Η συζήτηση γύρω από την Παλαιστίνη έχει βαθιές ιστορικές ρίζες, που χρονολογούνται από την άφιξη του πρώτου εβραίου εποίκου το 1881 (Μασάλα, 2012, σ. 43). Όταν το Ισραήλ διαμόρφωσε τον εαυτό του ως κράτος στην παλαιστινιακή γη το 1948, προκαλώντας σημαντική καταστροφή και βλάβη στον αυτόχθονο παλαιστινιακό λαό (Χόλμαν, 2023), ποικίλες απόψεις ανέκυψαν. Υπήρξαν έντονες συζητήσεις μεταξύ αυτών που υποστηρίζουν ότι η Νακμπά του 1948 θα έπρεπε να χαρακτηριστεί ως γενοκτονία (π.χ. Σο), ενώ άλλοι υποστηρίζουν ότι δεν πληροί τις παραμέτρους για να οριστεί ως τέτοια (π.χ. Αυρόν, 2013). Τα γεγονότα της 7ης Οκτωβρίου 2023, όπου οι ενέργειες των Παλαιστινίων προκάλεσαν μια υψηλή κύμα βίας από το Ισραήλ (Σαλχάνι, 2023), έχουν προκαλέσει διεθνή εξέταση. Ενώ πολλοί θεωρούν τα επίπεδα βίας και καταστροφής που επιβάλλονται στην Παλαιστίνη ως γενοκτονικά (Αντέλ και Γκάλαχερ, 2023), οι συζητήσεις παραμένουν, καθώς κάποιοι αμφισβητούν την εγκυρότητα τέτοιων καταγγελιών (Πόλαρντ, 2024).
Σε αυτό το δοκίμιο, ισχυρίζομαι ότι η μεταχείριση του Ισραήλ έναντι των Παλαιστινίων γενικά πληροί τις προϋποθέσεις για να χαρακτηριστεί ως γενοκτονία, υπερβαίνοντας εισερχόμενα περιστατικά όπως η Νακμπά ή τα γεγονότα μετά την 7η Οκτωβρίου. Για να αναλύσω τις πολυδιάστατες πτυχές, πρώτα βασίζομαι σε αναλύσεις από ειδικούς όπως ο Αυρόν (2013), ο Παπέ (2006) και ο Σο (2010) για να εξετάσω διαφορετικές απόψεις μεταξύ αυτών που δεν θεωρούν τη Νακμπά ως γενοκτονία και αυτών που το κάνουν. Επιπλέον, εξετάζω τις λεπτομέρειες ανάμεσα στο ‘εθνοκάθαρση’ και τη γενοκτονία, και μελετώ το σημαντικό έργο του Ραφαέλ Λέμκιν (1944) σχετικά με την εννοιολογία της γενοκτονίας ως μια μορφή καταστροφής με κοινωνικές και πολιτιστικές πτυχές στο επίκεντρό της. Με αυτόν τον ευρύτερο ορισμό, σκοπεύω να επισημάνω τη συνέχεια της γενοκτονίας που έχουν βιώσει οι Παλαιστίνιοι κατά τις δεκαετίες.
Περισσότερες πληροφορίες: https://www.e-ir.info/2024/07/01/destruction-colonialism-and-capital-genocidal-perspectives-on-palestine/
Building on this material-led perspective, Wallerstein’s world-systems theory provides a framework for understanding the development of the international system as a whole. Within this theory, states are seen as actors within a larger system of economic and political relations, where core states dominate over peripheral states. Wallerstein argues that the international system is shaped by the structural inequalities between core and peripheral states, which leads to the perpetuation of the existing power dynamics. In this context, sovereignty can be seen as a tool used by core states to maintain their dominance over peripheral states, allowing them to assert their authority and control over their territories and populations.
By combining Krasner’s theory of organized hypocrisy with Wallerstein’s world-systems theory, a more comprehensive understanding of sovereignty emerges. Sovereignty is not just a norm or an idea, but a strategic tool used by states to protect and advance their own interests within the international system. This perspective shifts the focus from the ideational aspects of sovereignty to the material realities that underpin state behavior, providing a more nuanced view of how states navigate the complexities of the international system.
