Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

China’s Coherence in International Economic Governance

  • RESEARCH ARTICLE
  • Published:
Journal of Chinese Political Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article analyzes China’s coherence in international economic governance. When and how is China challenging the rules and norms of the prevailing international economic order? Has China adopted the current rules and norms across the board, or is it proceeding in an ad hoc or piecemeal manner? How can its (in) coherence be explained? To address these questions, I compare China’s profile vis-à-vis three dimensions of the global economic order: trade, investment, and development aid. I argue that in international trade and investment, China has neither sought nor brought about significant change. China is however, offering an alternative to the Western norms that until now have dominated the global development aid regime. China’s establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) is notable in this regard, though it is still soon to determine if the Chinese-led development bank will break with existing norms. The article then considers possible theoretical explanations for the variation in China’s behavior across the three areas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. ‘Development aid’, ‘development assistance’ and ‘development financing’ are used interchangeably in the article. China’s aid is perhaps best described as ‘development financing’ since much does not fall into the commonly-used OECD-DAC definition of overseas development assistance. Shambaugh explains that China’s aid “straddles the line between aid and overseas investment, involves private companies, and [China] gives loans that often do not have a grant element over 25 %.” ([35]: 202–205).

  2. This article makes no judgment as to the merits of maintaining the existing norms and rules of the global economic system. On this, Scott Kennedy argues that the existing system is not perfect and that China should try to promote change ([45]: 11–12).

  3. Launched at the 21st ASEAN Summit in Cambodia in November 2012. According to estimates, the trade of participating countries accounts for about 40 % of world trade.

  4. Henry Gao argues that China has gone from rule taker to rule shaker and even rule maker in the WTO [33]; Peter Yu argues that China’s bilateral and regional trade agreements follow a different pattern than those of the dominant players, the US and the EU [105]; Nargiza Salidjanova suggests that China is “promoting alternate norms.”([75]: 30–1).

  5. On the new bank as a rival to the World Bank and Asian Development Bank, see [27].

  6. China joined the World Bank and the IMF in 1980, after almost a decade of preparation. On China’s interaction with the World Bank and the IMF, see [43].

  7. China’s willingness to make concessions to its FTA partners to the disadvantage of its domestic industry is well documented, for example in the case of its agreement with ASEAN. See ([18]: 289), ([73]: 31–32, 38–40). In China’s WTO accession negotiations, despite expected domestic unrest by farmers, and opposition by vested ministerial interests, Wei Liang notes that the drawn out negotiations were only concluded as a result of the personal intervention of China’s top leaders ([51]: 716–718).

  8. Thomas J. Christensen notes the growing number of bureaucracies that are involved in the foreign policy making process such as the military, energy companies, exporters, and regional party elites ([21]:60).

  9. For example, it has been suggested that Xi’s campaign against corruption is also serving to rid Xi of political rivals. Other measures such as the proposed law on foreign NGOs may impede the development of China’s civil society, and prevent critique of the government.

  10. UNCTAD defines mega regional agreements as “broad economic agreements among a group of countries that have a significant combined economic weight” ([88] XXIV). Whalley refers to such agreements as ‘large-large’ negotiations, in contrast to small-small or large-small regional trade agreements [93]. Melendex-Ortiz defines mega regionals as ““deep integration partnerships between countries or regions with a major share of world trade and foreign direct investment (FDI), and in which two or more of the parties are in a paramount driver position, or serve as hubs, in global value chains…”[55].

  11. Agreement between Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, US and Vietnam) finalized on October 5, 2015. The agreement covers about 1/3 of world trade and 40 % of global GDP [14].

  12. Negotiations between the US and the EU that started in July 2013.

  13. The WTO accession process is a one-way negotiating process. Acceding countries are asked to make concessions without being able to make reciprocal demands, while existing WTO members are entitled to make demands without making any concessions, thus subjecting acceding members to enormous pressure.

  14. For example, see ([50]:79–80); ([53]: 299–339); [82].

  15. WTO members make two kinds of commitments: rules-based commitments which are normally uniform for all WTO members and market access commitments which are made on a member by member basis and thus differ among members.

  16. For example, China agreed to a special transitional review for its first eight years in the WTO, and in its tenth year. For discussion of China’s WTO-plus obligations, see [72].

  17. China agreed to be considered a non-market economy (NME) until 2017 for calculating dumping in anti-dumping investigations, with the use of a higher cost surrogate country to determine the domestic price, thus making it more likely to find higher dumping margins. Similarly, in countervailing duty investigations, China agreed to an alternative benchmark in calculating its subsidies, thus increasing the probability of WTO members applying countervailing duties. In contrast to the NME provision in anti-dumping, the alternative benchmark provision regarding subsidies does not expire.

  18. This accusation has been cited in a number of articles. See for example, [52].

  19. Although withdrawing from an international organization/treaty appears farfetched, in 2013 South Africa terminated its bilateral investment treaties with Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland. Bolivia, Ecuador (2009) and Venezuela (2012) have withdrawn from the ICSID Convention ([88]: 114). Italy recently notified its withdrawal from the Energy Charter, although its obligations will remain in effect for twenty additional years ([89]:107). At the WTO’s Bali Ministerial in 2013, some WTO members, in an unprecedented move, reneged on their original commitment to the Bali Package although agreement was eventually achieved [25].

  20. For more on China’s view of its implementation, see [102, 103].

  21. For example, Webster argues that China has only superficially complied with WTO rulings [92].

  22. For instance, by coming to an agreement for a ‘reasonable period of time’ in a timely manner, by holding discussions towards changing or eliminating its illegal measures, and by implementing its commitment in good faith and within the ‘reasonable period of time’[54].

  23. The US has spent years dragging out implementation of the WTO ruling on its Copyright Act, a dispute initiated by the E.C. in 1999. As of 20 May 2015, US implementation of the WTO ruling was still on the WTO agenda as a surveillance matter [99].

  24. For example, see [10].

  25. The 2008 Mini-ministerial is often cited as an example of China being responsible for the breakdown of the talks because of its support for India against the US on the Special Safeguard Mechanism. Scott and Wilkenson, based on interviews with participants, argue that China was trying to broker a deal between India and the US, rather than supporting India ([76]:776).

  26. As of July 2008 China had submitted over 100 proposals in the Doha Round negotiations [33].

  27. China’s proposals on anti-dumping are an example of this. For details of this argument, [36]. China’s position might be explained by the fact that it is the world’s largest target of anti-dumping action, and therefore its interests lie in stricter anti-dumping rules, nevertheless the bottom line is that it is promoting a pro-trade liberalization agenda.

  28. China, along with India and the Philippines, was particularly supportive of food security, one of the three potential deliverables at Bali. (The other two were trade facilitation and development.)

  29. The agreement is called the Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA). For the official statement see [44]. Negotiations were launched in July 2014.

  30. Though considered to be holding up the negotiations with its request for exemptions on a long list of goods, China and the US achieved a breakthrough in November 2014 after China agreed to a compromise [74].

  31. China’s request was rejected out of concern that China would hinder the talks [22].

  32. The US for example, has a history of using preferential trade agreements to promote norms that it would like to be incorporated into the multilateral framework. NAFTA is considered an example of this.

  33. For a list and description of China’s PTAs, see [61]. The Cross-Straits Economic Framework Agreement between Mainland China and Taipei is not included in the twelve PTAs.

  34. Articles on China’s FTAs include [32, 48, 105, 106].

  35. China resumed sovereignty over Hong Kong in 1997 and Macao in 1999. Both were members of the WTO prior to the People’s Republic of China, and are referred to as Hong Kong, China and Macao, China respectively in the WTO.

  36. For a description of China’s incremental approach to ASEAN, see ([105]:1007–1009).

  37. The link is implied by the WTO Secretariat ([96]: 45) and Kong ([48] 1203].

  38. ([105]: 962). Yu notes that the EU trade agreements cover “nontrade areas “such as competition policy, investment, improvement of business environment, cooperation in vocational education and training, labor and product standards, environmental protection, tourism, illegal migration, and the resolution of other non-economic cross-border problems”. Some of these areas are in fact also covered in US free trade agreements. Where the EU model differs is in the political aspects that it includes, for example, the political dialogue it calls for in its Association agreements.

