Front. Law China 2011, 6(3): 496–523 DOI 10.1007/s11463-011-0141-5

REVIEW ARTICLE

Zhiyun Liu

Interdisciplinary Research on International Relations Theory and International Law in China over the Past 10 Years ©Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag 2011

Abstract From the origin, there has been a strong connection between international relations and international law. In the development of the history of different academic subjects, the research on international relations and international law are interdependently promoting each other. As a result, the realization of interdisciplinary research on international legal theory and the study of international law is inevitable. As a matter of fact, even though the interdisciplinary research of the two subjects has been separated for almost half a century, the need for the development of the subject and the changing world political and economical status give them a new chance for reunification. Recently, the interdisciplinary research on international relations theory and international law by the Western academic is becoming the order of the day, which has become the latest shining point of the recent development of the two subjects, which is even regarded as the new revolution of international relations theory and the study of international law. In this context, the past ten years is a period of emergence of Chinese international relations and the interdisciplinary research of international law. In the past ten years, some scholars have overcome “the difficulty of interdisciplinary research,” “the prejudice within the subject” and “the gap among different subjects,” and made pioneering research in the field of “systematic connection” and “issues in overlapping field.” Moreover, they gradually make the interdisciplinary research to be a popular method and a common recognition. Based on the current studies, interdisciplinary research will have a broad future in the fields such as “the interchange of concepts,” “the exchange of method,” and “the mutual assistance of materials,” which will provide scholars in this area with a broad space for research. Received October 24, 2010 Zhiyun Liu ( ) School of Law, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361005, China E-mail: [email protected]

Interdisciplinary Research on International Relations Theory and International Law

497

Keywords international relations theory, international law, interdisciplinary research, review, prospect

1 Introduction International law has a close connection with international relations; the research of international law and international relations theory interact with each other. All of these characteristics determine the close bond between the two subjects. On the one hand, as a form of expression of international relations, international law is the consequence of the development of international relations; it is also the continuation of a certain way of international communication, which reflects the need for order, stability, and the foreseeability of international relations. The description, explanation, research, evaluation, and foreseeability of international relations theory and development of international relations have the major influence or interpretation function on the prosperity of the contemporary international law. On the other hand, as a systematic subject, the history of international relations theory is not long. From the perspective of subject development, the research of international law is longer and more mature than the formation of international relations theory. As a matter of fact, for almost three hundred years, it has been the common practice for scholars to study international phenomenon from the perspective of international law; even during the 20th century, the methodology of international law was still being widely adopted.1 The early works on international relations were filled with reference to the accomplishment and method of international legal theory.2 Before the end of World War II, realism was in the dominant position of international relations both in theory and practice; the research of international relations became distant from international law.3 Different from the function of idealism, which advocates the practice of law and morality, realism holds the view that power is the cornerstone of all politics, and pursuing power is the purpose of participating in the international relations of every country. In this view, an international relation without strength is a voided international relation; realizing peace by means of international law and international morality is utopian. Objectively speaking, because of the theoretical prevalence of realism and its emphasis by the practitioners after World War II, its condemning or denying of the function of international law, and its independence, not only strongly affected the position of international law after World War II in the 1

Robert J. Beck, Anthony Clark Arend & Robert D. Vander Lugt eds., Int’l Rules: Approaches from Int’l Law and Int’l Relations, Oxford University Press (New York), Preface, vi. (1996). 2 J. Craig Barker, Int’l Law and Int’l Relations, Continuum (London), at 70 (2000). 3 See Beck, Arend & Lugt eds., fn. 1.

498

Zhiyun Liu

practice of international relations, but also caused a universal negligence in the attitudes of international relations scholars towards international legal research. The view that the realist is not restrained by law in the field that is concerned with key national interests and that international law is not a part of the political reality which has made the lack of motivation of international relations scholars to conduct research on international law. As a matter of fact, there were very few international-relations scholars who conducted research on international law in 1970s.4 Meanwhile, the academics of the American international relations even tried to start a “revolution in methodology” aiming at alienating the traditional methodology of the study of law, history, philosophy, etc., namely the behaviorist revolution. Although the research perspective of a unique school of theory of international relations developed in the UK after World War II, which is known as the “UK School,” it still tries to maintain the close connection between international relations theory and international law,5 with the suppression of the US oriented mainstream idea and school. For a long time it has not gained the international influence which is in accordance with the theoretical status. Recently, with the rapid development of globalization and the end of the Cold War, the pursuit of the stability and foreseeability of international relations has become the common demand of individual countries and peoples. At this time, the most prominent part of international relations is gradually getting into the phase of rule by law.6 In the process of rule by law with varying degrees, law and politics are often interrelated.7 In this way, using the method of research of international law not only was the experience of the research of early international relations, but also was the necessary demand of the development of modern international relations. At the same time, the research of international law needs to use the accomplishment and method of international relations theories as reference. As a matter of fact, even with the separation of the interdisciplinary research of the two subjects for almost half a century, the need of self-development of the subject and the changing status of the world economy and politics have given them a chance for reunification. Despite the existence of the huge gap between the two subjects and major obstacles in interdisciplinary cooperation research, the potential of cooperation and the future are still inspiring. 4

Id. With regard to the “UK School,” see Shixiong Ni, 当代西方国际关系理论 (Contemporary Western Int’l Relations Theory), Fudan University Press (Shanghai), at 231–36 (2001); John Vincent: English School of Int’l Relations, cited from Iver B. Neumann (Norway), Ole Wver (Denmark): 未来国际思想大师 (The Future of Int’l Relations), translated by Feng Xiao & Quan Shi, Peking University Press (Beijing), at 53–92 (2003). 6 Kenneth W. Abbott & Duncan Snidal, Hard and Soft Law in Int’l Governance 54(3) Int’l Org. 421 (2000). 7 Kenneth W. Abbott, Robert O. Keohane & Andrew Moravcsik et al., The Concept of Legalization, 54(3) Int’l Org. 416 (2000). 5

Interdisciplinary Research on International Relations Theory and International Law

499

The two subjects have the function of “complementing each other’s advantages” or “mega merger” in descriptive research, semantic analysis, interpretation, normative research and instrumental analysis.8 Nowadays, this interdisciplinary cooperation not only has been resurrected in Western academics, but also has been developing vigorously; it is even renowned as the new revolution of international relations theory and international legal research, which is also known as the formation of “international relations and school of international law.” Recently, the focus on this kind of research is shifting from the apparent connection of international relations theory and international law to deepened fundamental issues, transferring from the sharing of knowledge to the sharing of methodology. Nevertheless, this interdisciplinary cooperation of research is just beginning in China, which falls behind its Western counterparts. As a matter of fact, since China has inherited the overspecialization of discipline of the former Soviet Union, the close relationship between subjects of international relations theory and international law has long been separated to “become completely separated from each other:” i.e., in their own research activities, their close relationship has always been neglected. By the end of the last century, Chinese scholars’ efforts were sporadic and could not conduct a trend. Until this century, few Chinese international relations and international law scholars have picked up the bond between international relations theory and international law, and tried to conduct the interdisciplinary work between the two subjects while the interdisciplinary research on international relations and international law are being widely conducted. After ten years, there will be accomplishment and setbacks. Reviewing the past, and looking forward to the future, is doubtlessly an imperative task.

2 Reviewing the Past―Elimination of the Obstacles of Interdisciplinary Research of International Relations and International Law During the past decade, the research of international relations and international interdisciplinary research of different subjects have experienced a phase of development from immaturity to maturity, which accomplished the difficult transition from “sporadic” to “raging fire.” At the same time, this development is also a process of “melting the ice,” whether it is the prejudice that existed within the subject, or the gap between the subjects, both of which demonstrated a gradual “melting” trend. It has experienced from ambiguity to leniency, from 8

Kenneth W. Abbott, Int’l Law and Int’l Relational Theory: Building Bridges-Elements of a Joint Discipline, 86 Proc. Am. Soc. Int’l L. 168–72 (1992).

Zhiyun Liu

500

opposition to support, which is a necessary experience of a “new-born” object. 2.1

The Difficulty and Challenge of the Interdisciplinary Research

In the West, owing to the separation of the two subjects has existed for almost half a century, the gap between them has become very far-reaching both in form and substantially and the two subjects in general belong to two different cultures; therefore, there will be “cultural conflicts” within the interdisciplinary interaction. In addition, both international law and international relations have developed into a large theoretical system. The two subjects not only include various kinds of sects that are based on different ontology, but also include various kinds of sects that are based on different epistemology and methodology. Evidently, faced with the obstacles of “the conflict between the two cultures” and the complex system and knowledge of every subject, the realization of the connection and interaction is not a work that can be completed in a short span of time. In China, under the influence of the education system of the former Soviet Union, the study of international relations and international law has long been in two separate independent fields. The gap of the knowledge system of the two fields is almost insurmountable. Doubtlessly, all of the above have placed a great challenge on the scholars of interdisciplinary research; the scholars who committed to these kinds of research not only need a profound understanding of the knowledge of this subject, but also need the familiarity of the knowledge of the other subject. For many scholars, it is necessary to self-study in order to acquire the knowledge of the other subject. Facing the complex and large knowledge systems of the two subjects, the scholars not only need to have enough courage for trial and error, but also need the persistence to overcome boredom. During the period of emergence of this interdisciplinary research in China, it is inevitable for some forerunners to neglect the knowledge of other subjects commonly accepted. For example, some Chinese international law scholars translated the term “international regime/ institution” into international system. 9 When translating the “Lass Francis Lawrence Oppenheim,” the renowned German scholar of international law, the Chinese international relations scholars misled most people to believe that person was actually J. Robert Oppenheimer. 10 Nevertheless, it is the endeavor of forerunners that makes great contribution to interdisciplinary research and leads to the prosperity today. Happily, when the interdisciplinary research in China has 9

See Guoqing Jiang, 国际体制理论介评 (Commentary of the Theory of Int’l Institutions), (1) 法学评论 (Law Review), 1997. 10

See Joseph A. Camilleri & Jim Falk, The End of Sovereignty? The Politics of a Shrinking, Fragmenting World, trans. Dongyan Li, Zhejiang People’s Publishing House (Hangzhou), at 39 (2001).

Interdisciplinary Research on International Relations Theory and International Law

501

emerged from its immaturity, there are more and more scholars who can skillfully handle the terminologies, knowledge, method, etc., to prove their views. As to human resources, there emerged many talented scholars who possess the background of international law or international relations and joined the interdisciplinary team. These people tried to overcome the problem of “endemic,” which is doubtlessly a cardiac stimulant to the development of interdisciplinary research. Moreover, another interesting phenomenon is that some Chinese law schools still do not have doctoral program of international law, and they can only admit doctoral students from departments like international politics or international relations, which have close connection with Marxist theory or world history. This institution of comprise has restrained many doctoral theses that are supposed to be interdisciplinary 2.2

The Prejudice within the Subject and Its Elimination

Doubtlessly, like the epistemology of reflectivism, which holds the view that, those without knowledge of society and humanity always view this matter with prejudice, international relations and international law have been viewed as two independent fields for a long time. Their close connections have been forgotten for long. Whether it is because of human nature, or the effects of long-term separation, it is inevitable that many “bystanders” would have the lack of understanding, or prejudice as to the emergence of the interdisciplinary analysis. Since I am not a member of the international relations field, I am not familiar with the universal view of this subject to this kind of research. I have a clear understanding of those prejudices within my field. When I just started this kind of research, it was inevitable to face the embarrassment of being criticized by colleagues as “not performing one’s duty,” or harsh comments during ordinary discussion, such as “you are not discussing legal problems,” “this research has no real meaning.” In addition, when there is a strong conflict, sometimes there are labels such as “you are destroying the independence of international law” or “this is to promote the colonialism of the international relations theory.” During earlier times, this interdisciplinary research often encountered serious trouble when scholars were trying to have articles published. The journals such as “World Economics and Politics” and “Contemporary International Relations” have given these kinds of articles lenience and opportunity. In the academic realm of law, many who tried to publish their research on this topic were rejected for the reasons of “not understandable,” “too professional,” “lack of the meaning of guidance to the social practice,” etc., which could be very embarrassing. But the good news is that this subject has given this “heterodoxy” enough surviving space. Additionally, as time goes by, more and more scholars of this subject are

Zhiyun Liu

502

using this method. In 2005, Professor Chongli Xu held the national funds in social science on the project on “international relations theory and the study of the principles of international law,” in 2007 I held the project on “international relations theory and contemporary international legal practice” of the same fund, which demonstrated that the colleagues of this subject not only give enough lenience to these kinds of “heterodoxy,” but also could act to gain support and encouragement. 2.3

The Gap between the Subjects and Its Dissolution

After developing for a long period, the scholars of the two subjects have formed relatively close academic circles; moreover, both subjects adopt “exclusionism,” which brings a big challenge to interdisciplinary conversation and debate. I have been conducting research in this interdisciplinary research for a long time, and have published many articles in the field of international relations that are very influential; however, I have never been invited to any of the seminars held by the academic field of international relations. Of course, in the many academic conferences on international law, it is very difficult to find any international relations scholars, much less writings submitted for publication in journals of international relations theory or international law. At the same time, through various academic training and social activities, the members in both subjects actually belong to a “different linguistic community,” such as “institution,” “positivism,” “system,” “theory,” etc., which might have different meanings.11 This not only brings the difficulty in using new language and vocabulary every now and then for articles that are going to be published, but also creates a “fake” status of debate for scholars when they misunderstand each other’s common sense and knowledge in a few interdisciplinary cooperation conferences. No wonder when some American scholars commented on these seminars of interdisciplinary cooperation that, only when a widely accepted common language appears or that large number of scholars are able to use the basic terminology of the two subjects, can a long and broad interdisciplinary interaction be optimistically expected.12 It was written in a postscript of one of my books (somehow sentimentally) that: “Certainly, just like the noncommunication between the academic fields of international relations and international law, I do not know any of the international relations scholars. However, I would like to express my gratitude for their contribution to the accomplishment of this book, and I hope that one day I will get to know them 11

Anne-Marie Burley, Int’l Law and Int’l Relations Theory: A Dual Agenda, 87 Am. J. Int’l L. 205 (1993). 12 Robert J. Beck, Int’l Law and Int’l Relations: The Prospects for Interdisciplinary Collaboration, in Beck, Arend & Lugt eds., fn. 1 at 18.

Interdisciplinary Research on International Relations Theory and International Law

503

personally.”13 A few more years have passed, and this situation has already changed. Yizhou Wang, Yaqing Qin and various other scholars from the academic field of international relations, and the editors of “World Economics and Politics,” “Contemporary International Relations,” and “International Studies,” have become my academic mentors; the communication with them has provided me with motivation and method to continue conducting interdisciplinary research. In addition, the often-held “Interdisciplinary of International Relations and International Law Conferences” have also proven the gap between the two subjects is narrowing, and that the interdisciplinary mechanism of interaction is gradually being formed.

3 Analyzing the Present―Interdisciplinary Research of International Relations and International Law After ten years of effort, the interdisciplinary research of international relations and international law in China has become stronger, and there are more researches of this kind being conducted which eventually have a great influence, and even create a trend. This not only is shown in the accomplishment of some scholars who worked on the connection between the two subjects, but also is shown in that many scholars have skillfully adopted the interdisciplinary analysis as a method; it is shown even more obviously in that the academic has changed the initial disagreement to today’s “awareness” or “consensus.” 3.1

The Connection of International Relations and International Law

Doubtlessly, the first priority of interdisciplinary research of international relations and international law is the “systematic connection” of the two subjects. The reason why both subjects can be connected is the affinity of the two subjects. On the one hand, international law is firmly embedded in international relations, and is influenced by factors such as power, interest, and ideas. With the break away from the background or phenomena of international relations, the operation of international law cannot be really comprehended.14 International relations theory can provide a theoretical context that can analyze international affairs for international law. At the same time, the study of international law with a long historical standing has provided the development of international relations theory 13

Zhiyun Liu, 现代国际关系理论视角下的国际法 (The Int’l Law under the Modern Int’l Relations Theory), Law Press (Beijing), in the postscript (2006). 14 Judith Goldstein, Miles Kahler & Robert O. Keohane et al., Introduction: Legalization and World Politics, 54(3) Int’l Org. 386 (2000).

504

Zhiyun Liu

with support and references. On the other hand, neither international law scholars nor international relations scholars have the same perspective. Traditionally, both pay attention to the peace and development issues which are centered on the State. However, recently, when they have to face this developing world, new tasks such as “globalization,” “international governance,” “legitimacy crisis,” etc., are issues that they will face. State behavior and formal international mechanism which attract the attention of the scholars of both subjects, are essentially the same or similar matter, only were given different definitions or names by different subjects. 15 Therefore, the overlap of research subject, research issue, and research background has made the connection of this system not only necessary, but also possible. As to the basic task which needs to be done with top priority of interdisciplinary research, some scholars have made certain contributions in the part of systematic connection, and there are many articles or books regarding the matter that are constantly emerging.16 For example, Chongli Xu from Xiamen 15

Anne-Marie Slaughter, Andrew S. Tulumello & Stepan Wood, Int’l Law and Int’l Relations Theory: A New Generation of Interdisciplinary Scholarship, 92 Am. J. Int'l L. 370 (1998). 16 Below are the incomplete calculations of interdisciplinary articles of those published and have the “subject systematic connection” that I found at the database (www.cnki.net) on May 13, 2010, including: Chongli Xu, 构建国际法之“法理学”——国际法学与国际关系理论之学科交 叉 (Constructing the “Jurisprudence” of Int’l Law―The Overlapping of the Theory of Int’l Law and Int’l Relations Law), (4) 比较法研究 (Journal of Comparative Law), 2009; Chongli Xu, “体系外国家”心态与中国国际法理论的贫困 (The State of Mind of “States beyond the System” and the Poverty of Theory of Chinese Int’l Law), (5) 政法论坛 (Tribune of Political Science and Law), 2006; Chongli Xu, 全球化趋势与“跨国法学”的兴起 (The Trend of Globalization and the Emergence of “Interdisciplinary Study of Law), (4) 法商研究 (The Studies in Law and Business), 2003; Chongli Xu, 走出误区的“第三条道路”：“跨国经济法”范式 (“The Third Path” Out of the Mistakes: Paradigm of “Transnational Economic Law”), (4) 政法 论坛 (Tribune of Political Science and Law), 2005; Zewei Yang, 论国际法的政治基础 (On the Political Basis of Int’l Law), (3) 法律科学 (Science of Law), (2005); Zewei Yang, 国际法与国 际政治 (Int’l Law and Int’l Politics), (4) 学术界 (Academics in China), 1999; Guoqing Jiang, 国际体制理论介评 (Commentary on the Theory of Int’l Institution), (1) 法学评论 (Law Review), 1997; Guoqing Jiang, 世纪之交的西方国际法思潮 (The Western Thoughts of Int’l Law in the Turn of the Century), (5) 世界经济与政治 (World Economics and Politics), 2001; Jian Meng, 浅谈国际政治与国际法的互动关系 (Discussion on the Interaction between Int’l Politics and Int’l Law), (1) 新疆广播电视大学学报 (Xinjiang Radio and TV University Journal), 2004; Feng Yu & Deming Huang, 国际法与国际政治的关联性剖析 (The Related Analysis of Int’l Law and Int’l Politics), (8) 现代国际关系 (Contemporary Int’l Relations), 2004; Haojie Li, 试析国际政治与国际法的复合依赖关系 (An Analysis on the Interdependence of Int’l Politics and Int’l Law), (10) 世界经济与政治 (World Economics and Politics), 2007; Guoqiang Luo, 四百年来国际关系的流变及其与国际法的互 动 (The Evolvement of Int’l Relations over the Past 400 Years and Its Interaction with Int’l Law), (4) 新疆大学学报 (Journal of Xinjiang University), (2007); Xuefei Zheng & Li Yang, 西方国际关

Interdisciplinary Research on International Relations Theory and International Law

505

系理论中国际法的角色评析 (The Role of Int’l Law in the Western Int’l Relations Theory), (4) 河南大学学报(社会科学版) (Journal of Henan University, Social Science Edition), 2003; Hujing Zhao and Dong Zhao, 国际法在国际关系理论中的地位 (The Position of Int’l Law in Int’l Relations Theory), (5) 国际关系学院学报 (Journal of the University of Int’l Relations), 2009. (2) 中 国 社 会 科 学 (Social Sciences in China) 2007 adopted “Int’l Relations and the

Exploration of Int’l Law” as topic and published a series of papers, including: Yizhou Wang, 重塑国际政治与国际法的关系 (The Reconstruction of the Relationships between Int’l Politics and Int’l Law); Feng Zhu, 国际关系研究中的法律主义 (The Legalism of the Research on Int’l Relations); Zhiyun Liu, 复 合 相 互 依 赖 ： 全 球 化 背 景 下 国 际 关 系 与 国 际 法 的 发 展 路 径

(Interdependence: The Developmental Pathway of Int’l Relations and Int’l Law under the Globalization); Shengjun Zhang, 当代国际社会的法治基础 (Legal Basis of Contemporary Int’l Society); Zuxue Gu, 后 TRIPS 时代的国际知识产权制度变革与国际关系的演变 (The Changing of the Institution of Int’l Intellectual Property and the Evolvement of Int’l Relations in the Post-TRIPS Period). In addition, I have published a series of articles since 2002 based on the topic of “Interdisciplinary Research on Int’l Relations and Int’l Law,” which belong to “systematic connection” including over 20 articles, e.g., 国际法与国际关系跨学科研究路径 (The Interdisciplinary Research Pathway of Int’l Law and Int’l Relations), (2) 世界经济与政治 (World Economics and Politics), 2010; 当代西方国际关系理论与国际法学跨学科研究的勃兴 (The Emergence of Contemporary Western Int’l Relations Theory and the Interdisciplinary Research of Int’l Law), (1) 国外社会科学 (Social Science Abroad), 2008; 论国际关系理论与国 际法研究的三次联结及其影响 (Discussion on the Third Connection of Int’l Relations Theory and the Research of Int’l Law and Its Effects), (2) 法律科学 (Science of Law), 2006; 全球化 背景下国际经济立法勃兴的国际关系理论诠释 (The Int’l Relations Theory Explanation of the Rise of the Legislation of Int’l Economics under the Globalization), 12(2) 国际经济法学刊 (Journal of Int’l Economic Law), 2005; “霸权稳定论”与当代国际经济法——一种从国际政治经济 学视角的分析 (“Hegemonic Stability Theory” and Contemporary Int’l Economic Law―An Analysis from the Perspective of Int’l Politics and Economics), (1) 太平洋学报 (Pacific Journal), 2007; 国际法学与国际关系研究互动方式探析 (The Exploration of the Exchange of Method of Int’l Law and Int’l Relations), (4) 厦门大学学报( 哲社版) (Journal of Xiamen University, Philosophy and Social Science Edition), 2007; 新自由主义思潮下的国际经济立法： 繁荣、困境及前景 (The Legislation of Int’l Economic under the Thoughts of New Liberalism: Prosperity, Difficulty and Future), (8) 世界经济与政治 (World Economics and Politics), 2007; “结构现实主义”国际关系理论与当代国际法 (Int’l Relations Theory of “Constructive Realism” and Modern Int’l Law), (8) 太平洋学报 (Pacific Journal), 2007; 国家利益理论与现代国际法— —一种从国际关系理论视角的分析 (National Interest Theory and Modern Int’l Law—An Analysis from the Perspective of Int’l Relations Theory), 8 武大国际法评论 (Int’l Law Review of Wuhan University); 威尔逊主义与一战后国际组织与国际法的实践 (Wilson Doctrine and the Practice of Int’l Organizations and Int’l Law after World War I), 东吴法学 (Soochow Jurisprudence), 2008; 国际机制理论与国际法学的互动：从概念辨析到学科合作 (Interaction between Int’l Mechanism Theory and Int’l Law: From the Concept Analysis to the Subject Cooperation), (2) 法学论坛 (Legal Forum), 2010; 全球化背景下现实主义的理论转型与国际法 (Theoretical Change of Realism under the Globalization and Int’l Law), 19 厦门大学法律评论 (Xiamen University Law Review), 2009; 论 当 代 国 际 关 系 理 论 中 国 际 法 的 角 色 定 位 (Discussion on the Position of Int’l Law in the Contemporary Int’l Relations Theory), (2) 现代 国际关系 (Contemporary Int’l Relations), 2003.

506

Zhiyun Liu

University is in charge of the project “The Research of the Principles of International Relations and International Law” by the National Funds in Social Science. What this project mainly concerns is that since the single approach of empirical analysis that is applied by schools of international law for a long time neglects the realism of international relations behind international law, it is necessary to introduce social-scientific approaches, as well as the theories as realism, liberalism, institutionalism and constructivism, to realms as politics, economics, sociology, to help promote the formation of various schools as political law, economic law and social law, and eventually the birth of jurisprudence of international law. Based on a great amount of information, and within nine years of effort, aiming at extracting the principles of international law from different international relations theories, the purpose is to do an excellent fundamental work for the interdisciplinary research of international relations theory and international law in the future. In addition, I have been working on the “systematic connection” of the two subjects; in particular I have published two books, International Law under the Modern International Relations Theory17 in 2006, and The Development of International Law―An Analysis from the Perspective of International Relations Theory18 in 2010, and used 900 thousand words in these two books to construct a subject connection. The first book is based on the development of international relations theory in the 20th century, analyzing the mainstream of international relations theory and the position and study of international law by scholars, and the effect of this kind of position and research on international law and the study of international law both in theory and in practice, which is a vertical research based on time regarding academic history. The second book uses some important concepts, theory, or method of international relations theory, as tools, which include multi-perspectives, such as theory of State interest, theory of international mechanism, theory of interdependency, game theory, international political economics, English school, and theory of globalization. In comparison with the previous book, the development of international law provided by the interpretation and conceptualization of international relations theory is a horizontal theoretical research. 17

Zhiyun Liu, 现代国际关系理论视角下的国际法 (Int’l Law under the Modern Int’l Relations Theory), Law Press (Beijing), 2006. 18 Zhiyun Liu, 当代国际法的发展——一种从国际关系理论视角的分析 (The Development of Int’l Law—An Analysis from the Perspective of Int’l Relations Theory), Law Press (Beijing), 2010.

Interdisciplinary Research on International Relations Theory and International Law

507

Doubtlessly, the systematic connection of the subjects is not a task that can be done in a day, and the whole task cannot be completed in one stroke. In the three self-introductions of my books I have written: “from my academic plan, I have written a so-called trilogy in the past ten years, and have constructed a rough interdisciplinary research system. I am planning to spend more time to carefully study different issues, especially the concepts regarding the third book, and hoping that one day “trilogy” will become “tetralogy” or even “pentalogy.”19As a matter of fact, the system connection between the international relations and international law is an endless topic; not only more research is needed on the currently existing relationships between the two subjects, but, over time, the new views, ideas, knowledge, methods, etc., will provide a good opportunity for systematic connection. In addition, the connection should not only be unilateral; the current accomplishment looks at the issue more from the perspective of international relations theory. On the other hand, it is also necessary to learn the theoretical development of international relations from international law. 3.2

The Interdisciplinary Research as a Method

Perhaps the fundamental interdisciplinary systematic connection is rather complicated and burdensome. Till today there are only a few scholars who have formed a way of “systematic” research, the number of which, as far as I know, is less than ten persons. In comparison, skillfully using interdisciplinary research as a method has become a fashion. At least from the perspective of international law, there are many scholars who can skillfully use the knowledge and method of international relations on the issues of international law. Articles that have been published not only include the research on fundamental issues such as cooperation of international legislation, the compliance with international law, the “concept” within international law, the effectiveness of international law, the legality of international law, but also have been widely used in the research of the new issues, a typical example of which would be “The Position of China and the Strategy with WTO,” “The Legal Order of International Economic Law and the ‘Peaceful Rise’ Strategy of China,” “The Ebb of the Struggle of the Establishment of a New International Economic Order and China’s Attitude,” “The Legalization of the International Society: Contemporary Perspectives and 19

Id. preface.

508

Zhiyun Liu

Basic Trend,” etc.20 In the discussion of the abovementioned basic topics and the new frontiers of issues, some scholars have already consciously combined the perspectives, knowledge, views, methods, etc., of international relations and international law, which makes the gap between the subjects somewhat vague. At the same time, Ph.D candidates are a potential force who will join the research team; the writing of doctoral dissertations is one of the main forces to push the research forward. In the doctoral dissertations which have been completed in the recent years, or are currently in the process of writing, there are increasingly talented young scholars who have skillfully adopted the method of interdisciplinary analysis. Some of these people have chosen topics which are related to the two subjects, and made interdisciplinary discussion on both international relations and international law, especially those portrayed in their doctoral dissertations. Topics such as “Global Governance and International Law,” “The Changing of the World Order and the Mission of International Law,” “The Value of NGOs from the Perspective of International Law,” “The 20

Typical articles, e.g., Chongli Xu, 中国的国家定位与应对 WTO 的基本战略——国际关系理论 与国际法学科交叉之分析 (The Position of China and the Basic Strategy to WTO—The Cross Analysis of Int’l Relations Theory and Int’l Law), (6) 现代法学 (Modern Law Science), 2006; Chongli Xu, 国际经济法律秩序与中国的“和平崛起”战略——以国际关系理论分析的视角 (Int’l Economic Legal Order and the “Peaceful Rise” Strategy of China―From the Perspective of Analyzing Int’l Relations Theory), (6) 比较法研究 (Journal of Comparative Law), 2005; Zhipeng He, 国际法的遵行机制探究 (The Exploration of the Compliance Mechanism of Int’l Law), (1) 东方法学 (Oriental Law), 2009; Haiping Jiang, 论国家权力对国际立法的影响 (A Discussion of the Influence of State Power to Int’l Legislation), (12) 现代国际关系 (Contemporary Int’l Relations), 2004; Haiping Jiang, 现实主义状态下国际法“规范功能”刍议 (A Discussion of the “Normative Function” of Int’l Law under the Realism Status), (1) 现代国 际关系 (Contemporary Int’l Relations), 2004; Linbin Wang, 为什么要遵守国际法——国际法与 国际关系：质疑与反思 (Why Complying with Int’l Law― Int’l Law and Int’l Relations: Doubt and Review), (4) 国际论坛 Int’l Forum, 2006; Jiehao Li, 论“无政府状态”下国际法之遵守——以 利益分析为基点 (The Compliance of Int’l Law under the “State of Anarchy” —Based on the Interest Analysis), (6) 当代世界与社会主义 (Contemporary World and Socialism), 2007; Jiehao Li, 体 系 转 型 与 当 代 国 际 法 使 命 (The Change of System and the Mission of Contemporary Int’l Law), (6) 现代国际关系 (Contemporary Int’l Relations), 2008; Jiehao Li, 论中国和平发展与国际法律秩序的交互影响 (A Discussion of the Interaction of the Peaceful Development of China and Int’l Legal Order), (10) 现代国际关系 (Contemporary Int’l Relations), 2008; Zhiyun Liu, 国际法律制度构建与维持的博弈分析——一种从国际关系理论视角 的探讨 (The Game Analysis of the Construction and Maintenance of the Institution of Int’l Law—An Exploration from the Perspective of Int’l Relations Theory), 11 武大国际法评论 (Int’l Law Review of Wuhan University), 2009; Zhiyun Liu, 国家利益概念的演变与二战后国际 经济法的发展 (The Evolvement of the Concept of National Interest and the Development of Int’l Economic Law after World War II), (1) 当代法学 (Contemporary Law Review), 2007.

Interdisciplinary Research on International Relations Theory and International Law

509

Compliance of International Law from the Perspective of International Relations” etc., have become the favorites of many young students in international law. Although there are many students who did not choose these interdisciplinary topics, when they tried to discuss a certain issue within a big context, not only did they use the research method within the subject, but also took the experiences from another subject, and tried to find support for their views from the mainstream views and attitudes of another subject.21 Although this utilization is quite shallow at most time, which only involves the basic knowledge of international relations theory or international law, and many understandings are somewhat immature, it is enough to demonstrate that international relations and international interdisciplinary analysis as methods are becoming increasingly popular. Moreover, in the survey of doctoral dissertations, I have found there are many doctoral dissertations of international relations which adopt multilateral cooperation, international mechanism, and international norms as the objects of 21 Below are the 204 doctoral dissertations with the abstract that contain “int’l law” and 364 doctoral dissertations with the abstract that contain “int’l relations” I found through the “Chinese Doctoral Dissertation Database” CNKI (www.cnki.net) on May 13, 2010. After carefully reading the abstracts of these 568 articles, I have excluded doctoral dissertations that use sovereignty, or specific int’l organization and int’l treaty after the elimination process, those that have adopted the interdisciplinary analysis of int’l relations and int’l law, including: Zhiyun Liu, 国际经济法律自由化若干理论问题研究 (Research on the Theoretical Issues of the Liberalization of Int’l Economic Law), Doctoral Dissertation of Xiamen University (2004); Bojun Li, 不干涉内政原则研究 (Research on the Principle of Non-Interference of Internal Affairs), Doctoral Dissertation of Wuhan University (2006); Shibo Jiang, 习惯国际法的司法确 定 (The Judicial Determination of Customary Int’l Law), Doctoral Dissertation of Shandong University (2010); Rong Xu, 冷战后军事干涉的理论分析 (Theoretical Analysis of the Military Intervention after the Cold War), Doctoral Dissertation of Fudan University (2005); Haiping Jiang, 国际习惯法理论问题研究 (Research on the Theoretical Issues of Customary Int’l Law), Doctoral Dissertation of Xiamen University (2006); Ying Shen, 苏 联 的 领 土 扩 张 研 究 (Research on the Expansion of Land of the Soviet Union), Doctoral Dissertation of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (2009); Qian Qin, 国际法与宗教非政府组织 (Int’l Law and Religious Non-Governmental Organization), Doctoral Dissertation of Fudan University in 2007; Xiumei Wang, 国家对国际社会整体的义务 (The Overall Obligation of States to Int’l Society), Doctoral Dissertation of the China University of Political Science and Law (2007); Peng Guo, 国家 利 益 冲 突 与 国 际 电 子 商 务 法 律 制 度 构 建 (The Construction of the Legal Institution of the Interest Conflict and Electronic Business), Doctoral Dissertation of Jinan University (2008); Jing Li, 国内政治与国家对外缔约行为 (Domestic Politics and the Acts of Contracting with Other States), Doctoral Dissertation of Jinan University (2007). Zhongfa Ma, 论经济全球化下的国际技术转让法律协调制度 (Discussion of the Coordination Institution of the Int’l Technology Transfer under the Globalization of Economy), Doctoral Dissertation of Fudan University (2005).

Zhiyun Liu

510

research.22 Due to the different terminology, these doctoral theses seemingly do not correlate with international law, but, as a matter of fact, the repetitive discussions of “international norms,” “international mechanisms,” and the like, have contained discussions of international law, and the objects of research, means of research, and research conclusions, etc., can be referred by the study of international law directly. 3.3

The Interdisciplinary Research as “Awareness” or “Consensus”

In the research teams of these two subjects, whether researching on “systematic connection” of international relations theory and international law, or using this interdisciplinary analysis as a method, the proportion is relatively small. However, it includes those not applying direct interdisciplinary analysis but actually accepting this interdisciplinary research method, and the scholars view interdisciplinary research as a viable way, the interdisciplinary research of international relations and international law can be viewed as a trend. Of the scholars of international law whom I know, though their works do not contain any interdisciplinary analysis, by looking at their bookshelves, there are many academic books regarding Western international relations that are introduced by Chinese scholars of international relations from abroad. Although this does not mean these scholars are preparing for this interdisciplinary analysis, and neither does it mean that they have already, or are going to read these books; it shows that the question and method of this interdisciplinary research was getting enough attention. What is more interesting is, in an introduction of a doctoral dissertation, a young international law student classified “international relations and interdisciplinary analysis of international law” as one of the three major research methods for his doctoral dissertation. However, I have read the whole work, but cannot find any place where such an analysis or method has been used. 22

Classic Doctoral dissertation include: Juan Du, 国际规范的传播：社会化和本土化 (The Dissemination of Int’l Norms: Localization and Socialization), Doctoral Dissertation of Shanghai Jiao Tong University in 2009; Chao Huang, 说服战略与国际规范传播 (The Strategy of Persuasion and the Dissemination of Int’l Norms), Doctoral Dissertation of China Foreign Affairs University (2009); Yunfang Wang, 走 向 有 效 的 多 边 主 义 (Toward Effective Multilateralism), Doctoral Dissertation of China University of Political Science and Law (2007); Pengbu Luo, 全球公共产品供给研究 (Research on the Supply of Global Public Products), Doctoral Dissertation of East China Normal University (2008); Ying Yu, 全球化时 代 的 国 际 机 制 研 究 (Research on Int’l Mechanism under the Globalization), Doctoral Dissertation of Jilin University (2008); Hongguo Qi, 国际合作中的制度取向 (The Choice of Institution in Int’l Cooperation), Doctoral Dissertation of Jilin University (2007); Lieying Jia, 无政府性与国际制度有效性的实证研究 (The Empirical Study of Anarchy and Effectiveness of Int’l Institution), Doctoral Dissertation of China Foreign Affairs University (2005).

Interdisciplinary Research on International Relations Theory and International Law

511

On the Contrary, this phenomenon has proved that interdisciplinary analysis has become an “awareness” or “consensus” by many scholars. There are two reasons for this phenomenon. First, interdisciplinary research in recent years has become a consensus in Chinese academics; for example, law and economic analysis of law have become a fashion; as a result, international relations and interdisciplinary analysis of international law can become a trend. Last year, the editors of “China Social Science News” asked me to write an article on the topic “International Relations and Interdisciplinary Exploration of International Law.” However, when the article was published, the title had been changed to “Interdisciplinary Research that Has Caught with the Trend.”23 The “fashion” awareness of the editors is quite obvious. Second, with the lead of the scholars of international relations and interdisciplinary research of international law, and the research influence this method has created, more and more scholars begin to face this domain and method, which even include those scholars who used to hold opposing views.

4 Looking into the Future―The Optimistic Prospect of the Interdisciplinary Research of International Relations and International Law Undoubtedly, to conduct interdisciplinary research is the inevitable reaction of scholars from different fields to research that beyond their own boundaries but have close relations with what they are researching. Also, it is imperative for scholars from different academic fields to pay close attention to any new movement in their own research field. The specific benefit brought by this kind of cross studies is not only that one subject can constructively borrow the concepts of another subject that is current and widely adopted, but also that one subject can effectively use the research or analyze the method of another subject; this even extends to that the accomplishment of one subject can provide another subject with rich study materials.24 In the Western academic world, the potential of the interdisciplinary research of international relations and international law is already demonstrated, such as “the interchange of concepts,” “the interflow of method,” and “the mutual assistance of materials.” The interdisciplinary research of international relations and international law in China is of no exception. The strong, yet-to-be-explored potential of these concepts will depict an optimistic future of interdisciplinary research. 23

Zhiyun Liu, 赶上潮流的跨学科研究 (Interdisciplinary Research in the Trend), 中国社会科 学报 (Social Sciences in China), September 3, 2009. 24

See Beck, fn. 12 at 19.

