|
MAIN PAGE
> Back to contents
World Politics
Reference:
Han S.
Discussion of definition of defence and security cooperation between Chinese and Russian scientists
// World Politics.
2023. № 2.
P. 32-40.
DOI: 10.25136/2409-8671.2023.2.40401 EDN: RGFMNR URL: https://en.nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=40401
Discussion of definition of defence and security cooperation between Chinese and Russian scientists
Khan' Shiin
PhD in Politics
Postgraduate Student, Chair of International Security, School of World Politics Lomonosov Moscow State University
119991, Russia, Moscow, Leninskie Gory str., 1
|
hanshiying@bfsu.edu.cn
|
|
 |
|
DOI: 10.25136/2409-8671.2023.2.40401
EDN: RGFMNR
Received:
08-04-2023
Published:
05-07-2023
Abstract:
With the deepening and growing cooperation between Russia and China, studies pertaining to relevant international cooperations between the two states, including those on defense and security cooperation, have drawn the attention of many researchers. However, the differences in schools of research on safety and cooperation have made the boundaries on said matter more complex and diverse. Russian and Chinese researchers have further displayed different understanding and perception on the definition of national safety cooperation. Hence, the paper aims to carry out in depth analysis and discussion on the definition of defense and security cooperation based on Russian and Chinese literature.
Keywords:
security, cooperation, China, Russia, international relations theory, threat, interests, realism, liberalism, constructivism
This article is automatically translated.
You can find original text of the article here.
In turn, constructivists are of the opinion that international cooperation plays an important role in international society, and the goal of cooperation between countries is not only to obtain benefits, but also to form a sense of identity. For historical institutionalists, cooperation is the result of international and domestic historical social and political factors [8, p.454]. Differences exist not only in the definition of safety, but also Chinese and Russian scientists have their own preferences in choosing theoretical approaches. Chinese scientists in their research often cite the works of liberal researchers such as Robert Cohen, Joseph Nye Jr., Helen V. Milner and others [15, 16, 18]. Among them, the theory of hegemonic stability by Robert Cochain is widely discussed, who believes that "discord, which is the opposite of harmony, stimulates demands for policy adjustment, which can lead either to cooperation or to continued intensified discord" [12, p.61]. Russian scientists do not share the position of their Chinese colleagues regarding the liberal school of thought, and although they generally agree with the conclusions of Helen Milner, nevertheless, in the process of research they pay more attention to the achievements of realist researchers such as Arnold Wolfers, Morgenthau, Steven Krasner and others [4, 7]. In security issues Russian researchers are focused on the interests of states and their positions in the international arena. The concepts of these scientists are characterized by a pessimistic attitude towards cooperation in general. As for the definition of cooperation in the field of defense and security, it should be noted that there is still no internationally recognized definition of the concept as a whole due to the vagueness of the formulations of the definition of security and various areas of research. Despite the differences in schools and views on the problem of security and international cooperation, the opinions of individual researchers began to converge on a number of important issues. For example, P.A. Tsygankov believes that the concept of "international cooperation" reflects a process of interaction between two or more actors in international relations, in which the use of armed violence is excluded and joint search for the realization of common interests dominates. As in the case of security studies, early works devoted to the topic of international cooperation were mainly limited to the field of foreign policy and diplomacy problems. However, with the development of the international community, the sphere of interests of researchers began to cover other areas, such as economics, security, environmental protection, etc. [5, 8]. Li Xuebao summarized the views of Su Hao, Yan Xuetong and other Chinese political scientists and eventually came to the conclusion that international cooperation in the field of defense and security - these are measures that have been taken between two or more States (actors) in the international community to protect their own security interests, achieve common security goals and resolve contradictions and conflicts through coordination, dialogue, integration, alliances, etc. [18]. The analysis and comparison of the points of view of scientists belonging to various scientific schools allows us to draw the following conclusions: taking into account the fact that the concept of "national defense" includes political, economic, diplomatic, cultural characteristics, and also provides for the development of measures to prepare for the armed defense of the state, the integrity and inviolability of its territory, in particular the concept of "national defense security" can include the use of armed violence; cooperation in the field of defense and security is understood as formal or relatively informal interactions in the field of defense and security between two or more actors in the international community in order to protect their own interests and achieve common goals, as well as to mitigate mutual contradictions that may arise in in the process of this cooperation.
References
1. Bartosh A. A. (2019). Fundamentals of international security. Organizations for ensuring international security: a textbook for universities. Moscow, Russia:Yurayt Publishing House. 320 P.
2. Ivonina, O. I. (2015). Theory of international relations: a textbook for universities. Moscow, Russia:Yurayt Publishing House. 188 P.
3. Kardashova I. B. (2020). Fundamentals of the theory of national security: a textbook for universities. Moscow, Russia:Yurayt Publishing House. 332 P.
4. Lanko, D. A. (2013). Problem of cooperation in the third "great dispute" in theory of international relationships.Bulletin Sankt-Peterburgskogo University. Series 6. Philosophy, political science, sociology, psychology, law, international relations, 2, 92-97.
