China’s Quest in the South and East China Sea: The Struggle Between Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15174/remap.v9i17.317Resumen
El tema de las disputas territoriales en Asia, en particular los argumentos del Mar de China Meridional y Oriental, no es nada nuevo en la región. En estos días, la comunidad internacional ha seguido de cerca la situación porque el desacuerdo en las discusiones ha provocado un gran retroceso en las relaciones bilaterales entre los disputantes, así como en la estabilidad de la región. El objetivo principal de este artículo es analizar el problema desde tres perspectivas teóricas: realismo, liberalismo y constructivismo y responder a la siguiente pregunta: ¿cuál de los tres paradigmas proporciona las mejores herramientas teóricas para explicar las acciones asertivas de China en el Mar de China Meridional y Oriental? Aunque todas las teorías conrtibuyen a comprender el problema, al parecer el constructivismo, relacionado con la teoría de las metanarrativas, ofrece las mejores soluciones sin simplificaciones evidentes.
Palabras clave: China, Mar de China Meridional, Mar de China Oriental, realismo, liberalismo, constructivismo
Citas
Arai T. and Wang Z. 2013. “The Diaoyu/Senkaku Dispute as an Identity-Based Conflict: Toward Sino-Japan
Reconciliation”, in Arai T., Goto S., and Wang Z. (ed.), Clash of National Identities: China, Japan, and the
East China Sea Territorial Dispute, George Mason University Press, pp. 97-107.
Buszynski, L. 2003. “ASEAN, the declaration on conduct, and the South China Sea”, Contemporary Southeast Asia,
Vol. 25, Issue 3, pp. 343-362.
Buszynski, L., Sazlan, I. 2007. “Maritime claims and energy cooperation in the South China Sea”, Contemporary
Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs, Vol. 29(1), pp. 143-171.
Calder, K. E. 1996. “Asia’s empty tank”, Foreign Affairs, March/April, pp. 55-69.
Chan, I., Li, M. 2015. “New Chinese Leadership, New Policy in the South China Sea Dispute?”, Journal of Chinese
Political Science, Vol. 20(1), pp. 35-50.
Cronin, P. 2003. The Strategic Significance of the South China Sea. Center for Strategic and International Studies,
Sage.
Cronin, P. 2013. The Strategic Significance of the South China Sea. Center for Strategic and International Studies,
Sage.
Drifte, R. 2009. “Territorial Conflicts in the East China Sea-From Missed Opportunities to Negotiation Stalemate”,
The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol. 22(3), pp. 1-14.
Duchâtel, M. 2016. “China’s Policy in the East China Sea”, China Perspectives, Vol. 3, pp. 13-21.
Dutton, P. A. 2014. “China’s maritime disputes in the East and South China Seas”, Naval War College Review, Vol.
(3), pp. 7-19.
Fravel, M. T. 2011. “China’s strategy in the South China Sea”, Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs, vol. 33(3), pp. 292-319.
Friedberg, A. L. 2005. “The Future of US-China Relations: Is Conflict Inevitable?”, International Security,
Vol. 30, Issue 2, pp. 7-45.
Furtado, X. 1999. “International law and the dispute over the Spratly Islands: Whither UNCLOS?”, Contemporary
Southeast Asia, Vol. 21, Issue 3, pp. 386-404.
Goldstein, J., and Pevehouse, J. 2011. International Relations, New York, Pearson Longman.
Harada, Y. 2012. “South China Sea Disputes and Sino-ASEAN relations: China’s Maritime Strategy and Possibility
of Conflict Management”, Quarterly Journal of Chinese Studies, Vol. 3(1), pp. 10-28.
Hiebert, M., Nguyen P., Poling, G. B. 2013. Perspectives on the South China Sea: Diplomatic, Legal, and Security
Dimensions of the Dispute, Rowman & Littlefield.
Hongzhou, Z. 2012. China’s Evolving Fishing Industry: Implications for Regional and Global Maritime Security, S.
Rajaratnam School of International Studies.
Hossain, K. 2013. “UNCLOS and the US-China Hegemonic Competition over the South China Sea”, The Journal
of East Asia and Interational Law, Vol. 6, pp. 107-133.
