Save

China’s Bifurcated Space Diplomacy and Institutional Density

In: The Hague Journal of Diplomacy
Authors:
Kunhan Li Doctoral candidate, University of Nottingham — Ningbo China Ningbo, Zhejiang China

Search for other papers by Kunhan Li in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4983-8704
and
Maximilian Mayer Junior Professor of International Relations and Global Politics of Technology, Bonn University Bonn Germany

Search for other papers by Maximilian Mayer in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1857-1413
Download Citation Get Permissions

Access options

Get access to the full article by using one of the access options below.

Institutional Login

Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials

Login via Institution

Purchase

Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):

$40.00

Abstract

This article compares two central pillars of China’s space programme and observes that Chinese space diplomacy is not uniform regarding international scientific co-operation either in its approaches or in results. In the case of the Chinese Space Station programme, the China National Space Administration went through existing United Nations (UN) channels and successfully attracted international partners. However, the International Lunar Research Station has avoided UN channels and used national and bilateral platforms. This bifurcation in approaches and results offers an intriguing puzzle concerning international co-operation: practices of institutionalised multilateral co-operation and areas of state-centric bilateral co-operation co-exist in this case and further complicate the issue of space diplomacy. To propose a potential explanation, it is argued here that a crucial intermediate variable — institutional density — requires further theorising, as it seems to influence strategic choices about space diplomacy, which may lead to success or failure.

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 853 753 47
Full Text Views 454 191 6
PDF Views & Downloads 828 286 16