Zhiyun Liu

512

4.1

The Interchange of Concepts

With different academic training and activities of socialization, the members of international relations and international law actually belong to “different language communities.” 25 Consequently, keywords such as “mechanism,” “positivism,” “system,” “theory,” etc., have different meanings to scholars of international law and international relations. Some other basic terminologies, such as “opinion juris,” “epistemic community,” “jus cogen,” “soft law,” “rebus sic stantibus,” and the like, are sometimes only used for a certain academic subject. As for China, with the increasing communication of the two subjects and the development of interdisciplinary research, the terminologies or vocabulary are much more sophisticated. For example, terminologies such as “unilateralism,” “multilateralism,” “hegemonic stability theory,” “international mechanism,” “interdependence,” etc., that once only belonged to the study of international relations have now become popular in the field of international law; legal terminologies such as “jus cogen,” “soft law,” “rebus sic stantibus,” are begin to appear more in the books and articles of international relations. It is positive that with the increasing popularity of interdisciplinary research, the vocabulary of the two subjects will continue to expand, and the language of each of these two subjects will continue to advance. Of course, if the meaning of the increase of vocabulary is to further the use of formal communication, then the complementation effects of the different degrees of research of the two subjects to relative concepts will have fundamental significance. As a matter of fact, in the fifty years of separation between international relations and international law, the two subjects have respectively made progress in different directions, and on different issues. Today, in general, they have formed two cultures; they are “exploring different questions and expecting different answers.” 26 Objectively speaking, although international peace and cooperation are the most focused issues of the mainstream of international law and international relations, there are also many other issues or fields that have aroused the interests of scholars in international law and international relations, and they have made discussions regarding these issues, or placed different emphasis on the common issues of the two subjects, and the emphasis placed on similar issues of the two subjects is greatly differentiated. When the opportunity of cooperation comes again, although the separation in the past is an obstacle for new cooperation, it has provided complementation of their strength and weakness. Specifically, when constructively using the concepts of 25

See Burley, fn. 11; Oran R. Young, Int’l Law and Int’l Relations Theory: Building BridgesRemarks, 86 Proc. Am. Soc. Int’l L. 175 (1992). 26 See Young, fn. 26 at 174.

Interdisciplinary Research on International Relations Theory and International Law

513

another subject that is current, widely adopted and studied, not only can it avoid the misunderstanding of these concepts, but also allow them to practice the act of “getting the good from another” in research, avoiding detours. For example, national interest is the core concept of international relations theory and the study of international law; it is the fundamental principle of the States to protect from outer hostilities in this complicated international environment. It is the important basis and decisive factor when a State makes its foreign targets and launches cooperation in many aspects, including politics, economics and law. Therefore, the meaning, characteristic analysis and discussion of national interest, whether referring to international relations theory or international law, carry the significance of a milestone. In the international relations theory, whether the mainstream of the theory and practice of international relations for some time after World War I, or the mainstream of the Cold War, and the neo-realism, neo-liberalism, and constructivism, have become the three pillars in the study of international relations after the Cold War, different in perspectives, but none denied that diplomatic means must protect national interest to the maximum and to promote national interest. Their definitions for national interest，naturally becomes bases of their respective theoretical construction. The different choices of these bases have caused different views on the position and function of international law, and different judgments in the construction and obedience of international law by the States. This difference in theory can affect the practice of international law and provide interpretation for certain phenomenon of the development of international law. By studying the current research of international relations in the West and the East, we can observe that, there is much research on national interest. However, as to the academia of international law, whether it is in the East or the West, many scholars always use the protection and promotion of “national interest” as the bases of analyzing national interest, but the word “national interest” to them is rather a term of prior experiences that remain unchanged. Does it represent interest of nationalities, or of political parties, or even of the groups of power? Does it represent military interest, economic interest, or even cultural interest? Does it be the same all the time or constantly evolve? Is it a piece of integral form, or a form with distinctive gradations? These fundamental important and imperative issues have not fallen within the purview of scholars of international law. However, the disagreements to the above issues not only affect the State’s attitude regarding international law, but also affect the practice and development of international law. What is more realistic to clarify the relationships between national interest and international law, and how to view and to participate in the current international legal system from the standpoint of their own national interest. Deciding the strategies to handle international legislation, execution

Zhiyun Liu

514

and judiciary, etc., not only the developing China must face, but also the fact that China, when trying to maximize its interest and protect its interest and establish itself as a super nation, must face. Therefore, as to the fundamental topic of international law, which needs to be developed, finding ways from international relations theory will provide a shortcut for its research. No doubt, “national interest” is just a small example. When the interdisciplinary research of the two subjects continues, scholars will find more research opportunities and room for both sides and the great benefit is not something that the current interdisciplinary research could well perceive. As a result, the interaction of concepts not only advances the language of the subjects, but also complements each other’s knowledge. This is a big task for the “systematic connection” of the two subjects, and is also a promising prospect that interdisciplinary cooperation will bring to. 4.2

The Exchange of Method

Undoubtedly, what the specific benefit interdisciplinary analysis can obtain, not only lies in that each subject can constructively borrow the current concepts of another subject that has been widely used, but also lies in that each subject can effectively use the research method or analysis method of another subject. From the macro perspective, the main research of the scholars of international relations and international law includes detail analysis, normative analysis, interpretation, instrumental analysis, semantic analysis, all of which can benefit from the exchange of method. For example, from the current research we can see that the descriptive work of international relations scholars is often powerful and unconstrained, the consequences of which can only draw abstracts to the diversified institutions or phenomena, and cannot satisfy the needs of further theoretical analysis. On the contrary, international law scholars who are used to conduct detailed analysis will provide this theoretical analysis with a fine filter based on factors, such as events, procedure, text, practice and specific arrangement of mechanisms.27 However, with respect to descriptive research, international scholars can even benefit more. On the one hand, the research of international relations has already proved that the descriptive work based on different theoretical vision can acquire better research results that have more value. Since different research perspectives can lead researchers to mainly concern the factors that requires specific attention, the relationships that need to be explored, and to provide them with different channels that can help clarify complicated facts. 27

See Abbott, fn. 8 at 168.

Interdisciplinary Research on International Relations Theory and International Law

515

Therefore, theoretical frame is very helpful for international law scholars to conduct analytical research which is neglected by the most of them. On the other hand, with the research of international conflicts and cooperation, scholars of international relations provide a perspective that goes beyond the restraint of evaluation of formal treaty or rules. Specifically, when conducting this descriptive research, they did not confine to specific institutional arrangement, but tried to find new research interests and focal points from the perspective of society and economy. For example, in the research of GATT/WTO, under many circumstances many scholars of international law take GATT/WTO as a role to provide services to promote institutions of trade negotiations, but in general they are used to treating GATT/WTO as a formal mechanism arrangement, and specifically conduct various extremely meticulous institutional analysis on them. In contrast, scholars of international relations would rather take this international mechanism as one of the approaches to promote cooperation between States. As a result, when describing international treaties in detail, scholars of international law could have a better understanding of treaties if they take them as a kind of informal agreement, or as unilateral coordination used before with respect to nuclear weapon reduction, or mechanism choices that are relative and distinctive in effect which are published in economic summits.28 Moreover, the activity of semantic analysis, which has often been neglected by international relations scholars, is one of the tasks that have been passionately pursued by scholars of international law. From the perspective of research, just like treating the prescription of a doctor, this task obviously should not be neglected. As a result, when conducting interdisciplinary research, semantic analysis can make a great contribution to the research of international relations. Doubtlessly, the development of the theory of international relations currently demonstrates a trend that places emphasis on theoretical analysis but neglects practical test. However, international law can bring detailed analytical information regarding legal practice and procedure, guidance and specific rules, interpretations and operations, etc., which compensates for the deficiencies of international relations theory in detail. The most useful research methodologies of international relations is the semantic analysis of the specific provisions and procedures of international treaty, to which the scholars of international law excel. As a matter of fact, whether the legal arguments raised by scholars of international law, or the evaluation of this legal argument maintained by other scholars of international law, it has strong reference to the understanding of international relations, especially whether international commitments can restrain the acts of States and how that is accomplished. For example, when trying to 28

Id. at 168–69 (1992).

