Responsibility to Protect goes to China: An interpretivist analysis of how China’s coexistence policy made it a Responsibility to Protect insider
The article offers an interpretivist analysis of China’s coexistence approach to developing the Responsibility to Protect norm concerning atrocity crimes against civilians. The English school’s concept of great power legitimacy through coexistence is a central characteristic of its international soc...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of international political theory 2020-06, Vol.16 (2), p.231-248 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 248 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 231 |
container_title | Journal of international political theory |
container_volume | 16 |
creator | Odgaard, Liselotte |
description | The article offers an interpretivist analysis of China’s coexistence approach to developing the Responsibility to Protect norm concerning atrocity crimes against civilians. The English school’s concept of great power legitimacy through coexistence is a central characteristic of its international society description of the international realm. The article uses an interpretivist approach to show how China’s coexistence foreign policy tradition was challenged by the liberal internationalist agenda of a Responsibility to Protect norm on atrocity crimes against civilians. The emergence of an alternative Chinese Responsibility to Protect concept coupling a state-centric and a people-centric approach with its focus on political and economic capacity-building of existing domestic institutions allowed China to position itself as a legitimate lifeline of liberal international institutions. The article shows how an illiberal state can become a prominent upholder of central institutions of the post-World War II liberal international order. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/1755088219899416 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2401741738</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_1755088219899416</sage_id><sourcerecordid>2401741738</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c309t-a04f1466da14afdeb01859ce5a5201dd4955a1d711f23a87b9cb27a4db25e8d53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1LAzEQhoMoWKt3jwHPq5ndpMl6K8UvKCii5yW7mW1T2s2apOre_A-e_Hv-ErdUEISe5ut532GGkFNg5wBSXoAUgimVQq7ynMNojww2rQRkmu7_5pv5ITkKYcHYiCuhBuTzEUPrmmBLu7Sxo9HRB-8iVpHOHIZNPZnbRl_ScUNtE9G3HqN9tSFS3ehlF2ygrqZz97YFvz--Aq0cvvcENhXS1i1t1dGVNkhtL6K7N9q-a9Afk4NaLwOe_MYheb6-eprcJtP7m7vJeJpUGctjohmvgY9GRgPXtcGSgRJ5hUKLlIExPBdCg5EAdZppJcu8KlOpuSlTgcqIbEjOtr6tdy9rDLFYuLXvjwpFyhlIDjJTPcW2VOVdCB7rovV2pX1XACs2ry_-v76XJFtJ0DP8M93J_wBMFoc3</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2401741738</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Responsibility to Protect goes to China: An interpretivist analysis of how China’s coexistence policy made it a Responsibility to Protect insider</title><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Odgaard, Liselotte</creator><creatorcontrib>Odgaard, Liselotte</creatorcontrib><description>The article offers an interpretivist analysis of China’s coexistence approach to developing the Responsibility to Protect norm concerning atrocity crimes against civilians. The English school’s concept of great power legitimacy through coexistence is a central characteristic of its international society description of the international realm. The article uses an interpretivist approach to show how China’s coexistence foreign policy tradition was challenged by the liberal internationalist agenda of a Responsibility to Protect norm on atrocity crimes against civilians. The emergence of an alternative Chinese Responsibility to Protect concept coupling a state-centric and a people-centric approach with its focus on political and economic capacity-building of existing domestic institutions allowed China to position itself as a legitimate lifeline of liberal international institutions. The article shows how an illiberal state can become a prominent upholder of central institutions of the post-World War II liberal international order.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1755-0882</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1755-1722</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/1755088219899416</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Atrocities ; Foreign policy ; Institution building ; Internationalism ; Legitimacy ; Offenses ; Political institutions ; Post World War II period ; Protection of civilians ; Responsibility</subject><ispartof>Journal of international political theory, 2020-06, Vol.16 (2), p.231-248</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c309t-a04f1466da14afdeb01859ce5a5201dd4955a1d711f23a87b9cb27a4db25e8d53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c309t-a04f1466da14afdeb01859ce5a5201dd4955a1d711f23a87b9cb27a4db25e8d53</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3244-4920</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1755088219899416$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1755088219899416$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,21798,27901,27902,43597,43598</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Odgaard, Liselotte</creatorcontrib><title>Responsibility to Protect goes to China: An interpretivist analysis of how China’s coexistence policy made it a Responsibility to Protect insider</title><title>Journal of international political theory</title><description>The article offers an interpretivist analysis of China’s coexistence approach to developing the Responsibility to Protect norm concerning atrocity crimes against civilians. The English school’s concept of great power legitimacy through coexistence is a central characteristic of its international society description of the international realm. The article uses an interpretivist approach to show how China’s coexistence foreign policy tradition was challenged by the liberal internationalist agenda of a Responsibility to Protect norm on atrocity crimes against civilians. The emergence of an alternative Chinese Responsibility to Protect concept coupling a state-centric and a people-centric approach with its focus on political and economic capacity-building of existing domestic institutions allowed China to position itself as a legitimate lifeline of liberal international institutions. The article shows how an illiberal state can become a prominent upholder of central institutions of the post-World War II liberal international order.