  39. ([105]: 1011–1018). Yu notes that China does not use a template approach in its FTAs, nor is it interested in one.

  40. On China’s FTAs and services, see [91]. China’s services agreements take the GATS model of positive list approach, rather than NAFTA’s negative list approach where all services sectors are included except what is excluded.

  41. 6 original ASEAN members are Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia, Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, while the 4 newer (and less developed) members are Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar.. For an analysis of China’s approach to the negotiations, see [18].

  42. China’s FTAs with New Zealand, Singapore and Switzerland include provisions on labor standards and competition. China’s FTA with Switzerland refers to sustainable development and devotes an entire chapter to environmental issues (Chapter 12) [29]. On the acceptance of increasingly legalized dispute settlement provisions, see [38].

  43. At the end of 2013, there were 3236 BITs and other international investment agreements ([88]:114).

  44. Indeed, Bath and Nottage note that some countries have omitted investment chapters in their FTAs due to reservations about investor-state arbitration ([6]:2). Investor-state arbitration is also one of the issues holding up the ratification of CETA, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, concluded in September 2014 between Canada and the EU.

  45. For example, OECD Council Recommendation on Recipient Country Policies relating to National Security.

  46. Efforts to achieve multilateral agreement on investment in the OECD failed in 1998. Investment, one of the four Singapore issues, was eventually dropped from the negotiating agenda along with government procurement and competition. Negotiations on the fourth, trade facilitation, culminated in the agreement in Bali.

  47. According to UNCTAD, in 2014, “at least 50 countries and regions were engaged in reviewing and revising their IIA models. Brazil, India, Norway and the European Union (EU) published novel approaches. South Africa and Indonesia continued their treaty terminations, while formulating new IIA strategies..” ([89]: xi).

  48. For a brief description of China’s ‘Going Out’ policy, see ([77]: 174–183. See also ([8]: 6). Berger describes the reasons that China’s outward FDI has grown: transfer of plants to lower wage economies, acquisition of technology and knowhow, use of brand names, and access to new markets.

  49. Leon Trakmen [86] describes three model BITs: one from the early 1980s, the second from 1992, and the third, from 1998 to contribute to its ‘going out’ policy. Shan, Gallagher and Zhang [78] suggest that the inclusion of a national treatment standard from 1986 in the China UK BIT characterized a new model in Chinese BITs.

  50. For example, Australia’s foreign investment regime has a ‘national interest’ exception which includes national security but also covers impact of investment on the economy ([5]: 87).

  51. Under the US foreign investment review system, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (CFIUS) makes a recommendation that is enforced by order of the US President. Headed by the US Treasury Secretary, CFIUS includes representatives of Justice, Home Security, Commerce, State, and Energy. Chinese telecom company Huawei backed out of the US market after a 2012 House Intelligence Committee Report came out discouraging US companies from partnering with Huawei, citing security concerns. See [84].

  52. There is some debate about the degree of discrimination towards Chinese investors compared to other foreign investors ([62]:2).

  53. One of the issues raised in the 2010 national elections was investment by Chinese sovereign wealth funds in Australia. In the past, Chinese investment has been blocked in the Australian telecom sector (2012) and mining sector (2009).

  54. SOEs, the scope of the national security exception and anti-monopoly law are the most difficult issues in the US-China BIT negotiations [41].

  55. The news report suggests that factors driving China’s concessions include its increased interest in investing in the US, and the slowdown in its economy.

  56. In contrast, Ngair Woods argues that new donors are not challenging the system outright, rather they are bringing competitive pressures into the system [95]. Deborah Brautigam argues that in fact, Chinese practices are not that far from those of traditional donors [12].

  57. The term was originally coined by John Williamson [94].

  58. Interestingly, despite efforts to coordinate aid among major DAC donors since the Paris Declaration, coordination has declined. Fuchs, Nunenkamp and Ohler have shown that this can be attributed to competition for export markets and political influence [31].

  59. For analysis, see [107].

  60. However, Chin notes that estimating China’s aid is difficult because: China does not use the DAC definitions of foreign aid, various agencies are responsible for providing aid, China may not want to publicize the real amounts of aid, given its domestic poverty, the figures don’t include unreported aid to Iran, North Korea, Cuba and other outlier regimes ([17]: 581–582).

