Beijing’s Quest for Stability in its Neighborhood: China’s Relations with Russia in Central Asia

Odgaard, Liselotte

doi:10.1080/14799855.2017.1287697

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But additional causes of increasing China-Russia cooperation have also been put forward. These include shared illiberal regime types and common preferences regarding norms of sovereignty and human rights (Menon 2009;Rozman 2014;Lukin 2015;Cox 2016;Charap et al 2017), compatible political models and national identities (Kerr 2005;Ferdinand 2007;Kuchins 2007;Rozman 2014;Trenin 2012;Wishnick 2017), mutual concerns about ethnic separatism (Kerr 2005;Lo 2008;Weitz 2012;Odgaard 2017), prospective gains from economic cooperation (Kerr 2005;Wilson 2004;Swanström 2014;Lukin 2015;Trenin 2012;Gabuev 2016;Charap et al 2017), and personal affinity among national leaders (Ferdinand 2007;Lo 2008;Gabuev 2016).…”

Section: Scholarship On China-russia Relations and The Necessity Of Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Theories allow observers to simplify an infinitely complex reality that could not otherwise be understood (Geddes 2003, 5, 20, 32, 3 Merely referring to theory explicitly is obviously no panacea-it must be done in a way that carefully specifies causal mechanisms and observable implications of competing theories, so that their hypotheses can be appraised against the empirical record. Although there have been a handful of works that advance explanations of post-Cold War China-Russia cooperation that draw explicitly on IR theory (Kerr 2005;Ferdinand 2007;Li 2007;Odgaard 2017;Wishnick 2017), these attempts share the shortcomings of the atheoretical literature, as discussed in detail below. 4 This claim is axiomatic in the philosophy of science literature.…”

Section: Scholarship On China-russia Relations and The Necessity Of Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This definition contrasts with the domestic-level liberalism introduced byMoravcsik (1997), which excludes international institutions while including elements of national identity that are categorized here under constructivism.15 LiselotteOdgaard (2017) draws on the "English School" (a close cousin of systemic liberalism) to explain that China and Russia have created institutional structures in order to advance "their common interest in peace and security" (54), particularly in Central Asia. Yet since conflict is costly, such interests presumably apply to all states at all times, and cannot explain the change in the degree of bilateral institutionalization over time.16 For example, PeterFerdinand (2007, 850) argues that improvements in China-Russia relations are due to "new efforts to view their foreign policies through the lens of constructivism, rather than realism," and correspondingly, to "construct a thicker relationship, one that rests on a broader understanding of national interests…and the way they can be pursued."…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Theoretical rigor and the study of contemporary cases: explaining post-cold war China–Russia relations

Yoder

2020

Int Polit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been widely noted that China and Russia have grown progressively closer over the last two decades. Although the scholarly literature has offered detailed descriptions and various ad hoc explanations of this trend, the Sino-Russian bilateral relationship has been the subject of very little scrutiny using rigorous theory, which has obstructed hypothesis formation and evaluation. Moreover, the cooperative post-Cold War trend in the bilateral relationship seems puzzling for baseline versions of each of the major paradigms of international relations theory: realism, constructivism and liberalism. For realists, China's rising power, coupled with its geographic proximity and longstanding border disputes with Russia, made it a present and growing threat to Russian security at the end of the Cold War. Why did China's rise not incur balancing from Russia and increasing bilateral hostility, rather than reconciliation? For constructivists, the stark differences in political ideologies and national cultures, as well as a long history of antagonism, presaged continued post-Cold War animosity. How have these historical animosities and ideological rifts been mitigated or overcome? Finally, both countries were increasingly integrated into the US-led international order immediately following the Cold War, with relatively low interdependence in their bilateral relationship. From a liberal perspective, why did this not prompt the two countries to improve political relations with the West while holding each other at arm's length? The papers in this special issue develop and apply nuanced theoretical arguments to derive testable hypotheses for the cooperative trend in China-Russia relations. In contrast to existing scholarship, these papers offer generalizable insights that both improve our understanding of a crucially important contemporary case, while also advancing IR theory in substantial ways.

show abstract

Section: Scholarship On China-russia Relations and The Necessity Of Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Scholarship On China-russia Relations and The Necessity Of Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Theoretical rigor and the study of contemporary cases: explaining post-cold war China–Russia relations

Yoder

2020

Int Polit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Locatelli, Abbas, andRossiaud 2017, Silvius 2018) as well as competition and cooperation in adjacent regions (e.g. Odgaard 2017). Scholars drew from the IR theory repertoire, reaching out to realist (Korolev 2016, Krickovic 2017, constructivist (Wishnick 2017) and domestic-level explanations (Wilson 2018) in order to determine the causes and implications of closer ties between Moscow and Beijing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Sino-Russian Relationship: Fellow Travellers in the West-dominated World

Kaczmarski

2018

The China Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A decade ago, Beijing's relations with Moscow were of marginal interest to China scholars. Topics such as growing Sino-American interdependence-cum-rivalry, engagement with East Asia or relations with the developing world overshadowed China's relationship with its northern neighbour. Scholars preoccupied with Russia's foreign policy did not pay much attention either, regarding the Kremlin's policy towards China as part and parcel of Russia's grand strategy directed towards the West. The main dividing line among those few who took a closer look ran between sceptics and alarmists. The former interpreted the post-Cold War rapprochement as superficial and envisioned an imminent clash of interests between the two states. The latter, a minority, saw the prospect of an anti-Western alliance.

show abstract

“…There are many scholarly and expert publications that analyze the general characteristics of Russia–China relations in Central Asia (Freeman, 2018; Lukin, 2019; Na-Xi et al, 2019; Odgaars, 2017; Samokhvalov, 2018). There are far fewer works that consider the stances of Central Asian actors (Kirkham, 2016; Laruelle & Peyrouse, 2012; Lee, 2016; Peyrouse, 2016; Syroyezhkin, 2015; Zhengyuan, 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Between Russia and China: Central Asia in Greater Eurasia

Казанцев

Медведева

Safranchuk

2021

Journal of Eurasian Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Central Asian states are usually considered as passive elements rather than active agents of integration in Greater Eurasia. This article considers the role of these states as active agents shaping integration processes according to their own interests and perspectives. All Central Asian states conduct so-called “multivector” foreign policies balancing relations with the key great powers (Russia, China, and “collective West”) as well as with Middle Eastern and South Asian nations. From their point of view, the ideal formula for Greater Eurasia should include the entire continent. However, the current geopolitical situation in the world turns integration of Central Asian nations with Russia and China into the only available option. Political and military integration with Russia within the CSTO as well as economic integration with Russia within the Eurasian Economic Union are key elements of this. The SCO is also very important as the key structure shaping regional security system. The general framework for the construction of Greater Eurasia including Russia, China, and Central Asian nations in the economic sphere is mostly connected to the Chinese “Belt and Road” initiative and to the agreement on cooperation between this initiative and the Eurasian Economic Union. However, between Central Asian nations, on one hand, and Moscow and Beijing, on the other hand, there are still many practical issues that must be solved to push integration forward, and currently there are no indicators that these issues would be solved in the near future.

show abstract

Beijing’s Quest for Stability in its Neighborhood: China’s Relations with Russia in Central Asia

Cited by 13 publications

References 0 publications

Theoretical rigor and the study of contemporary cases: explaining post-cold war China–Russia relations

Theoretical rigor and the study of contemporary cases: explaining post-cold war China–Russia relations

The Sino-Russian Relationship: Fellow Travellers in the West-dominated World

Between Russia and China: Central Asia in Greater Eurasia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About