China’s Discourse on Sovereignty
Applying this theoretical framework to China’s discourse on sovereignty reveals a complex interplay between ideational and material factors. On the one hand, China’s emphasis on sovereignty in its communication with other states can be seen as a strategic move to assert its authority and protect its interests in the international arena. By framing its actions in terms of sovereignty, China seeks to legitimize its policies and actions, while also signaling to other states that it will not tolerate interference in its internal affairs.
At the same time, China’s discourse on sovereignty is also influenced by its historical experience as a peripheral state within the global system. As a country that has faced colonization and foreign intervention in the past, China’s emphasis on sovereignty can be seen as a response to its historical vulnerabilities and a means of asserting its independence and autonomy. In this sense, China’s discourse on sovereignty is shaped not only by strategic considerations, but also by its historical experience and identity as a nation.
Furthermore, China’s approach to sovereignty reflects its position as a rising power within the international system. As China’s influence and power grow, its discourse on sovereignty becomes increasingly important in shaping the norms and rules of the international order. By emphasizing sovereignty in its interactions with other states, China is seeking to establish itself as a key player in the international arena, while also challenging the dominance of Western powers in shaping the global system.
Conclusion: Reconsidering Core IR Concepts in a Changing World Order
The case of China offers a valuable insight into the complexities of sovereignty in the contemporary international system. By examining China’s discourse on sovereignty through a combination of material-led and ideational perspectives, we can gain a deeper understanding of how states navigate the complexities of the international system and assert their authority in an increasingly interconnected world.
Moreover, China’s embrace of the concept of sovereignty challenges the Eurocentric assumptions that underpin many core IR theories and concepts. By highlighting the agency and influence of non-Western countries in shaping the international order, China’s discourse on sovereignty prompts us to reconsider the traditional dichotomies that have long dominated the field of international relations.
In conclusion, the case of China underscores the need for a more nuanced and inclusive approach to the study of sovereignty and other core IR concepts. By exploring the interplay between ideational and material factors, and by engaging with the perspectives of non-Western countries, we can gain a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of the international system and the role of sovereignty within it. As we navigate the complexities of a changing world order, it is essential that we continue to challenge and re-evaluate our assumptions about the nature of sovereignty and the international system as a whole.
This development has led to concerns about the potential loss of sovereignty for Sri Lanka as China gains significant control over a vital piece of infrastructure. Additionally, the BRI projects in Africa have been criticized for lacking transparency and accountability, potentially leading to debt-trap diplomacy and compromising the sovereignty of the recipient countries (Chen, 2019). These examples illustrate how Chinese investments through the BRI can challenge the sovereignty of recipient states by exerting influence and control over key infrastructure and resources.
Furthermore, China’s actions in Hong Kong and Xinjiang demonstrate a willingness to prioritize its interpretation of sovereignty over international norms and human rights. The crackdown on pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong and the mass detention of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang have been widely condemned by the international community for violating human rights principles. However, China justifies its actions as necessary to maintain stability and preserve its territorial integrity. This stance reflects China’s prioritization of sovereignty over other considerations, such as human rights and international law.
Overall, the Chinese discourse on sovereignty emphasizes non-interference and territorial integrity, while its practices, particularly through the BRI and actions in Hong Kong and Xinjiang, demonstrate a willingness to prioritize its interpretation of sovereignty over international norms and human rights. This contradiction highlights the complex nature of sovereignty in the context of global power dynamics and raises questions about the extent to which states are willing to adhere to international norms when they conflict with their self-interests.