  61. This may be construed as suggesting that domestic politics explain China’s aid. Shahar Hameiri argues that because China’s aid is driven by “commercial imperatives” it is not operating according to “master plan”, implying that a domestic interest paradigm is the main explanation for China’s aid policy ([35]: 3, 7–10). However, one does not preclude the other, and in my view, this is a type of mechanism used to implement an overall state strategy.

  62. This recommendation was amended in 2006 and 2008, 2011. The OECD rules are only a recommendation, related to LDCs, and some areas, such as food aid and free-standing technical cooperation, were excluded. Non-DAC donors such as China are considered to be challenges to efforts to untie aid even though China has endorsed Paris-Accra-Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation in form of Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation.

  63. Chin points to the signing of the “Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Cooperation between the Export–Import Bank of China and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development,” as evidence of this.

  64. For information about the China-Asian Development Bank relationship, see International Monetary Fund, People’s Republic of China 2013 Article IV Report ([42]: 10–12).

  65. For a short history of the AIIB, see Ba ([4]: 162–164).

  66. For example, see address by Mr. Zhou Ziangwu, the Executive Deputy Director-General of the Asia-Pacific Finance and Development Centre, associated with the Chinese Ministry of Finance at the 2015 Australiasian Aid Conference on February 13–14, 2015 [108].

  67. Chin concludes that China is not trying to undermine the World Bank, but rather reshape some of the norms ([16]: 223).

  68. Professor Peter Yu, in a private conversation, suggested to me that while there may not be external coherence in China’s policies over the three areas, there is internal coherence, and in fact, China’s policies in all three areas are shaped by its development needs.

  69. Stemming from concern over subsidies which give the foreign state owned enterprise a competitive advantage, or that there might be concern that they will pursue a non-commercial agenda.

References

  1. Agreement on dispute settlement mechanism of the framework agreement on comprehensive economic co-operation between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the People’s Republic of China, 2004. http://www.asean.org/communities/asean-economic-community/item/agreement-on-dispute-settlement-mechanism-of-the-framework-agreement-on-comprehensive-economic-co-operation-between-the-association-of-southeast-asian-nations-and-the-people-s-republic-of-china-5. Accessed 22 Dec 2015.

  2. Australian Government. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, outcomes at a glance. http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/chafta/fact-sheets/Pages/key-outcomes.aspx. Accessed 28 Dec. 2015.

  3. Azêvedo, R. 2014. Azêvedo cites China’s crucial role in trade liberalization. Speech by WTO Director-General Roberto Azevêdo on 19 May 2014 at University of Business and Economics, Beijing. https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/spra_e/spra22_e.htm. Accessed 22 Dec 2015.

  4. Ba, A. 2014. Is China leading? China, Southeast Asia and East Asian integration. Political Science 66(2): 143–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bath, V. 2013. National security and Chinese investment policy. Harvard Business Law Review Online.

  6. Bath, V. and L.R. Nottage. 2011. Foreign investment and dispute settlement law in Asia: An overview. Sydney Law School Working Paper, March 2011.

  7. BBC News. 2013. China Agrees to resume US investment treaty talks, July 12, 2013. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-23267381. Accessed 28 Dec 2015.

  8. Berger, A. 2008. China’s new bilateral investment treaty programme: Substance, rational and implications for international law making. Paper prepared for the American Society of International Law International Economic Law Interest Group (ASIL IELIG) 2008 biennial conference “The Politics of International Economic Law: The Next Four Years”, Washington, D.C., November 14–15, 2008. https://www.die-gdi.de/uploads/media/Berger_ChineseBITs.pdf. Accessed 28 Dec 2015.

  9. Berger, A. 2011. The politics of China’s investment treaty-making program. In The politics of international economic law, ed. T. Broude, M.L. Busch, and A. Porges, 162–186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Bergsten, C.F. 2008. Partnership of equals, how Washington should respond to China’s economic challenge. Foreign Affairs, July 2008.

  11. Brautigam, D. 2009. The dragon’s gift: The real story of China in Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bräutigam, Deborah. 2012. Is China a challenge to the global aid architecture?. APSA 2012 Annual Meeting Paper. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2106387. Accessed 28 Dec 2015.