516

Zhiyun Liu

argue that reputation is one of the momentums for States to be in compliance with international commitments, they can question and analyze the thoroughness of legal reasoning whether relative legal systems can independently constitute the restraint of State acts, or they think that this legal reasoning is so loose that subsequent rational action based on cost-effective principle may come true, therefore acquire the supporting arguments. In addition, as to the topic of the scholars of international relations, the semantic analysis of international law also can help them to understand illegal acts of a certain field and whether the influential force of reputation can move from one field to another, etc. In conclusion, these accomplishments from the semantic analysis of international law can further the discussion of reputation which has been considered and discussed by scholars of international relations.29 At the same time, from the micro perspective, as to the specific research problem or route, the exchange of method between international relations and international law can even provide important inspiration or power for academic creativity. Whether is the reference of how lawyers and judges can reach opinion juris of legal operation when constructivism emerges, or the imitation of the route “from below” of the liberal international relations theory at the emergence of “liberal international law,” have all proven this. As a matter of fact, the formation of the basic theories and ideas of constructivism has drawn substantial experiences and methods from the researches on international law. The act from common recognition to obedience of international law of States, or the process from legal norms that can create the conflict of understanding to court verdict or arbitration decisions whereby a consensus or coordination, all of which will have strong guidance for constructivists as to how to construct the world with nonmaterial force such as “culture,” “views,” “knowledge,” etc. Specifically, either the fact that lawyers argue basing on customary international law, or that court adjudicates cases according to customary international law, both are the process of trying to find a court of public opinion, i.e., every country believes the principles in law have binding force. In this process, they must clarify whether each State has this norm de facto when it acts, and whether the State needs to emphasize the importance of norm or principles to prove the legality of its acts. Obviously, the methods adopted in this process are very helpful for the constructivists to prove the existence and constructive function of norm. In addition, article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice has expressly catalogued works of authoritative jurist as the source of international law that can serve to be the evidence of the existence of customary international legal norms. However, judges and lawyers must solve the conflicts resulting from the interpretations of different academic works to international treaties and 29

Id. at 170–72 (1992).

Interdisciplinary Research on International Relations Theory and International Law

517

agreements. Lawyers must “persuade” the judges that certain interpretations of international law are consistent with reality and vice versa. Doubtlessly, the analysis of this “persuasion” has significant meaning to constructivism. If the constructivist wants to know how actors and international framework are constructed at the international level, he or she must know the rules that lawyers and judges accord to when they persuade and adjudicate, i.e., what makes an authoritative interpretation persuasive and coercive.30 Of course, the meaning of this kind of exchange is not unilateral; on the contrary, the holism methodology of constructivism has provided opportunity to recognize the real significance of international law in international society.31 As to the issue of imitation of the liberal international relations theory by “liberal international law,” its active advocator Slaughter freely confessed that “liberal international law” is one of the theories evolved from liberal international relations theory; it is the specific elaboration of the latter, a theory that is positive rather than conventional, that reflected in international law.32 From the perspective of methodology, compared with the systematic-level analysis of neo-realism that goes “from top to bottom,” liberal international relations theory is a theory that goes from “bottom to top;” it starts with unit-level analysis, and merges itself with systematic-level analysis in a very smart way, and then enlarges domestic factors to international society, extending domestic influence to world politics. This is inspiring in the traditional research mode of international law, which is traditionally dependent on the path of analysis “from bottom to top” or “from outside to inside.” As to this, Slaughter complimented that liberal international relations theory of liberalism has provided room for analysis to domestic and transnational individuals and organizations; these substantive activities also provided ways for exploring the meaning of domestic and transnational law to international law.33 She further 30

Martha Finnemore, 国际社会中的国家利益 (National Interests in Int’l Society), trans. Zhengqing Yuan, Zhejiang People’s Publishing House (Hangzhou), at 163–64 (2001). 31 Zhiyun Liu, 国际法研究的建构主义路径 (The Pathway of the Constructivism of Int’l Law Studies), (4) 厦门大学学报 (Journal of Xiamen University), 2009. 32 Anne-Marie Slaughter, A Liberal Theory of Int’l Law, 94 Proc. Am. Soc. Int’l L. 240 (2000). As a matter of fact whether it is the starting point of the liberal int’l law, or its theoretical presumption, or even analytical method and research pathway, they all evolved from the liberal int’l relations theory. Because of this, some scholars of int’l relations even view “liberal int’l law” as a theoretical branch of the liberal int’l relations theory. See Changhe Su, 自由主义与世 界政治——自由主义国际关系理论的启示 (Liberalism and Global Politics—the Implication of Liberal Int’l Relations Theory), in 自 由 主 义 与 美 国 外 交 政 策 (Liberalism and the US Diplomatic Policies), Xiao Ren & Dingli Shen eds., SDX Joint Publishing Company & East China Normal University Press (Shanghai), at 12 (2005). 33 Anne-Marie Slaughter, Interdisciplinary Approaches to Int’l Economic Law: Liberal Int’l Relations Theory and Int’l Economic Law, 10 Am. Univ. J. Int’l L. & Pol’y 743 (1995).

Zhiyun Liu

518

pointed out that this theory has indeed provided a new world for scholars of international law, who need to learn to reconsider every international issue. As to these issues, scholars of international law must switch their view from the perspective of the reciprocity of States to the interaction of individuals and specific governmental agencies. This way of reconsidering international politics has further implications to international scholars on how to make international orders.34 As to the “liberal international law” by Slaughter, it is the specific portrayal of the “from bottom to top” way of anti-tradition mode in international legal issues, which is faced with “a brand of new world” revealed by the international relations theory of liberalism. Up to now we can see that, whether it is from the macro or micro perspective, the significant benefit brought by the interaction of both the subjects of international relations and international law in terms of research method is obvious to all. This not only provides opportunities for the past research accomplishment, but also makes accomplishment that can be achieved by further interdisciplinary analysis possible. The current achieved accomplishment is, at most, a drop in the ocean; interdisciplinary analysis will bring the scholars of the two fields with spatial research rooms and endless topics. The Western interdisciplinary research of international relations and international law of the last century started with topics of international governance, social construction, and liberal agency, etc., together with the research methods of the two subjects; the Western academic has conducted pioneering research in aspects of institutional arrangement, program design, discussion on the origin and fundament of sharing standards, constructivism turning of the analysis of international matters, network governance and embedded institutionalism. 35 Looking back at the past ten years, there are many scholars who tried to merge the methods of international relations and international law, and made several limited explorations in these fields. In the foreseeable future, it is reasonable to believe that there will be more research accomplishments in the new fields that adopt the combined methods of international relations and international law. 4.3

Mutual Help of Research Materials

Whether it is the “systematic connection,” or the discussion on common or overlapping issues, or even the discussions of “take what one needs” of the issues of their own subject, as the research materials of scholars of the two subjects, the research accomplishments of the two subjects have been widely adopted. As a 34

See Slaughter, fn. 33 at 241 (2000). Anne-Marie Slaughter, Andrew S. Tulumello & Stepan Wood, Int’l Law and Int’l Relations Theory: A New Generation of Interdisciplinary Scholarship, 92 Am. J. Int’l L. 369–84 (1998).

