Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: In a world in which the United States holds a preponderance of power, how does China design a grand strategy to advance its security interests? In this article, I make two sets of argument. First, I argue that the logic of balancing still holds in international politics. Critics of balance of power theory have missed the other piece of the puzzle—internal balancing. Although states have not resorted to external balancing by forming a counterbalancing alliance, they can still undertake internal efforts to mitigate the power gap with the dominant state. Second, to balance American power, China is pursuing a grand strategy that combines elements of internal balancing and external “soft balancing.” The strategy of internal balancing aims to increase China’s relative power through economic development and military modernization with an emphasis on asymmetric warfare, whereas the strategy of external soft balancing is designed to limit or frustrate U.S. policy initiatives deemed detrimental to Chinese interests through diplomatic efforts in multilateral institutions and bilateral partnerships. The logic of such a grand strategy is to maintain a stable external environment for China to concentrate on economic growth and accumulate relative power, without provoking a vigorous U.S. response.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Cold War scholars tended to emphasize the primacy of policy in Clausewitz's On War. While the reasons for such emphasis are understandable, they are nonetheless presentist, and have led to misrepresentations. This paper takes a critical look at the Cold War emphasis on the primacy of policy, and offers a reinterpretation that actually results in an On War that is more in character with contemporary wars.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper is to examine China’s on-going next generation network buildout through the angle of the interplay of a dynamic market with vast demand, an increasing production capacity and the policy promotion by the Chinese government The research question is that with the help of predatory governmental telecommunication policy embedded in China’s unique socialist bureaucratic structure and a lucrative domestic market, will China upgrade from today’s production base (made in China) to tomorrow’s gravity for innovation ( designed by China)? What is the domestic mobilization process of China’s telecommunication industrial policy? What is the impact on global competition?

Through the careful examination of the on-going domestic mobilization process within China that evolved around the new 3G standard, particularly the interplay between domestic network providers, manufacturers, government ministers and the major foreign competitors, the author hypothesizes that China’s status as the biggest manufacturing base of telecom equipment, socialist bureaucratic politics, government regulatory preferences, the advantage of its vast domestic market and export weight together are elevating China’s ‘technology capacity’ and eventually gaining China more leverage to compete within the global market through the application and development of its ‘home grown’ standards and technologies. It aims to shed lights on the study of relationship between information technology and politics, especially between leading markets and those emerging markets.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Modern international relations develops out of the liberal and enlightenment traditions of political thought and practice. The legacy of these traditions is often unproblematically assumed. In this paper I probe the ontological presuppositions of contemporary realist and liberal IR to explain how in the conceptual framing of world politics IR theory effects an exceedingly narrow model of normative advocacy. Examining the ontological presuppositions among several IR traditions properly historicizes their philosophical lineages and opens them up to a number of important problematizations about the specific nature of the entities they purport to analyze. Historicizing these concepts in late modernity is especially important given greater awareness of the essentially contested nature of much that has been taken for granted by the major theoretical traditions of IR. Specifically, historicization allows a critique not only of the entities whose existence is presupposed by IR's metaphysical propositions, but also the normative ideals the predominant theoretical traditions advance, consciously or not. I argue that confusion about what ontological commitments are in late modern times (and what they must be made to reflect given IR's rigid epistemological protocols) produces considerable ambiguity about the world political relations IR theories claim to explain, and how some of the most prescient challenges of our time – namely, maldistributions of world income – can be more effectively addressed.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Most constitutional theorists fail to consider adequately institutional reforms that would strengthen the position of elected officials relative to judges. Because they associate judicial review with judges’ performing a valuable checking function, they assume that judicial authority must have some priority. These theorists, therefore, debate whether elected officials have authority to interpret the Constitution and do not consider seriously the argument for legislative supremacy. Indeed, people mistakenly assume that we would eliminate judicial review by assigning priority to legislative interpretations, when legislative supremacy, or what I will call legislative primacy, is in fact an alternative to judicial supremacy.
By focusing on the relative institutional position of judges and elected officials, the essay illustrates that judges would be in a position to check elected institutions, even in a regime that allowed legislators to override judicial interpretations of constitutional law. This perspective also reveals that the Judiciary’s institutional position is a source of instability in the current regime, a regime that assigns priority to neither judicial nor legislative interpretations. .