  13. Brautigam, D. 2015. China, debt, development finance and human rights. The China in Africa research initiative blog. http://www.chinaafricarealstory.com/search?updated-max=2015-09-02T10:22:00–04:00&max-results=500. Accessed 28 Dec 2015.

  14. Calmes, J. 2015. Trans-Pacific Partnership is reached but faces scrutiny in Congress. New York Times, October 5.

  15. Cheng, S., Fang, T. and H. Lien. 2012. China’s foreign aid policy. In The growing role of Chinese in global governance, eds. Kennedy, S. and S. Cheng, 103–112. Bloomington, Ind.: Research Center for Chinese Politics and Business, and Geneva: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development.

  16. Chin, G. 2012. Two-way socialization: China, the World Bank and hegemonic weakening. Brown Journal of World Affairs 2012: 211–230.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Chin, G. 2012. China as a net donor: Tracking dollars and sense. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 25(4): 579–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chin, G., and R. Stubbs. 2011. China and regional institutional building and the China-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement. Review of International Political Economy 18(3): 277–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chin, G., and R. Thakur. 2010. Will China changes the rules of the global order? Washington Quarterly 33(4): 119–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Chin, G., and F. Quadir. 2012. Introduction: Rising states, rising donors and the global aid regime. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 25(4): 493–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Christensen, T.J. 2011. The advantages of an assertive China. Foreign Affairs 90(2): 54–67.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Donon, S. 2013. China in push to join US-led $4tn services trade talks. Financial Times, September 23.

  23. Dyer, G. 2015. Obama says AIIB could be positive for Asia. Financial Times, April 28.

  24. Eckert, P. and A. Yukananov. 2015. U.S., China agree to restart investment treaty talks, Reuters, July 12, 2015. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-dialogue-trade-idUSBRE96A0ZD20130712. Accessed 28 Dec 2015.

  25. Economic Times. 2014. India says no trade facilitation pact without solving food security issue, Jul 3, 2014.

  26. European Union, Regulation (EU) no. 1219/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 Establishing transitional arrangements for bilateral investment agreements between member states and third countries. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32012R1219. Accessed 28 Dec 2015.

  27. Fing, B. 2014. Deal set on China-led infrastructure bank. New York Times, October 24.

  28. Free Trade Agreement between the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Government of the Republic of Peru. 2009. http://fta.mofcom.gov.cn/bilu/annex/bilu_xdwb_en.pdf. Accessed 22 Dec 2015.

  29. Free Trade Agreement between the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Swiss Federation. 2013. http://fta.mofcom.gov.cn/topic/enswiss.shtml. Accessed 22 Dec 2015.

  30. Fu, J. and J. Wu. 2013. President calls for world wide free trade. China Daily, September 7 2013. http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2013-09/07/content_16950983.htm. Accessed 22 Dec 2015.

  31. Fuchs, A., Nunnenkamp, P., and H. Ohler. 2013. Why donors of foreign aid do not coordinate: The role of competition for export markets and political support. Kiel Working Paper No. 1825, February 2013.

  32. Gao, H. 2011. China’s strategy for free trade agreements: Political battle in the name of trade. In East Asian economic integration: Law, trade and finance, ed. R.P. Buckley, R.W. Hu, and D.W. Arner, 104–120. UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Gao, H. 2011. China’s ascent in global trade governance: From rule taker to rule shaker, and maybe rule maker. In Making global trade governance work for development: Perspectives and priorities from developing countries, ed. C.D. Bierbeck, 153–181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Gao, H. 2014. Statement by H.E. Mr. Hucheng Gao, Minister of Commerce, at Bali Ministerial. WT/MIN(13)/ST/99. January 24 2014.

