SavedAdd your journal

Journals / All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace / 2018 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 1

Chinese Concepts and Relational International Politics

Emilian KAVALSKİ
Pages
87–102
Publication Date
2017-07-03
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The rise of China troubles the taken-for-granted epistemological and ontological

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The rise of China troubles the taken-for-granted epistemological and ontological
📊
Key Findings & Data:The rise of China troubles the taken-for-granted epistemological and ontological
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The rise of China troubles the taken-for-granted epistemological and ontological
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Guanxi · relationality · post-Western International Relations

Abstract

The rise of China troubles the taken-for-granted epistemological and ontological

🔖

Cite This Article

KAVALSKİ, E. (2017). Chinese Concepts and Relational International Politics. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 1, 87–102. https://ajindex.com/articles/119742

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Acharya, Amitav. “Ethnocentrism and Emanipatory IR Theory.” In (Dis)Placing Security: Critical Re-evaluations of the Boundaries of Security Studies, edited by S. Arnold and J.M. Beier, 1-18.
  2. Toronto, ON: Centre for International and Security Studies, 2000.
  3. Alston, Jon P. “Wa, Guanxi, and Inhwa: Managerial Principles in Japan, China, and Korea.” Business Horizons 32, no. 2 (1989): 26-31.
  4. Avelino, Flor, and Jan Rotmans. “Power in Transition: An Interdisciplinary Frameowrk to Study Power in Relation to Structural Change.” European Journal of Social Theory 12, no. 4 (2009): 543-69.
  5. Barbalet, Jack. “Guanxi, Tie Strength, and Network Attributes.” American Behavioural Scientist 59, no. 8 (2015): 1038-50. ———. “Market Relations as wuwei: Traditional Concepts in the Analysis of China’s Post-1978 Economy.” Asian Studies Review 35, no. 3 (2011): 335-54.
  6. Barkin, J. Samuel. Realist Constructivism: Rethinking International Relations Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).
  7. Bell, Duran. “Guanxi: A Nesting of Groups.” Current Anthropology 41, no. 1 (2000): 132-8.
  8. Bilgin, Pinar. “Thinking Past Western IR.” Third World Quarterly 29, no. 1 (2008): 5-23.
  9. Bin, Yu. “China and Russia: Normalizing Their Relationship.” In Power Shift: China and Asia’s New Dynamics, edited by David Shambaugh, 228-47.
  10. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2005.
  11. Carlson, Allen. “Moving Beyond Sovereignty? A Brief Consideration of Recent Changes in China’s Approach to International Order and the Emergence of the Tianxia Concept.” Journal of Contemporary China 20, no. 68 (2010): 89-102.
  12. Chang, Hui-Ching, and G. Richard Holt. “The Concept of Yuan and Chinese Interpersonal Relationships.” In Cross-Cultural Interpersonal Communication, edited by Stella Ting-Toomey and Felipe Corzenny, 28-57. London:Sage, 1991.
  13. Chen, Ching-Chang. “The Absence of Non-Western IR Theory in Asia Reconsidered.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 11, no. 1 (2011): 1-23.
  14. Chong, Melody P.M., Ping Ping Fu, and Yu Fan Shang. “Relational Power and Influence Strategies: A Step Further in Understanding Power Dynamics.” Chinese Management Studies 7, no. 1 (2013): 53-73.
  15. Chow, Rey. “Violence in the Other Country: China as Crisis, Spectacle, and Woman.” In Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism, edited by Ann Russo, Lourdes Torres, and Chandra Talpade Monaty, 80-100.
  16. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1991.
  17. Chowdhry, C. and S.M. Rai. “The Geographies of Exclusion and the Politics of Exclusion: