Culture matters in social theory construction because the metaphysical component of the theoretical hard core is primarily shaped by the background knowledge of a cultural community. Individual rationality, a key concept abstracted from Western culture, constitutes the nucleus for much of mainstream Western International Relations Theory. This article proposes a relational theory of world politics with relationality as the metaphysical component of its theoretical hard core. It conceives the International Relations (IR) world as one composed of ongoing relations, assumes international actors as actors-in-relations, and takes processes defined in terms of relations in motion as ontologically significant. It puts forward the logic of relationality, arguing that actors base their actions on relations in the first place. It uses the Chinese zhongyong dialectics as its epistemological schema for understanding relationships in an increasingly complex world. This theoretical framework may enable us to see the IR world from a different perspective, reconceptualize key elements such as power and governance, and make a broader comparison of international systems for the enrichment of the Global IR project.
Peace keeping operation as part of humanitarian intervention is a close issue to human rights. It is assumed to be a way to achieve human right particularly in situation of conflict. This essay analyses the difference between humanitarian intervention and the promotion of human rights and reason state join peace keeping operation in humanitarian intervention from constructivist view? This essay chose Case study China peace keeping operation in Darfur. It concludes that Constructivism sees human rights as a norm that can be promoted by social movement as well countries accept that norm. China has to adopt human rights as one of the primary norm and join peace keeping as an idea that this country accepts the human rights norm. In this step China is a norm cascade stage. China receive human rights but still question the appropriate behavior regarding the norm.
This paper explores the assumptions of civilizational identities purely based on cultural, religious or geographical distinctions and their limitations. It reviews the ‘civilizations’ discourse in IR and discusses the concept of ‘civilization states’ in the context of China and India. It analyzes the key components of civilizational overlaps and exchanges between these two countries and the invocation of their ‘civilization-state’ identity in their contemporary bilateral relations. Rejecting Huntington’s ‘clash of civilizations’ hypothesis in understanding ‘civilization-states’ like China and India, I conclude that it is critical to understand how states perceive their civilizational heritage, which both facilitates and impedes bilateral exchanges and the conduct of international relations.