5. Muntyan M.A. (2006). Fundamentals of the theory of international relations. Tutorial. Moscow, Russia:MABiU. 164 P.
6. Ozhegov S. I. (1960). Dictionary of the Russian language. 4th edition, corrected. and additional. Moscow, Russia:State Publishing House of Foreign and National Dictionaries. P. 84.
7. Romanova T. A. (2012). On neoclassical realism and modern Russia. Russia in global politics. 10(3), 8–21.
8. Tsygankov P. A. (1960). Theory of international relations: Proc. allowance.. Moscow, Russia:Gardariki Publishing House. 590 P.
9. Wolfers A. (1962). Discord and Collaboration: Essay on International Politics. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press. P 150.
10. Buzan B, Wæver O, Wæver O, et al. (1998). Security: A new framework for analysis. Boulder & London: Lynne Rienner Publishers. 237 P.
11. Collins J.M. (1993). Grand Strategy: Principles and Practices, 1973. Definitions of Grand or National Security Strategy and Statecraft. Course 1: Foundations of National Security Strategy. National War College. Washington, DC. PP.1–4.
12. Keohane R. O. (1985). After hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton university press. 290 P.
13. Milner H. (1992). International theories of cooperation among nations: Strengths and weaknesses.World politics, 44(3), 466-496.
14. Wendt A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge University Press. 429 P.
15. Wang Bo, & Qin Huiyin. (2007). 国际合作研究: 流派争鸣、理论成果及局限[International Cooperation Study: Contestation from Schools, Achievements and Limits]. Wuhan University Journal (Philosophy & Social Sciences), 60(3), 433-439.
16. Wang Fan, Lu Jing (2016). 国际安全概论 [Introduction to International Security]. Beijing China: China Renmin University Press. P. 12.
17. Wang Junsheng. (2020). 整体性合作理论与中国周边合作[Holistic Cooperation Theory and China's Peripheral Cooperation]. Central Party School Journal, 4, 69-78.
18. Li Xuebao (2006).当代国际安全合作的探索与争鸣 [Exploration and Controversy of Contemporary International Security Cooperation]. Beijing China: World Affairs Press Co. Ltd. 281 P.
19. Sun Jinping. (2000). 国际关系理论中的国家安全理论[National Security Theory in International Relations Theory]. Journal of the University of International Relations, 4, 3-9.
20. Su Hao (2003).从哑铃到橄榄: 亚太安全合作研究 [From Dumbbell to Olive: Asia Pacific Cooperative Security Research. ]. Beijing China: World Affairs Press Co. Ltd. P.4.
First Peer Review
Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.
Review of the article "On the discussion between Chinese and Russian scientists on the definition of cooperation in the field of defense and security." The subject of the study is stated by the author in the title of the work and is also explained in the text of the article. The research methodology is based on a comparative analysis of the study of the Chinese and Russian approaches to the security system and cooperation in the field of defense and security. The relevance of the topic is due to the current geopolitical situation, the strengthening of relations between Russia and China in the field of interstate relations in the field of defense and security. Speaking about the purpose, objectives and relevance of the study, the author writes that the work "provides a deeper analysis and discussion of the relevant research results of the two countries, as well as provides links for future in-depth research in this area." The scientific novelty of the work lies in the very formulation of the topic and in the results obtained during the work on the topic. The style of work is academic, while the text is written in a clear language for the general reader. This is justified, given the relevance of the topic at the present time. The structure of the work consists of two parts: the main part and the conclusions. The content of the article is logical and aimed at revealing the topic. At the beginning of the work, an explanation is given of what security is, as understood by Chinese and Russian researchers, an explanation of the concept of security from the dictionary of Ozhegov, Dahl and the modern Chinese dictionary is provided. Next, the author explains the theoretical positions of Chinese and Russian researchers. Thus, Chinese researchers (the majority) share "the theory of Arnold Oscar Wolfers, which consists in the fact that, in a general sense, security includes both subjective and objective aspects: security in an objective sense is determined by the absence of threats to acquired values, in a subjective sense — by the absence of fear that these values will be attacked." But there are researchers who have added a new definition of security, and there are also those who stand on constructivist positions. There are also supporters of the Arnold Oscar Wolfers theory among Russian researchers, but a significant part "are more inclined to an approach to security in order to ensure the protection of national interests," the author notes. The author of the article writes that if there is any disagreement on the question of what security is, then "there is less disagreement about the definition of international cooperation" and "scientists in both countries tend to accept the definition given by the liberal scientist Helen Milner." The author notes that although Russian researchers accept this definition, "in the process of research they pay more attention to the achievements of realist scientists such as Arnold Wolfers, Morgenthau, Steven Krasner and others." The peculiarity of Russian researchers is that "they are more focused on interests and positions, and are usually characterized by a negative and pessimistic attitude towards cooperation in general," the author writes. In general, the article is devoted to revealing which positions are Chinese and which are Russian, what they have in common and what is different. The contents of the hundred Bibliography of the work consists of 20 sources. The bibliography contains works by Russian experts dealing with security issues, including authors of textbooks and monographs on the topic: Bartosh A. A. , Ivonina, O. And 3.Kardashova I. B., Lanko, D. A., Muntyan M. A. , Tsygankova P. A.) and the works of Chinese researchers. The bibliography will be of interest to specialists, students and postgraduates, as it will help to clarify the issues raised by the authors in more detail. The appeal to the opponents is presented at the level of the collected information. Summing up the work, the author writes in the conclusions: "Given that national defense itself has the characteristics of "political, economic, diplomatic, cultural measures to prepare for the armed defense of the state, the integrity and inviolability of its territory," therefore, in national defense security we can include the use of armed violence." He further draws the following conclusions: "defense and security cooperation refers to formal or relatively informal interactions in the field of defense and security between two or more actors in the international community in order to protect their own interests, achieve common goals and mitigate mutual contradictions in the field of defense and security." To a certain extent, the article may be of interest to readers of the journal, both specialists and a wide range of readers interested in security issues in the current situation.