  35. Hameiri, S. 2015. China’s charm offensive in the Pacific and Australia’s regional order. The Pacific Review 28(5): 631–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Harpaz, M.D. 2011. China’s WTO-compliance plus anti-dumping policy. Journal of World Trade 45(4): 727–766.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Harpaz, M.D. 2012. Making sense of China’s WTO compliance. Doctoral thesis. Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

  38. Harpaz, M.D. 2015. China and international tribunals: Onward from the WTO. In China in the new international economic order: New directions and changing paradigms, ed. L. Toohey, C. Picker, and J. Greenacre, 43–61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. He, L.L., and R. Sappideen. 2009. Reflection on China’s WTO accession commitments and their observance. Journal of World Trade 43(4): 847–871.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hufbauer, G.C., Miner, S., and T. Moran. Committee on foreign investment in the United States and the US-China bilateral investment treaty: Challenges in meeting China’s demands. In Towards a US-China investment treaty. Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics, 34–41.

  41. Inside US-China Trade. 2015. U.S.-China ‘core text’ still outstanding, Beijing ‘negative list’ offer could spur progress: Business rep. January 26, 2015. https://www.uschina.org/media/inthenews/us-china-bit-core-text-still-outstanding-beijing-negative-list-offer-could-spur. Accessed 28 Dec 2015.

  42. International Monetary Fund. 2013. People’s Republic of China 2013 Article IV Report, Informational Annex. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2013/cr13211.pdf. Accessed 28 Dec 2015.

  43. Jacobson, H.K., and M. Oksenberg. 1990. China’s participation in the IMF, the World Bank, and GATT. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  44. Joint statement regarding trade in environmental goods. January 24 2014. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/january/tradoc_152095.pdf. Accessed 22 Dec 2015.

  45. Kennedy, S. 2012. China in global governance: What kind of status quo power? In The growing role of Chinese in global governance, ed. S. Kennedy and S. Cheng, 9–22. RCCPB and Geneva ICTSD: Indiana University.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Kent, A. 2007. Beyond compliance: China, international organizations and global security. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Kitano, N. and Y. Harada. 2014. Estimating China’s foreign aid 2001–2013. JICA-RI Working Paper No. 78.

  48. Kong, Q. 2012. China’s uncharted FTA strategy. Journal of World Trade 46(5): 1191–1206.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Krauss, C. and K. Bradsher. 2015. China’s global ambitions, with loans and strings attached. New York Times, July 24 2015.

  50. Lardy, N. 2002. Integrating China into the global economy. Washington: Brookings Institute Press.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Liang, W. 2002. China’s WTO negotiation process and its implications. Journal of Contemporary China 11(33): 683–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Lim, C.L., and J.Y. Wang. 2010. China and the Doha development agenda. Journal of World Trade 44(6): 1309–1331.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Matoo, A. 2003. China’s accession to the WTO: The services dimension. Journal of International Economic Law 6(2): 299–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Mavroidis, P. 2000. Remedies in the WTO legal system. European Journal of International Law 11(8): 793–799.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Melendez-Ortez, R. 2014. Mega regionals: What is going on? In Mega regional trade agreements: Game changers or costly distractions for the world trading system. Geneva: World Economic Forum, July 2014. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GAC/2014/WEF_GAC_TradeFDI_MegaRegionalTradeAgreements_Report_2014.pdf. Accessed 22 Dec 2015.

  56. Ministry of Commerce People’s Republic of China. 2011. Ministry of Commerce’s regulation on implementing of the security review system for mergers and acquisitions of domestic enterprises by foreign investors on 25 August 2011.

  57. Ministry of Commerce People’s Republic of China. 2013. MOFCOM spokesman Shen Danyang comments on China and US to promote negotiations on bilateral investment agreement. July 16 2013. http://english.mofcom.gov.cn/article/newsrelease/policyreleasing/201307/20130700200566.shtml. Accessed 28 Dec 2015.

  58. Ministry of Commerce People’s Republic of China. 2014. Announcement No. 86, 2014 (on Trade Compliance Implementation Measures)(Trial) December 14 2014. http://www.e-to-china.com/tariff_changes/Policy_Focus/2014/1219/112637.html. Accessed 28 Dec 2015.

  59. Ministry of Commerce People’s Republic of China. 2015. Gao Hucheng attends and addresses the 10th World Trade Ministerial Conference December 18, 2015. http://english.mofcom.gov.cn/article/newsrelease/significantnews/201512/20151201219006.shtml. Accessed 22 Dec 2015.

