‘EU Promotion of Democratic Governance in the Neighbourhood’. Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 16, no. 6 (2009), pp. 916–934.
-
Lechner, Silviya, and Mervyn Frost. Practice Theory and International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018).
-
Geeraerts, Gustaaf. ‘China, the EU, and the New Multipolarity’. European Review, vol. 19, no. 1 (2011), pp. 57–67.
-
Giessmann, Hans-Joachim. ‘East Asia’s Emerging Powers. Conflict, Cooperation and the “Asymmetric Pentagon” of Regional Security in Northeast Asia’. In Security Handbook 2008: Emerging Powers in East Asia: China, Russia and India: Local Conflicts and Regional Security Building in Asia’s Northeast, eds. Hans-Joachim Giessmann (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2008), pp. 9–56.
-
Godement, François, and Abigaël Vasselier. ‘China at the gates: A new power audit of EU-China relations’. European Council on Foreign Relations (2017), avalaible at: www.ecfr.eu/publications/summary/china_eu_power_audit7242.
-
Grimmel, Andreas, and Yuan Li. ‘The Belt and Road Initiative: A Hybrid Model of Regionalism’. Working Papers on East Asian Studies, University of Duisburg-Essen, no. 122 (2018).
-
Grimmel, Andreas, and Gunther Hellmann, ‘Theory Must Not Go on Holiday. Wittgenstein, the Pragmatists, and the Idea of Social Science’. International Political Sociology, vol. 13, no. 2 (2019), pp. 198–214.
-
Grimmel Andreas, and Viktor Eszterhai. ‘The Belt and Road Initiative and the Development of China’s Economic Statecraft: European Attitudes and Responses’. International Studies, vol. 57, no. 3 (2020), pp. 223–239.
-
Guo, Wanchao. 中国崛起: 一个东方大国的成长之道 (The Rise of China: The Growth of an Eastern Power). 南昌: 江西人民出版社 (Jiangxi People’s Publishing House), 2004.
-
Gurol, Julia. ‘Beyond Dichotomy? Towards Conceptual and Theoretical Variety in EU-China Research’. Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, n° 3 (August 2020).
-
Gurol, Julia, and Anna Starkmann. ‘New Partners for the Planet? The European Union and China in International Climate Governance from a Role‐Theoretical Perspective’. Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 59, no. 3 (2021), pp. 518–534.
-
Gurol, Julia, and Fabricio Rodríguez. ‘Desintegration statt Konnektivität? Chinas Belt and Road Initiative als außenpolitische Herausforderung für die EU’. In Die neue Europäische Union: Zwischen Integration und Desintegration, ed. Andreas Grimmel (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2020), pp. 235–261.
-
Forman, Shepard, and Derk Segaar. ‘New Coalitions for Global Governance: The Changing Dynamics of Multilateralism’, Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, vol. 12, no. 2 (2006), pp. 205–228.
-
Hackenesch, Christine. ‘European Good Governance Policies Meet China in Africa: Insights from Angola and Ethiopia’. Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik, 2011.
-
He, Kai, and Huiyun Feng. ‘Transcending Rationalism and Constructivism: Chinese Leaders’ Operational Codes, Socialization Processes, and Multilateralism after the Cold War’. European Political Science Review, vol. 7, no. 3 (2015), pp. 401–426.
-
Hettne, Björn. ‘Globalization and the New Regionalism: The Second Great Transformation’. In Globalism and the New Regionalism, eds. Björn Hettne, András Inotaiand Osvaldo Sunkel (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1999), pp. 1–24.
-
Hillman, Jonathan. The Emperor’s New Road: China and the Project of the Century(New Haven: Yale University Press, 2020).
-
Huotari, Mikko, Jan Weidenfeld, Thomas S. Eder, Helena Legarda and Sabine Mokry. ‘China’s Emergence as a Global Security Actor: Strategies for Europe’. Merics-Mercator Institute for China Studies, 2017.
-
Jachtenfuchs, Markus. ‘The Governance Approach to European Integration’. Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 39, no. 2 (2001), pp. 245–264.
-
Jakobson, Linda, and Ryan Manuel. ‘How Are Foreign Policy Decisions Made in China?: Foreign Policy Decisions Made in China’. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies, vol. 3, no. 1 (2016), pp. 101–110.
-
Jinping, Xi. Secure a Decisive Victory in Building a Moderately Prosperous Society in All Respects and Strive for the Great Success of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (2017).
-
Kagan, Robert. ‘Power and Weakness’. Policy Review, no 113 (2002), pp. 3–28.
-
Kagan, Robert. Of Paradise and Power. America and Europe in the New World Order (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003).
-
Keukeleire, Stephan, and Tom Delreux. The Foreign Policy of the European Union (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014).
-
Kopra, Sanna. China and great power responsibility for climate change. Rethinking Asia and international relations (London: Routledge, 2019).
-
Kratochwil, Friedrich V. Praxis: On Acting and Knowing (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2018).
-
Manners, Ian. ‘Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?’. Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 40, no. 2 (2002), pp. 235–258.
-
Manners, Ian. ‘The Normative Ethics of the European Union’. International Affairs, vol. 84, n° 1 (2008), pp. 45–60.