Second Peer Review
Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.
The subject of the peer-reviewed study is the conceptual differences in the views of Russian and Chinese scientists on the problems of national security and international cooperation. The author rightly associates the high relevance of his research with the policy of "turning to the East" implemented in Russia in recent years, which makes it necessary to bring together the positions of Russian and Chinese science, as well as political practice on these issues. Unfortunately, the author did not bother to properly reflect on the methodology of his own research. However, from the context it can be understood that in addition to the general scientific analytical methods traditional for this kind of research, the method of conceptual analysis, as well as elements of content and discourse analysis were used in the process of work. Without paying due attention to the argumentation of his methodological choice, the author nevertheless tried to describe the novelty of the results he obtained. Although it is impossible to agree with his description, with all the desire. The "broader view of the problem" cannot claim to be scientific novelty. Science is moving in the direction of increasing specialization, and a "broader view" usually means only blurring the subject. With all the consequences… Nor can a "comparative analysis of the various characteristics of a term" be innovative, if only because the terms are endowed with "different characteristics" by their authors, and not by those who compare these characteristics with each other. The introduction of a new term (if, of course, it reveals one or another aspect of reality) can claim scientific novelty; clarification of an existing term – too; comparison of the "different characteristics" of terms among themselves can only be a means, but not the purpose of research and, accordingly, cannot claim scientific novelty. Nevertheless, there is innovation in the peer-reviewed work, the author simply could not present it properly. First of all, we are talking about the author's explication of points of disagreement between Russian and Chinese scientists in determining the forms and content of ensuring national security and defense. In this context, we can talk about clarifying the terms "non-traditional security" and "cooperation in the field of defense and security." Finally, curious (though undeniable) The author reveals the skepticism of Russian scientists regarding cooperation in the international arena. From the point of view of the structure, the reviewed work is a complete study, the main aspects of which are logically represented in the text of the article. Despite some crumpling of the final part, as well as the lack of categorization, the logic of the work is quite consistent. The following sections can be conditionally distinguished in the text: - the introductory part, where the scientific problem is formulated, its relevance is argued, but, unfortunately, there is no theoretical and methodological reflection; - a comparative analysis of the views of Russian and Chinese scientists on the problem of national security; - a similar analysis of positions on international cooperation mentioned above; - the final part, where the main results of the conducted research are summarized. From the point of view of style, the work can be characterized as scientific, despite some errors. There is a certain amount of stylistic in the text (for example, "realization and rapprochement", for some reason, "gives meaning" in the first sentence, although only beings endowed with intelligence to one degree or another, but not social processes, can give meaning) and grammatical (for example, the absence of a comma in the sentence "By compared with the discrepancies in the definition of the term "security", there is much less disagreement ..."; or an unfinished sentence in the final part of the article: "The analysis carried out… we can include the use of armed violence;") errors. There are also logical errors in the argument. So, the argument from the "complexity of the definition of the term 'security'" looks rather strange, allegedly resulting in the emphasis of the academic community's attention on "non-traditional security"; although what is "non-traditional", by definition, means a more difficult thing to study than "traditional". But in general, the text is written quite competently, in a good scientific language, with correct (with some exceptions) use of scientific terminology. The bibliography includes 20 titles, including sources in foreign languages, and adequately represents the state of research on the subject of the article. The appeal to opponents runs like a red thread through the entire article due to the specifics of the comparative study itself. GENERAL CONCLUSION: the article proposed for review can be qualified as a scientific work that meets the basic requirements for works of this kind. The results obtained by the author correspond to the topic of the journal "World Politics" and will be of interest to political scientists, political sociologists, specialists in the field of public administration, national security, world politics and international relations, as well as to students of these specialties. According to the results of the review, some shortcomings were identified that need to be eliminated BEFORE the PUBLICATION of the ARTICLE: - in the introductory part, describe and argue the theoretical and methodological basis of the research; - think more carefully and clarify the scientific novelty of the results; - subtract the entire text for stylistic and grammatical errors; - finalize the final part. After eliminating the comments made, the article can be recommended for publication.
Link to this article
You can simply select and copy link from below text field.
|
|