Hunt, Katie. 2010. South China Sea: Court rules in favor of Philippines over China. CNN. http://edition.cnn.
com/2016/07/12/asia/china- philippines-south-china-sea/ [17.12.2018].
Jie, C. 1994. “China’s Spratly policy: with special reference to the Philippines and Malaysia”, Asian
Survey, Vol. 34(10), pp. 893-903.
Johnston, A. I. 2013. “How new and assertive is China’s new assertiveness?”, International Security, Vol.
(4), pp. 7-48.
Kaplan, R. D. 2010. “The geography of Chinese power: how far can Beijing reach on land and at sea?”.
Foreign Affairs, Vol. 89 (3), pp. 22-41.
Keohane, R., Nye J. 1997. Power and Interdependence, Longman.
Koo, M. G. 2009. “The Senkaku/Diaoyu dispute and Sino-Japanese political-economic relations: cold
politics and hot economics?”, The Pacific Review, Vol. 22(2), pp. 205-232.
Magcamit, M., Tan, A. 2016. “East and South China Seas Maritime Dispute Resolution and Escalation: Two
Sides of the Same Coin?”, Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, 3Vol. (2), pp. 113- 134.
Mearsheimer, J. J. 2014. “Can China rise peacefully?”, The National Interest, Vol. 25, pp. 23-37.
Osti, D. 2013. “The Historical Background to the Territorial Dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands”, Analysis
No. 182, International Peace & Security Institute, pp. 1-9.
Pan, Z. 2007. “Sino-Japanese dispute over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands: The pending controversy from the Chinese
perspective”, Journal of Chinese Political Science, Vol. 12(1), 7pp. 1-92.
Poling, G. B. 2013. The South China Sea in focus: Clarifying the limits of maritime dispute, Rowman & Littlefield.
Qianqian, L. I. U. 2010. “China’s rise and regional strategy: Power, interdependence and identity”, Journal of
Cambridge Studies, Vol. 5(4), pp. 76-92.
Ramos-Mrosovsky, C. 2008. “International law’s unhelpful role in the Senkaku islands”, Journal of International
Law, Vol. 29(4), pp. 903-946.
Roach, J. A. 2014. “Malaysia and Brunei: An analysis of their claims in the South China Sea”, CNA Occasional
Paper, pp. 1-44.
Swaine, M. D., Henry, D. P. 1995. China: Domestic Change and Foreign Policy, Santa Monica, RAND Corporation.
Tønnesson, S. 2001. An international history of the dispute in the South China Sea, East Asian Institute, National
University of Singapore.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2013. “Contested areas of South China Sea likely have few conventional
oil and gas resources”, http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=10651 [12.12.2018].
U.S. Position on Maritime Claims in the South China Sea. 2020. Press statement, https://www.state.gov/u-s-positionon-
maritime-claims-in-the-south-china-sea/ [17.10.2020].
Valencia, M. J. 2007. “The East China Sea dispute: context, claims, issues, and possible solutions”, Asian Perspective,
Vol. 31, Issue 1, pp.127-167.
Walt, S. M. 1998. “International relations: one world, many theories”, Foreign policy, Vol. 110, 2pp. 9-46.
Wang, Z. 2014. “The Perception Gap between China and its Neighbors”, The Diplomat, http://thediplomat.
com/2014/08/the-perception-gap-between-china-and-its-neighbors/ [27.11.2018].
Weber, C. 2013. International relations theory: a critical introduction, Routledge.
White Paper of China. 2010. Defense Expenditure http://www.china.org.cn/government/whitepaper/2011-03/31/
content_22263774.htm [17.11.2028].
World Trade Organization. 2012. China in the WTO: Past, Present and Future, https://www.wto.org/english/
thewto_e/acc_e/s7lu_e.pdf [28.10.2018].
Yee, A. 2011. “Maritime Territorial Disputes in East Asia: A Comparative Analysis of the South China Sea and the
East China Sea”, Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, 4Vol. 0(2), pp. 165-193.
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Los autores conservan los derechos de autor y deberán proporcionar por escrito la autorización para la primera publicación, vía red de cómputo e impresa a REMAP. Se permite a terceros utilizar lo publicado siempre que se dé el crédito adecuado y sin propósitos comerciales.
Esta obra está bajo una licencia Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International.