Institutional factors in china's norm contestation in global governance: international regime complexes of peacebuilding and climate change.
Why does China challenge global norms in climate governance while selectively accepting norms in peacebuilding governance? We argue that the focus on domestic factors in much existing literature is insufficient to explain this difference. Instead, we propose an outward-looking approach centered on f...
| Publicado en: | Pacific Review Vol. 39; no. 1; pp. 1 - 32 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Taylor & Francis Ltd
Jan2026
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=190930738&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 190930738 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 09512748 5C0 jtl: Pacific Review issn: 09512748 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Jan2026 vid: 39 iid: 1 pid: 377 pub: Taylor & Francis Ltd artinfo: ui: 190930738 10.1080/09512748.2025.2495597 ppf: 1 ppct: 31 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 2MB tig: atl: Institutional factors in china's norm contestation in global governance: international regime complexes of peacebuilding and climate change. aug: au: Jung, Yeonju Lin, Jiun-Da affil: Asia Program, Swedish Institute of International Affairs, Stockholm, Sweden Graduate Institute of National Development, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan su: Peacebuilding Government policy on climate change Social norms International organization China sug: subj: China Peacebuilding Government policy on climate change Social norms International organization keyword: climate change global governance international regime complex norm contestation peacebuilding ab: Why does China challenge global norms in climate governance while selectively accepting norms in peacebuilding governance? We argue that the focus on domestic factors in much existing literature is insufficient to explain this difference. Instead, we propose an outward-looking approach centered on factors related to international institutions. We conduct a comparative analysis of explanatory factors using a theory of international regime complexity—specifically Henning and Pratt's framework on the joint effects of authority and differentiation within regime complexes. This analysis utilizes Chinese official documents in English aimed at international audiences. We found that China partially accepts existing norms while proposing alternatives to hierarchical structures in situations where there is a leading institution overseeing similarly functioning institutions. This is the case in peacebuilding governance. In contrast, China largely challenges norms in global governance systems that lack a hierarchical structure and involve institutions with distinct, specialized roles. This is the case for climate governance. We argue that the variation in China's contestation of global governance norms can be explained by the level of hierarchy and functional differentiation between institutions in each governance regime. The article contributes a new perspective to debates about China's norm contestation in global governance. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Copyright of Pacific Review is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. item: Pacific Review holder: Taylor & Francis Ltd dt: @attributes: year: 2026 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|