Code of Conduct (BCoC), its adoption is still not in sight6. Equally, China and Vietnam agreed upon the establishment of political high-profile dialogue on the SCS7, albeit this success had already been preceded by several drawbacks8 in bilateral relations. Similarly, Beijing and Manila set up a biannual China-Philippines Bilateral Consultation Mechanism on the South China Sea (BCM) in May 2017. Despite such progress, security cooperation is still by far not keeping up with economic cooperation (Staack, 2016). Likewise, there are still no institutionalized, let alone multilateral and comprehensive, cooperative [17] security structures available that are capable of effectively addressing the omnipresent risk of conflict escalation.
Fifth, a substantial lack of consensus among the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), individual ASEAN Member States, the U.S., and China on the desired means and procedure of conflict resolution or conflict management prevails. The U.S. traditionally aims to play a leading role in the matter, several ASEAN states tend to advocate multilateral approaches to conflict management within a framework attended by all relevant parties (including the U.S.) or even compulsory legal arbitration and ASEAN as a regional organization is divided on this issue. The PRC, in turn, is taking a somewhat opposite point of view by strictly preferring to address its various disputes in the SCS in a bilateral manner, essentially by means of dialogue and negotiation with the individual state concerned. At the same time, it opposes any kind of internationalization of the issue in multilateral fora (e.g. the East Asia Summit), seeks to prevent a common position by ASEAN against China and Chinese claims, and widely rejects U.S. participation as well as the introduction of binding measures, sanctions and compulsory arbitration on questions of territorial sovereignty.
In total, these five dimensions mirror the polydimensional character of the SCS dispute, thereby accounting for the fact that, despite some short-term progress on one or two of these levels, the situation continues to be highly complex, intertwined, contested and fragile. Mutual provocations may recur at any time, ultimately capable of triggering policy measures resulting in further undesired and destabilizing political outcomes. Hence, effective and serious dispute management, let alone dispute resolution still remain a pipe dream.
Against this background, this book holds that traditional analytical variables such as security, power and economic objectives neither provide fully-fledged accounts of the increase in tensions in the SCS in the recent decade, nor comprehensively account for China’s modification of its SCS approach as of mid-2012, nor represent a promising and sufficient point of departure with respect to sustainable SCS dispute management in general. Therefore, it is argued, special emphasis should be placed on alternate cognitive variables, the significance and role of respect dynamics in particular. In this vein, it is contended that alleviation of tensions and consolidation of cooperative efforts in the SCS would only be viable if stakeholders involved were to take into closer consideration each other’s respect expectations and related needs9 and, simultaneously, do not perceive their very own respect [18] needs and motives to be violated. While such respect-sensitive diplomacy may help to avoid the arousal of disrespect experiences and steadily reduce gaps in recognition and perception, a lack of respect sensitivity is anticipated to generate policy preferences and ultimately suboptimal policy responses impeding cooperation and stability in the SCS.
In so doing, a special focus is placed on the People’s Republic of China and its SCS policy. This case study is selected as China represents the primary and most influential claimant party to the dispute and is crucial for the future course of the dispute. Its collective respect expectations and disrespect experiences are assumed to essentially shape its policy preference formation and decision-making processes, thereby directly and particularly determining the future of the SCS in the decades to come. Essentially, the future of the SCS dispute is inextricably linked to the future position assumed by the PRC. Accordingly, the project’s research question reads as follows: ‘Are respect dynamics playing a substantial role in China’s approach toward the South China Sea dispute? To what extent is the perception of due respect (or disrespect) – as reflected in external behavior – shaping Chinese foreign policy preferences pertaining to the SCS?’ That said, in order to operationalize Chinese respect dynamics, elite discourses by leading Chinese foreign policy think tanks (FPTTs) between 2010 and 2016 are subject to scrutiny10. Three hypotheses guide the analysis and ultimately structure the discussion of the research question. In Hypothesis I, discursive manifestations of Chinese self-perceived status in Southeast Asia (and beyond) and national identity conceptions are examined in order to determine as to whether these correspond to China’s SCS policy and to qualify whether or not they have been subject to change over time (2007–201611). Hypothesis II seeks to identify respect and disrespect experiences on the Chinese side and critically reflects upon respect expectations manifested in expert discourses on the SCS between 2010 and 2016. This identification process is conducted by means of a fixed set of clearly defined indicators. Hypothesis III then traces and subsequently qualifies policy recommendations provided and policy measures and attitudes advocated by Chinese FPTT scholars relating to Beijing’s stance on the SCS dispute. In so doing, it is established as to whether or not patterns of a causal link between respect dynamics, on the one hand, and a specific degree of cooperation [19] suggested by FPTT scholars can be observed. This serves the purpose of determining whether disrespect collectively experienced on the Chinese side can account for the shift in Beijing’s SCS policy from restraint, low profile, stability and cooperation toward a much bolder, proactive and assertive approach that has been occurring in recent years. At the same time, implications of a potentially widening gap between Chinese self-evaluated status and identity conceptions and the extent to which these are actually viewed as adequately recognized by other SCS stakeholders on the type of policy recommendations put forward are subject to investigation as well. Moreover, the scope of critical reflection of Beijing’s conduct, on the one hand, and sensitivity and consideration pertaining to external countries’ needs and concerns (empathy), on the other hand, that is manifested in such elite discourses is scrutinized. In so doing, aforementioned deliberations and hypotheses are systematically applied to two sub-case studies, namely Chinese elite discourses on U.S. conduct in the SCS (sub-case I) and Philippine conduct in the SCS (sub-case II), respectively. Taken together, the sub-cases embody the case study design of this research.
In a nutshell, the book is structured as follows. The first chapter sketches the research interests and relevance underlying this project. Consecutively, the theoretical chapter (2) first and foremost outlines this project’s conceptualization of respect as an analytical variable of international relations theory and foreign policy analysis. In addition, it elaborates on the traditional role of respect, face and face-work in Chinese culture. Furthermore, it sets out the hypotheses and their respective links to the conceptual framework and discusses several issues of theoretical operationalization. Ultimately, the special relevance of Chinese think tanks as research subjects is elaborated upon. Chapter three provides for a brief introduction into the SCS dispute, its historical background and conflicting claims therein. Subsequently, chapter four represents the very heart of the analysis, namely the actual theory-guided examination using qualitative content analysis (QCA)12, including a detailed discussion of the hypotheses. In addition, the empirical results are streamlined and a detailed response to the research question is provided, including a critical assessment of likely limitations of the outcomes’ explanatory power. Thereafter, chapter five reflects on a set of empirical and theoretical implications that can be derived from this project’s findings and, further, puts forwards several recommendations with regard to the future of the SCS conflict and the role of respect dynamics in such conflicts at large. Finally, chapter six contains several concluding remarks while presenting a number of proposals for future research and discussion.
[20] 1. Research Interest and Relevance
“Beyond official doctrine and recent behavior, therefore, we must look deeper to understand the texture and complexity of Chinese national security thinking” (Steinberg & O’Hanlon, 2014, p. 31).
The focal point and superordinate case study of this book are Chinese elite discourses pertaining to