Explaining the Contradiction: Organized Hypocrisy and World-Systems Theory
The contradiction between the acceptance of sovereignty as an international norm and its disregard in practice can be explained through a combination of Krasner’s concept of organized hypocrisy and Wallerstein’s world-systems theory. Krasner’s notion of organized hypocrisy posits that states adhere to the principle of sovereignty in rhetoric but frequently violate it in practice when it serves their self-interests. This concept aligns with China’s discourse on sovereignty, where it emphasizes non-interference and territorial integrity while engaging in actions that challenge the sovereignty of other states, such as through the BRI and its actions in Hong Kong and Xinjiang.
Wallerstein’s world-systems theory offers a structural explanation for this contradiction by highlighting the role of core-periphery relations in shaping state behavior. In the global capitalist system, core countries, such as China, seek to expand their influence and control over peripheral states to maintain their economic dominance. This expansion often involves infringing on the sovereignty of recipient states through investments, infrastructure projects, and political interventions. From this perspective, China’s actions can be seen as a manifestation of its position as a core country seeking to assert its power and influence over peripheral states to secure its economic interests.
By combining Krasner’s concept of organized hypocrisy with Wallerstein’s world-systems theory, we can gain a deeper understanding of the contradiction between the acceptance of sovereignty as an international norm and its disregard in practice. This analysis sheds light on the complex interplay between state interests, global power dynamics, and structural inequalities in shaping state behavior and attitudes towards sovereignty.
In conclusion, the analysis of China’s shifting discourse on and practices of sovereignty offers valuable insights into the complexities of state behavior in the international system. By examining the interplay between rhetoric and actions, as well as the structural factors that shape state behavior, we can better understand the contradictions and challenges inherent in the concept of sovereignty. Moving forward, it is essential to continue exploring these dynamics to develop a more nuanced understanding of state behavior in the context of global power dynamics and structural inequalities. (2018). China’s Malleable Sovereignty along the Belt and Road Initiative: The Case of the 99-Year Chinese Lease of Hambantota Port. NYUJ Int’l L. & Pol., 51, 1061-1099.
Gelpern, A., Gulati, M., & Panizza, U. (2022). China’s Lending Contracts: A Systematic Examination. World Bank Economic Review, lbac013.
Krasner, S. D. (1999). Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton University Press.
Zhang, Z. (2017). China’s Development Model: An Alternative to the Washington Consensus. Routledge.
In recent years, scholars and analysts have been closely examining China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its implications for global politics and economics. One aspect of this examination focuses on the concept of sovereignty and how China’s actions within the BRI may challenge traditional notions of state sovereignty.
Carrai (2018) highlights the case of the 99-year Chinese lease of Hambantota Port in Sri Lanka as an example of China’s malleable sovereignty along the BRI. This concession potentially allows China to exert influence over Sri Lanka’s foreign and domestic policies, raising concerns about the implications of such agreements on state sovereignty. Similarly, a study of Chinese lending contracts with foreign governments found clauses that could potentially give China leverage to influence debtors’ policies (Gelpern, et. al, 2022).
These examples point to a divergence between Chinese practices and the rhetoric of offering an alternative model to the Western order. Despite claims of respecting sovereignty, China’s actions in the BRI mirror historical strategies employed by Western nations, particularly in navigating norms of sovereignty. Carrai (2018) argues that China’s understanding of sovereignty is malleable and adaptable to accommodate its evolving interests.
From a world-systems perspective, Zhang (2017) suggests that China’s pursuit of the BRI and its expansion into other geographical areas are driven by a need to sustain capital accumulation in the face of decreasing returns. This economic imperative motivates China to cultivate relationships with peripheral countries based on power disparities, aiming to secure continued economic expansion. The power differentials inherent in these relationships sustain the wealth of core countries while limiting economic development in peripheral nations.
The concept of ‘organized hypocrisy’ emerges from this analysis, suggesting that China’s discourse on sovereignty and its actions within the BRI may be strategically aligned to further its economic interests. By framing its approach as a counter model to the Western order, China legitimizes its actions on the global stage. This strategic use of discourse and practice reveals a pursuit of economic interests rather than an inconsistency between rhetoric and actions.
