Abstract
A Westphalian system is presumed to be one that upholds equal sovereignty. In practice, however, its stress on power and national interest occasionally makes this nominal recognition of equality obsolete. In fact, it is always the more powerful nations that dominate international relations, and historically, these have been the countries of North America and Western Europe. In addition, these major powers share a common ideology as international relations proceed into the postmodern age of globalization. Based upon this shared ideology, they hold that in order to be granted equal sovereignty, countries must adopt value systems and collective identities that conform to liberalism and belief in the nation-state. The rise of China challenges both of these: it insists that other national values should be able to coexist on an equal basis with liberalism,1 and it revises the notion of the nation-state by proposing the unfamiliar ideology of a harmonious world. The combination of nominal sovereign equality and practical power hierarchy is the irony of current state of international relations that originates from the Westphalian system. In the twenty-first century, the rise of China directly attacks this epistemological hypocrisy.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Alfred H. Bloom, The Linguistic Shaping of Thought: A Study in the Impact ofLanguage on Thinking in China and the West (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1981), 31–32;
E. G. Kim-Rivera, “English Language Education in Korea Under Japanese Colonial Rule,” Language Policy 3, 1 (2002): 261–281;
Elaine Chan, “Beyond Pedagogy: Language and Identity in Post-colonial Hong Kong,” British Journal ofSociology ofEducation 23, 2 (2002): 271–285.
Boyu Chen, Ching-Chane Hwang, and L. H. M. Ling, 2009, “Lust/Caution in IR: Democratising World Politics with Culture as a Method,” Millennium 37, 3: 749;
Kuan-Hsing Chen, “Why Is ‘Great Reconciliation’ Impossible? De-Cold War/Decolonization, or Modernity and Its Tears (Parts I-II),” Inter—Asia Cultural Studies 3, 1–2 (2002): 79.
Yu-ching Wang, Tongshi, buguo fenkai: Xifang pubianzhuyi lunshu xia de rujia yu yisilan (Simultaneity and yet in Separation: Confucianism and Islam in the Western Universalist Narratives) (Taipei: The Research and Educational Center for China Studies and Cross Taiwan-Strait Relations, Department of Political Science, National Taiwan University, 2008).
Myonsob Kim and Horace Jeffery Hodges, “Korea as a Clashpoint of Civilizations,” Korea Observer 37, 3 (Autumn 2006): 513–545
Copyright information
© 2013 Chih-yu Shih
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Shih, Cy. (2013). Conclusion: Serious Hypocrisy. In: Sinicizing International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137289452_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137289452_11
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-45016-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-28945-2
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)