-
Mearsheimer, John J. ‘The False Promise of International Institutions’. International Security, vol. 19, no. 3 (1994), pp. 5–49.
-
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China ‘中国外交政策’, 2006, available at www.fmprc.gov.cn/123/wjdt/wjzc/t24782.htm (last accessed 3 May 2020).
-
Molenaers, Nadia, Sebastian Dellepiane and Jorg Faust. ‘Political Conditionality and Foreign Aid’. World Development, vol. 75 (2015), pp. 2–12.
-
National Development and Reform Commission, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China. ‘Vision and Actions on Jointly Building Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st-Century Maritime Silk Road’, 2015.
-
Neumann, Iver B. ‘Returning Practice to the Linguistic Turn: The Case of Diplomacy’. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, vol. 31, no. 3 (2002), pp. 627–651.
-
Rüland, Jürgen ‘The rise of “diminished multilateralism”: East Asian and European forum shopping in global governance’, ‘The Rise of “Diminished Multilateralism”: East Asian and European Forum Shopping in Global Governance’, Asia Europe Journal, vol. 9, no. 2–4 (2012), pp. 255–270.
-
Schatzki, Theodore R., Karina Knorr-Cetina, and Eike von Savigny, eds. The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory (New York: Routledge, 2001).
-
Scott, David A. ‘Multipolarity, Multilateralism and Beyond…? EU-China Understandings of the International System’. International Relations, vol. 27, no. 1 (2013), pp. 30–51.
-
Sjursen, Helene, and Guri Rosén. ‘Arguing Sanctions. On the EU’s Response to the Crisis in Ukraine: Europe’s Hybrid Foreign Policy’. Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 55, no. 1 (2017), pp. 20–36.
-
Sjursen, Helene. ‘Normative Theory: An Untapped Resource in the Study of European Foreign Policy’. In The sage Handbook of European Foreign Policy, eds. Knud Jørgensen, Aasne Aarstad, Edith Drieskens, Katie Laatikainenand Ben Tonra (London: SAGE, 2015), pp. 197–214.
-
Söderbaum, Fredrik. Rethinking Regionalism (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015).
-
Stahl, Anna Katharina. ‘Contrasting Rhetoric and Converging Security Interests of the European Union and China in Africa’. Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, vol. 40, no. 4 (2011), pp. 147–173.
-
Telò, Mario, ed. European Union and New Regionalism: Regional Actors and Global Governance in a Post-Hegemonic Era (Aldershot, Burlington: Ashgate, 2007).
-
The State Council of the People’s Republic of China. China and the World in the New Era. In: The State Council of the People’s Republic of China (2011).
-
The State Council. China’s White Paper on Peaceful Development. In: The State Council of the People’s Republic of China (2011).
-
Tocci, Nathalie, ed. Who is a Normative Foreign Policy Actor? The European Union and its Global Partners (Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies, 2008).
-
Tow, William, and Richard Rigby. ‘China’s Pragmatic Security Policy: The Middle-Power Factor’. The China Journal, vol. 65, no. 1 (2011), pp. 157–178.
-
Wu, Guoguang, and Helen Lansdowne. China turns to multilateralism: Foreign policy and regional security (London: Routledge, 2011).
-
Wunderlich, Jens-Uwe. The European Union and Global Governance: A Handbook (London: Routledge, 2015).
-
Zhao, Suisheng. Chinese Foreign Policy: Pragmatism and Strategic Behavior(Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 2004).
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 642 | 153 | 20 |
| Full Text Views | 25 | 6 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 63 | 11 | 1 |
Beyond the Duality of Normativity and Pragmatism
A Practice-Based Reading of European and Chinese Foreign Policy
In: European Review of International StudiesSearch for other papers by Andreas Grimmel in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Julia Gurol in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
One of the EU’s key foreign policy objectives is to promote the values enshrined in its treaties, such as democracy, the rule of law and human rights. The EU’s self-conception of being a “rule maker” rather than a “rule taker” in international relations, however, is increasingly contested both by internal (e.g., democratic backsliding or a general tendency towards nationalist politics) as well as external challenges (e.g., the return of bilateralism or the rise of new actors). China’s Belt and Road Initiative (bri) is often understood as the most serious opposition on the external side to the EU’s model of international cooperation and global governance, in that it promotes a pragmatic instead of a norm-based approach, at least at first glance. The Chinese foreign policy model that the bri reflects, explicitly favours open membership, flexibility and economic gains over multilateral institutions and norm-based action. By drawing on original interviews and analysing central policy documents, this article shows how the juxtaposition of normativity and pragmatism has shaped the political and academic discourse on the EU’s foreign policy and idea of global governance. It argues that this duality of normativity versus pragmatism is misleading because it overlooks the fact that the EU and China both (a) constitute the framework for a certain practice and (b) are rooted in practice. Drawing on Kagan’s cultural thesis of foreign policy, it questions the real meaning of this juxtaposition and applies a practice-based reading to the EU’s and China’s modes of foreign policy making. The article further shows that scrutinising foreign policy through the prism of practice can provide a more context-sensitive and encompassing understanding of how the EU and China construct their foreign policies as well as of possible conflicts that arise from them.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 642 | 153 | 20 |
| Full Text Views | 25 | 6 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 63 | 11 | 1 |