</description><subject>Atrocities</subject><subject>Foreign policy</subject><subject>Institution building</subject><subject>Internationalism</subject><subject>Legitimacy</subject><subject>Offenses</subject><subject>Political institutions</subject><subject>Post World War II period</subject><subject>Protection of civilians</subject><subject>Responsibility</subject><issn>1755-0882</issn><issn>1755-1722</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kE1LAzEQhoMoWKt3jwHPq5ndpMl6K8UvKCii5yW7mW1T2s2apOre_A-e_Hv-ErdUEISe5ut532GGkFNg5wBSXoAUgimVQq7ynMNojww2rQRkmu7_5pv5ITkKYcHYiCuhBuTzEUPrmmBLu7Sxo9HRB-8iVpHOHIZNPZnbRl_ScUNtE9G3HqN9tSFS3ehlF2ygrqZz97YFvz--Aq0cvvcENhXS1i1t1dGVNkhtL6K7N9q-a9Afk4NaLwOe_MYheb6-eprcJtP7m7vJeJpUGctjohmvgY9GRgPXtcGSgRJ5hUKLlIExPBdCg5EAdZppJcu8KlOpuSlTgcqIbEjOtr6tdy9rDLFYuLXvjwpFyhlIDjJTPcW2VOVdCB7rovV2pX1XACs2ry_-v76XJFtJ0DP8M93J_wBMFoc3</recordid><startdate>202006</startdate><enddate>202006</enddate><creator>Odgaard, Liselotte</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7UB</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3244-4920</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202006</creationdate><title>Responsibility to Protect goes to China: An interpretivist analysis of how China’s coexistence policy made it a Responsibility to Protect insider</title><author>Odgaard, Liselotte</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c309t-a04f1466da14afdeb01859ce5a5201dd4955a1d711f23a87b9cb27a4db25e8d53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Atrocities</topic><topic>Foreign policy</topic><topic>Institution building</topic><topic>Internationalism</topic><topic>Legitimacy</topic><topic>Offenses</topic><topic>Political institutions</topic><topic>Post World War II period</topic><topic>Protection of civilians</topic><topic>Responsibility</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Odgaard, Liselotte</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of international political theory</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Odgaard, Liselotte</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Responsibility to Protect goes to China: An interpretivist analysis of how China’s coexistence policy made it a Responsibility to Protect insider</atitle><jtitle>Journal of international political theory</jtitle><date>2020-06</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>231</spage><epage>248</epage><pages>231-248</pages><issn>1755-0882</issn><eissn>1755-1722</eissn><abstract>The article offers an interpretivist analysis of China’s coexistence approach to developing the Responsibility to Protect norm concerning atrocity crimes against civilians. The English school’s concept of great power legitimacy through coexistence is a central characteristic of its international society description of the international realm. The article uses an interpretivist approach to show how China’s coexistence foreign policy tradition was challenged by the liberal internationalist agenda of a Responsibility to Protect norm on atrocity crimes against civilians. The emergence of an alternative Chinese Responsibility to Protect concept coupling a state-centric and a people-centric approach with its focus on political and economic capacity-building of existing domestic institutions allowed China to position itself as a legitimate lifeline of liberal international institutions. The article shows how an illiberal state can become a prominent upholder of central institutions of the post-World War II liberal international order.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/1755088219899416</doi><tpages>18</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3244-4920</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1755-0882 |
ispartof | Journal of international political theory, 2020-06, Vol.16 (2), p.231-248 |
issn | 1755-0882 1755-1722 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2401741738 |
source | SAGE Complete A-Z List; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Atrocities Foreign policy Institution building Internationalism Legitimacy Offenses Political institutions Post World War II period Protection of civilians Responsibility |
title | Responsibility to Protect goes to China: An interpretivist analysis of how China’s coexistence policy made it a Responsibility to Protect insider |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T02%3A54%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Responsibility%20to%20Protect%20goes%20to%20China:%20An%20interpretivist%20analysis%20of%20how%20China%E2%80%99s%20coexistence%20policy%20made%20it%20a%20Responsibility%20to%20Protect%20insider&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20international%20political%20theory&rft.au=Odgaard,%20Liselotte&rft.date=2020-06&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=231&rft.epage=248&rft.pages=231-248&rft.issn=1755-0882&rft.eissn=1755-1722&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/1755088219899416&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2401741738%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2401741738&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1177_1755088219899416&rfr_iscdi=true |