Advertisement

Asia Europe Journal

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 227–243 | Cite as

Managing the conceptual gap on sovereignty in China–EU relations

  • Zhongqi PanEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

While, historically, sovereignty is what Europeans invented and what the Chinese were forced to accept, today it is what Europeans try to bury and what the Chinese hold dear. A conceptual gap on sovereignty clearly exists between China and Europe which more often than not exerts a negative impact on their relationship. It breeds misunderstandings and disputes, makes it more difficult to reach agreements on many bilateral issues, and complicates China–Europe cooperation in third countries. But the conceptual gap on sovereignty does not prevent China and Europe from building a strategic partnership. Given that strengthening or weakening national sovereignty means totally different things to China and Europe, the two parties should jointly and proactively manage their divergence on sovereignty issues by mutual avoidance, mutual assurance, and mutual accommodation, in order to unlock sovereignty-related impasses in China–Europe relations.

Keywords

Foreign Policy World Value Survey Territorial Integrity National Sovereignty Lisbon Treaty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author sincerely thank Malte Boecker, Zhimin Chen, Stanley Crossick, Christian Hauswedell, Gudrun Wacker, and other participants of the symposium “Building on Chinese–European Relations” in Berlin October 2009 for their helpful commentary and the Bertelsmann Foundation for its valuable support, and the Shanghai Pujiang Program for its sponsorship as well.

References

  1. Annan K (1999) Two concepts of sovereignty. Economist 352:49–50Google Scholar
  2. Bartelson J (2006) The concept of sovereignty revisited. Eur J Int Law 17(2):463–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bills CI (2008) Europe and the changing notions of sovereignty. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA's 49th Annual Convention, Bridging Multiple Divides, Hilton San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Available via All Academic Inc. http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p254095_index.html. Accessed 30 Jun 2010
  4. Caporaso JA (2000) Continuity and change in the Westphalian order. Blackwell, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  5. Chayes A, Chayes A (1995) The new sovereignty: compliance with international agreements. Harvard, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen Z (2006) Oumeng de youxian zhanlue xingwei zhuti texing yu zhongou zhanlue huoban guanxi: yi jiechu duihua junshou jinling weili (The impact of the EU's limited strategic behavior on EU-China relations: the case of the arms embargo). Guoji Guancha (International Review) 5:1–10Google Scholar
  7. Chen Z, Geeraerts G (2003) Ouzhou lianmeng duiwai zhengce yitihua: bukeneng de shiming? (Foreign policy integration in the European Union: mission impossible?). Shishi Chubanshe, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  8. Dai B (2003) Guanyu zhuquan wenti de zaisisuo (Reflections on the sovereignty issue). Ouzhou Yanjiu (European Studies) 5:25–27Google Scholar
  9. Deng X (1993) Deng Xiaoping wenxuan (Selected works of Deng Xiaoping) (Volume III). Renmin Chubanshe, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  10. Fox J, Godement F (2009) A power audit of EU-China relations. The European Council on Foreign Relations, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Fravel T (1996) China's attitude toward U.N. peacekeeping operations since 1989. Asian Surv 36(11):1102–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gandois H (2008) Sovereignty as responsibility: theory and practice in Africa. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA's 49th Annual Convention, Bridging Multiple Divides, Hilton San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Available via All Academic Inc. http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p250558_index.html. Accessed 30 Jun 2010
  13. Gnesotto N (2002) European security and defence policy: a European view. In: ESF Working Paper (no. 8) European security and defence policy: taking stock, EU-ISS, ParisGoogle Scholar
  14. Grant C, Barysch K (2008) Can Europe and China shape a new world order? The Centre for European Reform, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Griller S (2005) The impact of the Constitution for Europe on national sovereignty. In: Zemanek J, Pernice I (eds) A constitution for Europe: the IGC, the ratification process and beyond, ECLN-Series, Vol. 5, Baden-Baden, 151–182Google Scholar
  16. Henkin L et al (1993) International law: cases and materials, 3rd edn. West Publishing Group, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  17. Hinsley FH (1986) Sovereignty, 2nd edn. Cambridge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Holslag J (2009) The elusive axis: evaluating the EU-China strategic partnership. BICCS Asia Paper 4(8):1–32Google Scholar
  19. Holsti KJ (2004) Taming the sovereigns: institutional change in international politics. Cambridge, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. International Crisis Group (2009) China's growing role in UN peacekeeping. Asia Report N°166, 17 Apr 2009Google Scholar
  21. Jackson R (1999) Sovereignty in world politics: a glance at the conceptual and historical landscape. Polit Stud 47:431–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jiang Z (2006) Jiang Zemin wenxuan (Selected works of Jiang Zemin), vol III. Renmin Chubanshe, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  23. Keene E (2002) Beyond the anarchical society: Grotius, colonialism and order in world politics. Cambridge, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lepsius MR (2000) The European Union as a sovereignty association of a special nature. Harv Jean Monnet Work Pap 7:3–4Google Scholar
  25. MacCormick N (1999) Questioning sovereignty: law, state, and nation in the European commonwealth. Oxford, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Morgenthau HJ (1985) Politics among nations: the struggle for power and peace, 6th edn. Revised and edited by Kenneth W. Thompson. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Oppenheim L (1905) International law: a treatise. Longmans, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Osiander A (2001) Sovereignty, international relations, and the Westphalian myth. Int Organ 55:25l–87lCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pan Z (2008) China's changing image of and engagement in world order. In: Guo S, Blanchard JMF (eds) Harmonious world and China's new foreign policy. Rowman & Littlefield, Lexington, pp 39–63Google Scholar
  30. Radler D (2004) National sovereignty—a burden on the shoulders of European members? The Sphere of Politics 112:28–32Google Scholar
  31. Risse T (2003) Sovereignty puzzles: a comment on Keohane. In: Weiler J, Begg I, Peterson J (eds) Integration in an expanding European Union: reassessing the fundamentals. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 335–338Google Scholar
  32. Schrijver N (2000) The changing nature of state sovereignty. In: The British year book of international law 1999. Clarendon, Oxford, pp 69–70Google Scholar
  33. Stetter S (2004) Cross-pillar politics: functional unity and institutional fragmentation of EU foreign policies. J Eur Public Policy 11(4):720–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Veen E (2007) The valuable tool of sovereignty: its use in situations of competition and interdependence. Bruges Political Research Papers (no. 3)Google Scholar
  35. Werner WG, de Wilde JH (2001) The endurance of sovereignty. Eur J Int Relat 7(3):283–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of International Relations and Public AffairsFudan UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations