Beyond the Duality of Normativity and Pragmatism: A Practice-Based Reading of European and Chinese Foreign Policy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer review

Authors

  • Andreas Grimmel
  • Julia Gurol

Research Organisations

View graph of relations

Details

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)327–352
Number of pages26
JournalEuropean Review of International Studies (ERIS)
Volume8
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 31 Dec 2021

Abstract

One of the EU's key foreign policy objectives is to promote the values enshrined in its treaties, such as democracy, the rule of law and human rights. The EU's self-conception of being a "rule maker"rather than a "rule taker"in international relations, however, is increasingly contested both by internal (e.g., democratic backsliding or a general tendency towards nationalist politics) as well as external challenges (e.g., the return of bilateralism or the rise of new actors). China's Belt and Road Initiative (bri) is often understood as the most serious opposition on the external side to the EU's model of international cooperation and global governance, in that it promotes a pragmatic instead of a norm-based approach, at least at first glance. The Chinese foreign policy model that the bri reflects, explicitly favours open membership, flexibility and economic gains over multilateral institutions and norm-based action. By drawing on original interviews and analysing central policy documents, this article shows how the juxtaposition of normativity and pragmatism has shaped the political and academic discourse on the EU's foreign policy and idea of global governance. It argues that this duality of normativity versus pragmatism is misleading because it overlooks the fact that the EU and China both (a) constitute the framework for a certain practice and (b) are rooted in practice. Drawing on Kagan's cultural thesis of foreign policy, it questions the real meaning of this juxtaposition and applies a practice-based reading to the EU's and China's modes of foreign policy making. The article further shows that scrutinising foreign policy through the prism of practice can provide a more context-sensitive and encompassing understanding of how the EU and China construct their foreign policies as well as of possible conflicts that arise from them.

Keywords

    Belt and Road Initiative, China, EU, foreign policy, normativity, pragmatism

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Cite this

Beyond the Duality of Normativity and Pragmatism: A Practice-Based Reading of European and Chinese Foreign Policy. / Grimmel, Andreas; Gurol, Julia.
In: European Review of International Studies (ERIS), Vol. 8, No. 3, 31.12.2021, p. 327–352 .

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer review

Grimmel, A & Gurol, J 2021, 'Beyond the Duality of Normativity and Pragmatism: A Practice-Based Reading of European and Chinese Foreign Policy', European Review of International Studies (ERIS), vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 327–352 . https://doi.org/10.1163/21967415-08030008
Grimmel A, Gurol J. Beyond the Duality of Normativity and Pragmatism: A Practice-Based Reading of European and Chinese Foreign Policy. European Review of International Studies (ERIS). 2021 Dec 31;8(3):327–352 . doi: 10.1163/21967415-08030008
Grimmel, Andreas ; Gurol, Julia. / Beyond the Duality of Normativity and Pragmatism : A Practice-Based Reading of European and Chinese Foreign Policy. In: European Review of International Studies (ERIS). 2021 ; Vol. 8, No. 3. pp. 327–352 .
Download
@article{45ea008d1f02461b8292b4eaf6ee4ca8,
title = "Beyond the Duality of Normativity and Pragmatism: A Practice-Based Reading of European and Chinese Foreign Policy",
abstract = "One of the EU's key foreign policy objectives is to promote the values enshrined in its treaties, such as democracy, the rule of law and human rights. The EU's self-conception of being a {"}rule maker{"}rather than a {"}rule taker{"}in international relations, however, is increasingly contested both by internal (e.g., democratic backsliding or a general tendency towards nationalist politics) as well as external challenges (e.g., the return of bilateralism or the rise of new actors). China's Belt and Road Initiative (bri) is often understood as the most serious opposition on the external side to the EU's model of international cooperation and global governance, in that it promotes a pragmatic instead of a norm-based approach, at least at first glance. The Chinese foreign policy model that the bri reflects, explicitly favours open membership, flexibility and economic gains over multilateral institutions and norm-based action. By drawing on original interviews and analysing central policy documents, this article shows how the juxtaposition of normativity and pragmatism has shaped the political and academic discourse on the EU's foreign policy and idea of global governance. It argues that this duality of normativity versus pragmatism is misleading because it overlooks the fact that the EU and China both (a) constitute the framework for a certain practice and (b) are rooted in practice. Drawing on Kagan's cultural thesis of foreign policy, it questions the real meaning of this juxtaposition and applies a practice-based reading to the EU's and China's modes of foreign policy making. The article further shows that scrutinising foreign policy through the prism of practice can provide a more context-sensitive and encompassing understanding of how the EU and China construct their foreign policies as well as of possible conflicts that arise from them.",
keywords = "Belt and Road Initiative, China, EU, foreign policy, normativity, pragmatism",
author = "Andreas Grimmel and Julia Gurol",
year = "2021",
month = dec,
day = "31",
doi = "10.1163/21967415-08030008",
language = "English",
volume = "8",
pages = "327–352 ",
number = "3",

}

Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Beyond the Duality of Normativity and Pragmatism

T2 - A Practice-Based Reading of European and Chinese Foreign Policy

AU - Grimmel, Andreas

AU - Gurol, Julia

PY - 2021/12/31

Y1 - 2021/12/31

N2 - One of the EU's key foreign policy objectives is to promote the values enshrined in its treaties, such as democracy, the rule of law and human rights. The EU's self-conception of being a "rule maker"rather than a "rule taker"in international relations, however, is increasingly contested both by internal (e.g., democratic backsliding or a general tendency towards nationalist politics) as well as external challenges (e.g., the return of bilateralism or the rise of new actors). China's Belt and Road Initiative (bri) is often understood as the most serious opposition on the external side to the EU's model of international cooperation and global governance, in that it promotes a pragmatic instead of a norm-based approach, at least at first glance. The Chinese foreign policy model that the bri reflects, explicitly favours open membership, flexibility and economic gains over multilateral institutions and norm-based action. By drawing on original interviews and analysing central policy documents, this article shows how the juxtaposition of normativity and pragmatism has shaped the political and academic discourse on the EU's foreign policy and idea of global governance. It argues that this duality of normativity versus pragmatism is misleading because it overlooks the fact that the EU and China both (a) constitute the framework for a certain practice and (b) are rooted in practice. Drawing on Kagan's cultural thesis of foreign policy, it questions the real meaning of this juxtaposition and applies a practice-based reading to the EU's and China's modes of foreign policy making. The article further shows that scrutinising foreign policy through the prism of practice can provide a more context-sensitive and encompassing understanding of how the EU and China construct their foreign policies as well as of possible conflicts that arise from them.

AB - One of the EU's key foreign policy objectives is to promote the values enshrined in its treaties, such as democracy, the rule of law and human rights. The EU's self-conception of being a "rule maker"rather than a "rule taker"in international relations, however, is increasingly contested both by internal (e.g., democratic backsliding or a general tendency towards nationalist politics) as well as external challenges (e.g., the return of bilateralism or the rise of new actors). China's Belt and Road Initiative (bri) is often understood as the most serious opposition on the external side to the EU's model of international cooperation and global governance, in that it promotes a pragmatic instead of a norm-based approach, at least at first glance. The Chinese foreign policy model that the bri reflects, explicitly favours open membership, flexibility and economic gains over multilateral institutions and norm-based action. By drawing on original interviews and analysing central policy documents, this article shows how the juxtaposition of normativity and pragmatism has shaped the political and academic discourse on the EU's foreign policy and idea of global governance. It argues that this duality of normativity versus pragmatism is misleading because it overlooks the fact that the EU and China both (a) constitute the framework for a certain practice and (b) are rooted in practice. Drawing on Kagan's cultural thesis of foreign policy, it questions the real meaning of this juxtaposition and applies a practice-based reading to the EU's and China's modes of foreign policy making. The article further shows that scrutinising foreign policy through the prism of practice can provide a more context-sensitive and encompassing understanding of how the EU and China construct their foreign policies as well as of possible conflicts that arise from them.

KW - Belt and Road Initiative

KW - China

KW - EU

KW - foreign policy

KW - normativity

KW - pragmatism

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85141703350&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1163/21967415-08030008

DO - 10.1163/21967415-08030008

M3 - Article

VL - 8

SP - 327

EP - 352

JO - European Review of International Studies (ERIS)

JF - European Review of International Studies (ERIS)

SN - 2196-7415

IS - 3

ER -