China's Quest in the South and East China Sea: The Struggle Between Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism

AutorAnia Llanos Antczak
CargoAnna Llanos-Antczak, PhD is an associated professor (professor extraordinary) and a vice-rector of the University of Economics and Human Sciences in Warsaw, Poland. She holds an MA in international relations as well as English formal linguistics from the University of Warsaw, a PhD in political science also from the University of Warsaw and...
Páginas4-16
4
Revista Mexicana de Análisis Político y Administración Pública, Universidad de Guanajuato, Volumen IX, número 1, enero-junio 2020
China’s Quest in the South and East China Sea: The Struggle Between
Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism
La misión de China en el Mar de China Meridional y Oriental: la lucha entre
realismo, liberalismo y constructivismo
Ania Llanos Antczak
Resumen
El tema de las disputas territoriales en Asia, en particular los argumentos del Mar de China Meridional y Oriental,
no es nada nuevo en la región. En estos días, la comunidad internacional ha seguido de cerca la situación porque
el desacuerdo en las discusiones ha provocado un gran retroceso en las relaciones bilaterales entre los disputantes,
así como en la estabilidad de la región. El objetivo principal de este artículo es analizar el problema desde tres
perspectivas teóricas: realismo, liberalismo y constructivismo y responder a la siguiente pregunta: ¿cuál de los
tres paradigmas proporciona las mejores herramientas teóricas para explicar las acciones asertivas de China
en el Mar de China Meridional y Oriental? Aunque todas las teorías conrtibuyen a comprender el problema, al
parecer el constructivismo, relacionado con la teoría de las metanarrativas, ofrece las mejores soluciones sin

Palabras clave: China, Mar de China Meridional, Mar de China Oriental, realismo, liberalismo, constructivismo
Abstract
The issue of territorial disputes in Asia, particularly the South and the East China Sea arguments is nothing new
in the region. Nowadays, the international community has closely watched the situation because the irresolution of
the disputes has caused a major backlash to the bilateral relationships among the disputants as well as the stability
       
realism, liberalism and constructivism and to answer the following question: which of the three paradigms provide
best theoretical tools to explain China’s quest in the South and East China Sea? Although all theories make important
points to help to understand the problem, it seems that constructivists, relating to the theory of metanarratives

Key words: China, South China Sea, East China Sea, Realism, Liberalism, Constructivism
Introduction
The issue of territorial disputes in Asia, particularly the South and the East China Sea (SCS and ECS) arguments is nothing
new in the region. Nowadays, the international community has closely watched the situation because the irresolution of
the disputes has caused a major backlash to the bilateral relationships among the disputants as well as the stability of the
region. Claimant countries like: China, Vietnam, Taiwan, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Japan are all trapped

      
“nine-dashed” line of China still doubts other disputants. However, China has denied any challenge upon their historical
         
of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) managed to push claimants to deal with the issue in the SCS by working on the
Code of Conduct (CoC) (Hiebert et al., 2013), the pace of the process is rather slow. The same is true with respect to
the political willingness of the main claimants like China. Thus, the main aim of this article is to look at the problem

which of the three paradigms provide best theoretical tools to explain China’s quest in the South and East China Sea?
Although all theories make important points to help to understand the problem, it seems that constructivists, relating to the

constructivist approach, it is possible to pose the following hypothesis: perception of the victimized identity led China to
be assertive in the South China Sea disputes. The hypothesis indicates that the authors are supposing that the constructivist
approach delivers best theoretical tolls to analyze and explain the chosen problem.
Revista Mexicana de Análisis Político y Administración Pública
Volumen IX, número 1, enero-junio 2020
Págs. 4-16
Recibido: 16 de abril de 2019
Aceptado: 18 de mayo de 2020

Para continuar leyendo

Solicita tu prueba

VLEX utiliza cookies de inicio de sesión para aportarte una mejor experiencia de navegación. Si haces click en 'Aceptar' o continúas navegando por esta web consideramos que aceptas nuestra política de cookies. ACEPTAR