  60. Ministry of Commerce People’s Republic of China. 2015. Gao Hucheng attends WTO seven parties ministers’ meeting. October 9, 2015. http://english.mofcom.gov.cn/article/newsrelease/significantnews/201510/20151001131740.shtml. Accessed 22 Dec.

  61. Ministry of Commerce People’s Republic of China. China FTA network. http://fta.mofcom.gov.cn/english/index.shtml. Accessed 22 Dec.

  62. Moran, T.H. 2015. Chinese investment and CFIUS: Time for an updated (and revised) perspective. Policy Brief. Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics, Number PB15-17, September 2015.

  63. Murphy, K. 2014. Tony Abbott says Chinese state owned enterprises are welcome in Australia. the Guardian, April 11.

  64. Obama, B. 2012. Order regarding the acquisition of four U.S. wind farm project companies by Ralls Corporation, September 28, 2012. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/DCPD-201200764/pdf/DCPD-201200764.pdf. Accessed 28 Dec 2015.

  65. Obama, B. 2015. Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address. Washington, D.C. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/20/remarks-president-state-union-address-january-20-2015. Accessed 22 Dec 2015.

  66. Obama, B. 2015. Statement by the President on the trans-pacific partnership. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/10/05/statement-president-trans-pacific-partnership/. Accessed 22 Dec 2015.

  67. OECD. 2001. DAC recommendation on untying official development assistance to the least developed countries, May 2001. www.oecd.org/dac/htm/Untie.htm. Accessed 28 Dec 2015.

  68. OECD. 2005. Paris declaration on aid effectiveness. http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/34428351.pdf. Accessed 28 Jan 2015.

  69. OECD. 2006–2014. Summaries of roundtable on freedom of investment, national security and strategic industries. http://www.oecd.org/investment/investment-policy/oecdroundtablesonfreedomofinvestment.htm. Accessed 28 Dec 2015.

  70. Pearson, M. 2006. China in Geneva: Lessons from China’s early years in the World Trade Organization. In China’s foreign policy, ed. A.I. Johnston and R. Ross, 242–275. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Perlez, J. 2014. US opposing China’s answer to the World Bank. New York Times, October 9.

  72. Qin, J.Y. 2003. WTO-plus obligations and their implications for the World Trade Organization. Journal of World Trade 37(3): 483–522.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Ravenhill, J., and Y. Jiang. 2009. China’s move to preferential trading: A new direction in China’s diplomacy. Journal of Contemporary China 18(58): 27–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Reuters. 2014. China, U.S. make breakthrough on IT free trade deal: U.S. trade representative. November 14, 2014. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apec-china-ita-idUSKCN0IV06E20141111. Accessed 22 Dec 2015.

  75. Salidjanova, N. 2015. China’s trade ambitions: Strategy and objectives behind China’s pursuit of free trade agreements. U.S.- China Economic and Security Review Commission: Staff Research Report. Washington DC. http://origin.www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/China%27s%20Trade%20Ambitions%20-%2005.28%2015.pdf. Accessed 22 Dec 2015.

  76. Scott, J., and R. Wilkenson. 2013. China threat? Evidence from the WTO. Journal of World Trade 47(4): 761–782.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Shambaugh, D. 2013. China goes global: The partial power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Shan, W., N. Gallagher, and S. Zhang. 2012. National treatment in foreign investment in China: A changing landscape. ICSID Review 27(1): 120–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. State Council of the People’s Republic of China. 2011. Notice of the General Office of the State Council on launching the security review system for mergers and acquisitions of domestic enterprises by foreign investors on 3 February 2011.

  80. State Council of the People’s Republic of China. 2011. China’s foreign aid. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-04/21/c_13839683.htm. Accessed 28 Dec 2015.

  81. State Council of the People’s Republic of China. 2014. China’s foreign aid (2014). http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2014-07/10/c_133474011.htm. Accessed 28 Dec 2015.

  82. Sun, Z. 2008. Statement of H.E. Ambassador Sun Zhenyu at the Informal Trade Negotiations Committee Meeting. July 31, 2008. http://wto2.mofcom.gov.cn/article/aboutus/mission/200807/20080705700132.shtml. Accessed 22 Dec 2015.

