1
No one likes to see their discipline dominated by others. When it comes to the
study of international relations (IR), the field is, fortunately or unfortunately depending
on where you stand, dominated by the United States. At present, the IR field in China is
flooded with theories imported from the West. For a country with a long and rich history,
the aspiration to come up with its own “brand” of IR is understandable. In truth, since the
Opium War of 1839, Chinese scholars have struggled to cope with the influx of Western
ideas and concepts, as demonstrated in the famous debate over “Chinese learning”
(zhongxue) vs. “Western learning” (xixue) in the late Qing Dynasty. The issues of those
days were whether China should reject Western schools of thought, replace its own with
those imported from the West, or synthesize both. More than a hundred years later, the
debate continues—a consensus has yet to emerge. Although the Western-learning school
seems to have the upper hand, the Sinification (zhongguohua) of non-Chinese theories
remains a constant refrain in China’s academic community.
There are several possible reasons behind the quest for a Chinese School—
nationalism, ideology, government policy needs, or a desire to strengthen the IR field in
China. Some proponents of the Chinese School are aware of the adverse consequences of
letting the field serve political purposes and have shrewdly framed their endeavor as an
academic pursuit.
1
For these scholars, existing IR theory is derived from non-Chinese
experience and as such is inadequate for explaining China’s distinctive situation and
providing guidance. In this view, China’s peaceful tribute system of the past and its rising
power at present are distinctive problems that existing IR theories have failed to capture.
2
Distinctive problems require a distinctive school of thought. Many proponents turn to
Confucianism for insight, arguing that peace, stability, and harmony have been the
central feature of China’s foreign relations for more than 2,000 years.
1
This is why the early call for an IR theory “with Chinese characteristics” went out of favor because it
closely paralleled the government’s policy of pursuing “socialism with Chinese characteristics.” Today the
most commonly used term is “Chinese School.”
2
Qin Yaqing, "Why Is There No Chinese International Relations Theory?," International Relations of the
Asia-Pacific 7 (2007): 313-340. This view dovetails nicely with the criticism that IR theories (mostly realist)
“do a poor job” when applied to Asia. David C. Kang, "Getting Asia Wrong: The Need for New Analytical
Frameworks," International Security 27, no. 4 (Spring 2003): 57-85, at 58.
Convention