China and the International System in the Context of the Great Changes Unseen in a Century

How should we explain and understand the “great changes unseen in a century”? One important perspective [considers] how China defines itself [in the context of] China’s relationship with the international system. We often describe the 40 years of Reform and Opening as the process of China’s integration into the international system. Over these years, Western academic and policy circles have constantly debated whether China is a revisionist power or a status-quo power in relation to this international system.

如何理解和认识“百年未有之大变局”？一个重要的视角是中国自身的定位，中国与国际体系的关系。我们常说，改革开放40年是中国融入国际体系的过程，西方学界和政策界这些年来也一直在辩论，中国相对于国际体系是一个修正主义国家还是一个维持现状国家？

China and China’s rise are variables with important systemic relevance to the changes unseen in a century. What exactly does the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” that we propose to realize actually entail [for the international system]? Perhaps neither the terms “revisionist power” or “status quo power” can accurately describe China’s position in the international system; perhaps we may say that we are a nation that seeks a fair and befitting position in the evolving international system.⁴

百年变局中一个具有重要体系意义的变量就是中国，中国的崛起。我们提出要实现中华民族的伟大复兴，究竟意味着什么？修正主义国家或者维持现状国家也许都不能准确描述中国在国际体系中的定位，也许可以说我们是在演进的国际体系中谋求正当地位的国家。

Below [I] undertake a simple analysis [of this issue] from three dimensions: the system, institutions, and norms.

以下从体系、制度和规范三个维度进行简要分析。

One: Systemic Order

1.体系秩序  

How can we understand the evolving international system? In the expression “the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation,” what is the system that present-day rejuvenation aims to achieve? To a large degree, this should be a reformed system that matches the altered structure of international power. It should be a more representative international system in the manner it defines rules and allocates benefits. [China’s] process of rejuvenation is the process of seeking a fair and befitting position in a reforming international system; it represents a new type of interaction between China and this evolving international system, a process in which the two are simultaneously changing and co-evolving. China is both an important driving force in stimulating the evolution of the international system, and is also a constituent part of the international system that is continuously adjusting itself as the system evolves.  Therefore, perhaps [words like] “integration,” “revisionist,” and “maintenance [of the status-quo]” cannot be used to accurately describe China’s relationship with the international system against the backdrop of “great changes unseen in a century.”

如何理解演进中的国际体系？在“实现中华民族伟大复兴”的话语中，复兴于兹的体系是什么体系？在很大程度上，这应该是一个改良的体系，与变化的国际实力结构相匹配、在界定性规则和利益分配方面更具代表性的国际体系。复兴的过程是在改良的国际体系中谋求正当地位的过程，代表着中国与演进中的国际体系间一种新型的互动方式，是二者同时变化、共同演进的过程。中国既是促进国际体系演进的重要推动力量，本身也是国际体系的组成部分，随着体系演变不断进行自我调整。因此，融入、修正或维持现状也许都不能准确描述百年变局下中国与国际体系的关系。

Integrating into the system and maintaining the status quo are primarily a passive process, a process of learning, internalizing and being accepted, a process in which the West teaches and we learn. Revisionism means that there are changes to the existing system. On the one hand, over the past forty years the large scale and rapid growth China has achieved within the international system is unprecedented in the history of mankind, and therefore [we] should not have the strategic goal or intention to fundamentally change the international system; on the other hand, from [the PRC] legally recovering its seat at the United Nations in the early 1970s to the aftermath of the global financial crisis in 2008,⁵ China’s historic advance towards the center of the world stage already represents a major change in the relationship between China and the international system.

融入体系和维持现状主要是被动的进步过程，是学习、内化和被接受的过程，是西方教、我们学的过程。修正则意味着改变现有体系。一方面，过去40年来中国在国际体系中实现了人类历史上前所未有的大规模高速增长，因此应该不具有从根本上改变现有国际体系的战略目标或意图;另一方面，从20世纪70年代初恢复联合国合法席位到2008年国际金融危机之后历史性地走近世界舞台的中央，中国与国际体系的关系已经发生了重大变化。

In recent years, following the collective rise of emerging nations and the accelerating development of globalization, the academic international relations community increasingly prioritizes research on theories of relations among non-Western countries. An important component of this research is discussing international relations in the context of different eras, places and social cultures. Based on the historical experience of China and Greater East Asia, scholars have conducted research on the “Tianxia” system, the system of Great Unity under the Qin Empire, the hierarchical East Asian system with China at its center, an international system based on relationalism, and so on.⁶

近年来，随着新兴国家的群体性崛起和全球化的加速发展，国际关系学界也日益重视对非西方国家关系理论的研究。其中很重要的一部分，就是讨论不同时空和社会文化背景下的国际体系。基于中国和大东亚地区的历史经验，学者们研究过天下体系、秦大一统体系、以中国为中心的东亚等级体系、关系主义国际体系等等。

These systems are all different from the modern Westphalian international system. That is to say, the modern Westphalian system that arose from the lived experience of Europe is, in fact, a secondary system that contains internalized regional characteristics; it expanded along with the global expansion of European power and does not possess any claim to natural universality.

这些体系都不同于现代威斯特伐利亚国际体系。也就是说，从欧洲实践中产生的现代威斯特伐利亚体系，实际上也是一个次级体系，具有内在的地方特性，是随着欧洲力量的全球扩张而扩张的，并不具备天然的普适性。

From the post-World War II regional order in East Asia, one can also see why Asia does not have its own version of NATO: this is an issue of mutual recognition [and aceptance]. The American liberal hegemonic order has in fact not completely taken root in the context of the culture of East Asian societies. As the international balance of power changes, it is inevitable that the international order and international system will evolve. In this process, is it possible for great powers to strike a “grand bargain,” accommodate each other’s core concerns, ⁶ improve the order of the system, and bring their interests into balance? These phenomena may first appear in regional and secondary systems of international relations.

从二战后的东亚地区秩序也可以看出，为什么亚洲没有“北约”，这是一个双向认同问题。美国的自由霸权秩序在东亚的社会文化情境中实际上并没有完全落实下来。随着国际力量对比的变化，国际秩序和国际体系的演变是必然的，在这个过程中，是否有可能在大国之间进行“大议价”(grand bargain)，照顾彼此核心关切，改良体系秩序，实现利益平衡？这个有可能首先出现在地区和次级国际体系中。

Two: International institutions

2.国际制度 

From an institutional perspective, China’s experience in shaping and leading international institutions has occurred primarily in its neighboring region and Greater East Asia. This region’s approach to institutions has its own distinctive characteristics and [has] successful experience in constructing institutions.

从制度上看，中国塑造和引领国际制度的实践主要出现在周边和大东亚地区，该地区有其独特的制度主义特点，也有制度建设的成功实践。

The East Asian approach to institutions is a sort of soft institutionalism possessed with a strong sense of pragmatism; the extent of institutionalization is relatively limited and there exists a relatively greater tension between nation-states and international institutions. The process of Asian integration that has occurred over the past 20 years, with ASEAN as the central institution and the minimally institutionalized “ASEAN Way” as the basic norm, has not only preserved regional stability and peace, but also promoted cooperation and development, injecting great vitality into the region.⁷

东亚制度主义是软性制度主义，具有很强的务实性，制度化程度相对较低，在民族国家与国际制度之间存在相对较大的张力。过去20多年来的东亚一体化进程，以东盟为制度中心，以最小制度化的“东盟方式”为基本规范，不仅维护了地区稳定与和平，还推动了地区合作与发展，充满活力。

China is a participant in, defender of, and contributor to the institutional process in East Asia. Through regional institutional cooperation, the region collectively shared in growth and China successfully realized its rise as a great power in parallel with the process of regional integration.

中国是东亚地区制度进程的参与者、维护者和贡献者，通过地区制度合作分享增长，实现了大国崛起与地区一体化进程的并行发展。

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) that China proposed and established is now recognized in academic and policy spheres alike as a successful case study in creating a [new] international institution. Why was the AIIB able to obtain international recognition within a short period of time? As a China-led and established international institution, the reality of AIIB’s rapid development is a result of the interaction and co-evolution of China and the international system; it is the result of bargaining and mutually coordinated adaptation. The proposal to establish the AIIB was initiated by China, primarily because the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank and other existing international institutions were unable to cater to the demand for infrastructure development, and also because the reform of international institutions lagged behind [the new configuration of global power] and China was unable to play a role commensurate with its power.

中国倡议成立的亚洲基础设施投资银行，成为学界和政策界公认的国际制度创设的成功案例。为什么它能够在短期内获得国际认可？作为中国倡议建立的国际制度，实际上亚投行的快速发展是中国与国际体系互动并实现共同演进的结果，是议价和相互协调适应的结果。成立亚投行的倡议是中国发起的，主要是因为世界银行和亚洲开发银行等现有国际制度无法满足基础设施建设需要，而且国际制度改革滞后，中国无法发挥与其力量相匹配的作用。从最初的设想到正式提出倡议，再到最终成立，亚投行经历了很长时间的曲折过程。

From its earliest conception, to the formal proposal [stage] and then to its ultimate establishment, the AIIB has traveled a long and complicated course. At the beginning, China put forward some proposals and tentative plans that stirred up significant controversy. But the Chinese side swiftly made adjustments, drew on the successful practices of relevant and already existing international institutions, accepted some of the suggestions on institution building from the existing development banks, and quickly established cooperative partnerships with the World Bank, Asian Development Bank and others. Thus, the entire process of AIIB’s development was a process involving the mutual adaptation of rules, interests and status. China ensured the long-term achievement of its strategic goals through flexible and pragmatic adjustments to its strategy and tactics. This strategic goal is to shape the [international] system through the establishment of rules and institutions and, at the same time, to seek a fair and befitting position within the system.

最初中方提出的有些议案和设想也引起过不小的争议。但是，中方迅速进行了调整，借鉴了现有相关国际制度的成功实践，接纳了现有开发银行的一些制度建设提案，并很快与世界银行和亚开行等建立了合作伙伴关系。所以，整个发展过程是规则、利益和身份的相互调适过程。中方通过灵活务实的策略和战术调整，保证了长远战略目标的实现。这个战略目标就是通过规则和制度建设塑造体系，并同时谋求在体系中的正当位置。