  83. Talley, I. 2015. U.S. looks to work with China-led infrastructure fund. Wall Street Journal, March 22.

  84. Tiezzi, S. 2013. Huawei officially gives up on the US market. The Diplomat, December 5, 2013. http://thediplomat.com/2013/12/huawei-officially-gives-up-on-the-us-market/. Accessed 28 Dec.

  85. Tiezzi, S. 2014. China’s push for an Asia-Pacific free trade agreement: China hopes the FTAAP will overshadow less inclusive alternatives, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The Diplomat, October 30, 2014. http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/chinas-push-for-an-asia-pacific-free-trade-agreement/. Accessed 22 Dec.

  86. Trakmen, L.E. 2013. China and foreign direct investment: Looking ahead. UNSW Law Research Paper No. 2013–24. SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2244634. Accessed 28 Nov 2015.

  87. UNCTAD. 2009. The Protection of National Security in IIAs. UN: New York and Geneva.

    Google Scholar 

  88. UNCTAD. 2014. World Investment Report 2014, Switzerland.

  89. UNCTAD. 2015. World Investment Report 2015: Reforming International Investment Governance, Switzerland.

  90. US Model Bilateral Investment Treaty. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/188371.pdf. Accessed 28 Dec 2015.

  91. Wang, H. 2012. China, free trade agreements and WTO law: A perspective on the trade in services. European University Institute Max Weber Programme Working Papers. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2072974 . Accessed 22 Dec 2015.

  92. Webster, T. 2014. Paper compliance: How China implements WTO decisions. Michigan Journal of International Law 35(1): 525–578.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Whalley, J. 2014. Global mega trade deals and the impact on China. Waterloo, Canada: Centre for International Governance Innovation. https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/commentary_2.pdf. Accessed 22 Dec 2015.

  94. Williamson, J. 1990. What Washington means by policy reform. In Latin American adjustment: How much has happened, ed. J. Williamson. Washington: Institute for International Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Woods, N. 2008. Whose aid? Whose influence? China, the emerging donors and the silent revolution in development assistance. International Affairs 84(6): 1205–1221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. WTO. 2006. Trade Policy Review of People’s Republic of China, Report by the Secretariat. WT/TPR/S/161, February 28 2006.

  97. WTO. 2012. Trade Policy Review of People’s Republic of China, Report by the Secretariat. WT/TPR/S/264/Rev.1, July 20 2012.

  98. WTO, Trade Policy Review of People’s Republic of China, Report by China. WT/TPR/G/300, May 27 2014.

  99. WTO, Dispute settlement body, WT/DSB/M/361, July 13 2015.

  100. Xi, J. 2015. Carry forward the Bandung spirit for win-win cooperation. Xi’s speech at Asian-African Conference, April 22, 2015. http://en.theorychina.org/xsqy_2477/201505/t20150511_322108.shtml. Accessed 22 Dec 2015.

  101. Xi J. 2013. China proposes establishing Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-10/02/c_132769208.htm. Accessed 22 Dec 2015.

  102. Yang, G. 2015. China in the WTO dispute settlement: A memoir. Journal of World Trade 49(1): 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Yang, G. 2015. What is the WTO in China? A personal experience. Unpublished manuscript provided by Prof. Yang, June 2015.

  104. Younglai, R. 2012. Obama blocks Chinese wind farms in Oregon over security. Reuters, September 28.

  105. Yu, P. 2011. Sinic trade agreements. UC Davis Law Review 44: 953–1028.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Zhao, J. and T. Webster. 2011. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law Fall: 65–119.

  107. Zhou, T. 2014. China’s second white paper on foreign aid signals key shift in aid delivery strategy. Asia Foundation. July 23.

  108. Zhou, Z. 2015. Podcast of address by Mr. Zhou Ziangwu, at the 2015 Australiasian Aid Conference on February 13–14, 2015. http://devpolicy.org/podcasts/102-AAC2015. Accessed 28 Dec 2015.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of International Relations and Faculty of Law, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, 9190501, Israel

    Marcia Don Harpaz

Authors
  1. Marcia Don Harpaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcia Don Harpaz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Harpaz, M.D. China’s Coherence in International Economic Governance. J OF CHIN POLIT SCI 21, 123–147 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-016-9400-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-016-9400-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation