Tzu-Ling Wang

Explaining China’s Use of Force in the Taiwan Strait with a Constructivist Perspective

Introduction

Explaining china’s use of force in the taiwan strait with a constructivist perspective. Explains China's varying responses to US actions in the Taiwan Strait via a constructivist perspective, highlighting how perceived sovereignty norm violations drive aggression.

Abstract

As tension in the Taiwan Strait has risen in recent years, the prevention of war became one of the key concerns in international security. In this paper, I investigate why China sometimes reacts aggressively to the US action in the Taiwan Strait, whereas other times it responds more moderately. Through a constructivist perspective, I propose that due to the divergent interpretations of international sovereignty norms between China and the US, China can perceive the United States’ actions to be in violation international norms, leading to conflict. To test my research question, I develop five levels of US infringement to China’s sovereignty: military, diplomatic, and symbolic challenges, and economic and diplomatic sanctions. A total of 8 cases are selected from 2014 to 2024. China’s responses are categorized into five levels of aggression. With the exception of military challenges, China appears to be more likely to exhibit aggressive responses when it perceives the actions of the United States to be undermining China’s sovereignty.

Review

This paper addresses a highly pertinent and critical issue in international security: understanding the drivers behind China's varied responses to US actions in the Taiwan Strait. The author embarks on an ambitious task to explain why China sometimes reacts aggressively while at other times it adopts a more moderate stance. Adopting a constructivist lens, the study posits that divergent interpretations of international sovereignty norms between Beijing and Washington are key to unlocking this puzzle. The central argument is that when China perceives the United States' actions as violating these fundamental international norms, it is more prone to exhibit conflictual behavior. This theoretical framing offers a refreshing departure from purely material or rationalist explanations, promising a richer understanding of a complex geopolitical dynamic. To test this intriguing hypothesis, the author proposes a clear operationalization of variables. US infringements on China's sovereignty are categorized into five distinct levels: military, diplomatic, and symbolic challenges, alongside economic and diplomatic sanctions. China’s subsequent responses are similarly classified into five levels of aggression, allowing for a nuanced analysis of escalation and de-escalation. The selection of eight cases from 2014 to 2024 provides a recent and relevant empirical basis for investigation. The preliminary findings suggest a compelling pattern: with the notable exception of military challenges, China appears more inclined to react aggressively when perceiving its sovereignty as undermined by US actions. While the proposed categorization is promising, future iterations could benefit from a more detailed explanation of how "perception" is systematically measured across cases and how the "levels of aggression" for China's response are precisely distinguished. The sample size of eight cases, though recent, might also warrant further expansion to enhance the generalizability of the findings. This paper promises a valuable contribution to the constructivist literature on international relations, especially within the context of great power competition and regional security dynamics in East Asia. By focusing on the normative dimension of sovereignty, it moves beyond purely material or rationalist explanations for China's behavior, offering a richer, more nuanced understanding of the escalatory potential in the Taiwan Strait. The initial findings provide a compelling starting point, particularly the observation regarding military challenges as an exception, which warrants deeper exploration. This research has significant implications for policymakers aiming to manage tensions and prevent conflict, suggesting that a clearer understanding and perhaps a re-evaluation of how certain actions are perceived normatively by China could be crucial. Overall, this is a well-conceived and timely study that offers a refreshing perspective on a critically important international security challenge.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.