In re-evaluating sovereignty through the lens of world-systems theory, this analysis challenges traditional narratives around state sovereignty and its application in international relations. It highlights the strategic nature of sovereignty as a tool for advancing state interests, rather than a static norm to be adhered to. By understanding sovereignty in this context, we can better grasp the motivations behind China’s actions in the BRI and their implications for the global order.
As China continues to shape international relations, it is essential to deepen our understanding of its practices and the discourses that underpin them. By critically examining the relationship between sovereignty, economic interests, and global power dynamics, we can gain insights into the evolving landscape of international politics and the role of major players like China. Το βιβλίο “Sovereignty in China: A Genealogy of a Concept since 1840” που εκδόθηκε από το Cambridge University Press το 2019 αποτελεί μια σημαντική συνεισφορά στον τομέα της κυριαρχίας και των διεθνών σχέσεων. Η έννοια της κυριαρχίας έχει πολύπλευρη σημασία στην κινέζικη πολιτική και ιστορία, και το βιβλίο αναλύει την εξέλιξη της έννοιας από το 1840 και μετά.
Οι συγγραφείς Coe και Maogoto στο άρθρο τους του 2015 σχετικά με τα καθεστώτα κυριαρχίας και τον κανόνα της μη παρέμβασης στην Παγκόσμια Νότια περιοχή υπογραμμίζουν την περιφερειακή και χρονική ποικιλία στο θέμα αυτό. Επιπλέον, η μελέτη του Deng το 2010 αναδεικνύει τη μετάβαση από την “Κυριαρχία ως Ευθύνη” στη “Ευθύνη για την Προστασία”. Αυτές οι έρευνες προσφέρουν σημαντικές προοπτικές για την κατανόηση της σχέσης μεταξύ κυριαρχίας και διεθνούς πολιτικής.
Ο Coleman και ο Maogoto στο άρθρο τους το 2013 εξετάζουν την αλληλεπίδραση μεταξύ της “Δυτικής” και της “Ανατολικής” κυριαρχίας και τη θέση της Κίνας σε έναν παγκοσμιοποιημένο κόσμο. Επίσης, οι ερευνητές Gelpern, Horn, Morris, Parks και Trebesch το 2022 δίνουν μια σπάνια ματιά σε 100 συμβάσεις χρέους της Κίνας με ξένες κυβερνήσεις, αναδεικνύοντας τον τρόπο που η Κίνα δανείζει τα χρήματά της και τον ρόλο της στην παγκόσμια οικονομία.
Η μελέτη του Hobson το 2009 αναδεικνύει την ανατολική προέλευση της κυριαρχίας, ενώ η έρευνα του Kayaoglu το 2010 εστιάζει στον δυτικοκεντρισμό στη θεωρία των διεθνών σχέσεων. Το βιβλίο του Krasner το 1999 με τον τίτλο “Κυριαρχία: Οργανωμένη Υποκρισία” προσφέρει μια πρωτότυπη προσέγγιση στο θέμα της κυριαρχίας.
Η έρευνα του Lams το 2018 εξετάζει τις στρατηγικές αφηγήσεις στον επίσημο λόγο της Κίνας κάτω από τον Σι Τζινπίνγκ, ενώ ο Marsonet το 2017 αναλύει την εθνική κυριαρχία έναντι της παγκοσμιοποίησης. Ο Meessen το 2019 εξετάζει τη σχέση μεταξύ της συμβατότητας του ΔΝΤ και της κρατικής κυριαρχίας.
Οι εν λόγω έρευνες και δημοσιεύσεις παρέχουν σημαντική πληροφόρηση για την κατανόηση της κυριαρχίας στην Κίνα και τη θέση της στον παγκόσμιο χάρτη. Με την ανάλυση των διάφορων προσεγγίσεων και των διαφορετικών ιστορικών και πολιτικών πλαισίων, μπορούμε να αντλήσουμε σημαντικές ενδείξεις για τον τρόπο με τον οποίο η Κίνα αντιλαμβάνεται και ασκεί την κυριαρχία της στον σύγχρονο κόσμο.