35

Interdisciplinary Research on International Relations Theory and International Law

519

matter of fact, under the motivation of the mission of interpretation, international relations theory has achieved even more impressive accomplishment with its powerful analytical tools. Generally speaking, the purpose of the interpretation analysis of scholars of international law is to comprehend the functions of international treaties, rules, and mechanism on States. For example, why do States keep on producing, maintaining and transplanting them, obeying and trying to strengthen them tirelessly? This interpretative analysis is based on the enacted law and formal international mechanism to which scholars of international law tried to pay close attention; they also have to presume that the State is rational and selfish. The basic analysis is whether the State can or cannot create international treaties, regulations, and mechanisms; these conditions or factors often include the destructive competition and free-riding, and some other motivations that are detrimental to cooperation. Related to this, international relations theory can provide an analytical way that is relatively more understandable, thereby providing a good theoretical framework for the scholars of international law to analyze different treaties or rules. Although the theoretical analysis framework provided by international relations scholars is complicated, and even contradictive, they are doubtlessly depended on by those who are trying to fully comprehend different treaties and rules.36 Therefore, in the research of international law, it is necessary to find proofs from international relations theory. Of course, it is not to find a new theoretical context for international law, but to better understand international law itself; in other words, through abundant descriptive and interpretative work, international relations theory can assist the scholars of international law to observe the social phenomena of international rules, institutions, and mechanisms.37 Specifically, as the proof material, the knowledge of international relations can provide at least the following functions for the study of international law: First, to analyze the development issues of international law on the systematical level. For example, macro issues such as the source and background of the Versailles System and League of Nations, the construction and compliance of the United Nations and its legal framework, the establishment and maintenance of the Bretton Woods System, the compliance and development of international law during the Cold War, the struggle of constructing a new order of international economy between developed countries and developing countries, the prosperity of the development of international law in the global context, and the future of international law, similarly, can help different phenomena of international law to find a macro theoretical context by analyzing the school of international relations 36

See Abbott, fn. 8 at 170–72. Kenneth W. Abbott, Modern Int’l Relations Theory: A Prospectus for Int’l Lawyers, 14 Yale J. Int’l L. 353–54 (1989). 37

520

Zhiyun Liu

which occupy the position of international relations theory during the same period, which in turn can help to better understand international law itself. Second, to explain the cooperation preference issues of individual country in international legislation from the meso perspective. As a matter of fact, on the meso level, knowledge of international relations theory not only has interpretive function in whether the State should choose to cooperate, and can demonstrate good interpretative functions as to other issues, which include legislative preference of State, acts that are in compliance or go against an agreement, negotiation strategy and tactics such as alliance, establishing negotiation clubs, etc. It also includes whether to adopt confrontation or compromise on dispute settlement issues. When scholars of international law are discussing these kinds of issues, appropriately using relative knowledge and method of international relations theory is very helpful in understanding these issues. Third, to use specific knowledge and the method of international relations theory to interpret micro issues such as specific construction of international rules. Using the knowledge and method of international relations theory can help to better understand the emergence and establishment of international rules, which reinforces the objective recognition of international rules. Of course, the proof materials of international relations theory and international law are interdependent; it is necessary to find relevant proof for the research activities of the former from the accomplishment of the latter. The international legal activity itself can provide supportive proofs for many points of international law theory. Similarly, this imported idea is not trying to implant knowledge of international law for the researchers of international relations, but to better understand international relations theory and international relations. On the one hand, referring to the knowledge and methods of international law to explain certain viewpoints of international relations theory is an effective and necessary way. For example, in the analysis of international relations theory of idealism, the thoughts of international society and international law of Grotius obviously is helpful in understanding the viewpoints and proposition of the school of idealism, the efforts of idealists in creating the Versailles System and the League of Nations, and the reason why these scholars place emphasis on the construction of the collective security mechanism. Similarly, the judgments of value and function that many scholars have on international law, which include, inter alia “Theory of World Order,” “Grotius-Deutsch paradigm” mode which is proposed by Karl W. Deutsch in the Grotius-Deutsch paradigm research, the research of “international society” which is represented by Martin Wight and Hedley Bull from the “English School,” compliance issues of the customary international law by the constructivism, which have been used to analyze “views,” “recognition,” etc., have all drawn a tremendous research accomplishment of international law. Relevant activities, with the introduction of

Interdisciplinary Research on International Relations Theory and International Law

521

relevant accomplishment of international law, have great significance for the researchers to comprehend and create these thoughts or viewpoints. On the other hand, in the research of international relations, the introduction of the practical activities of international law can explain certain views of the scholars of international relations, which is an effective way. As a matter of fact, the “legalization” trend of international mechanism, the practice proof of “effectiveness” or “constraining,” the specific proof of the integration theory and game theory of scientific behaviorism, the reality reflection or practical effect of the dependency theory, hegemonic stability theory, neo-liberal institutionalism of international political and economical school, the “recognition” and “idea” of constructivism, etc., all can be proved and supported with the inspection of practical activities of international law. There is no doubt that using the analysis of the practical activities of international law can help the researchers to better understand some logics of reasoning and actual influence regarding the theory of international relations, which in turn reinforces the objective recognition of these schools and their specific viewpoints, in order to realize the final theoretical creation. Doubtlessly, mutual assistance of research materials is the most straightforward way of interaction in interdisciplinary research, and is also a basic or normal usage of interdisciplinary research as a method. The basic and general nature of the “mutual assistance of research materials” has at least determined that it has a greater popularity compared with some higher level interdisciplinary analysis such as “exchange of concepts” and “exchange of methods,” and is also a faster way of taking effects and getting “deep into people’s hearts.” At the present, international relations of China and international interdisciplinary analysis have mostly been portrayed on this perspective; a tremendous number of researchers have already adapted to the act of “get the good from another” from these two subjects to look for the knowledge point they needed to prove their views. It can be predicted that, in the context that the interdisciplinary analysis of international relations and international law becomes a trend, there will be more and more Chinese scholars who will skillfully realize the “mutual assistance of research materials” of the basic knowledge of the two subjects, and this will also be very helpful in casting significant influence on the continuation of interdisciplinary research, which can place a firm “base” for higher level interdisciplinary analyses, such as “exchange of concepts” and “exchange of methods.”

5 Conclusion The past decade is a period of emergence of the interdisciplinary research of

522

Zhiyun Liu

international relations and international law. During these ten years, some scholars have overcome the difficulties of interdisciplinary research, and have achieved some accomplishments in the exploration of systematic connections and overlapping issues, which also compel these interdisciplinary researches to eventually overcome the prejudice within the subject and bridge the gap between the subjects, and has become a popular way of research method that is a consensus to many scholars. Of course, this interdisciplinary research in China is still in its infancy. Either in the systematic connection or the common issues focused on or the research method, it carries a burdensome mission in the whole; and its vast unknown area needs to be explored by scholars who are devoted to this research. As for the two subjects, whether it is the exchange of concepts, the exchange of methods or the mutual assistance of research material, all have great potential and the prospect of an optimistic future. Looking at the future of research, not only the basic systematic connections of the two subjects need to be conducted, but also the common discussions of specific issues also need to be conducted. From the perspective of research, the level of the process of importing foreign theories needs to be changed into the application level of the analysis of the issues, both domestic and foreign, and especially those of China. The final point that needs to be emphasized is, using the knowledge and method of international relations theory to analyze the issues of international law will provide a viable way of the creativeness of Chinese study of international law; similarly, referring to the views and methods of international law to analyze the issues of international relations can provide a distinctive research horizon for the research of the international relations in China. What is more, if the scholars of international relations and international law can cooperate with each other, using the knowledge and method of the overlapping part of the two subjects to analyze and explore the commonly faced issues of international security and peace, and the peaceful emergence of China, this will be a new approach with great vitality for international interdisciplinary research. Doubtlessly, from the perspective of academic development, the above-mentioned three aspects can all become the fields on which international relations theory in China and international legal research can try to discuss and acquire new theoretical breakthrough. Acknowledgement This article is sponsored by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Key Universities (no. 2011221032, launched by Xiamen University) and the Key Projects of Philosophy and Social Sciences Research (no. 09JZD0021, launched by the Ministry of Education of China) and the National Social Science Research Funds (no. 10BFX090).

Interdisciplinary Research on International Relations Theory and International Law

523

Author Zhiyun Liu, Ph.D in law (Xiamen University), is a professor at School of Law, Xiamen University. He specializes in the crossing areas of international relation theory and international law, as well as the public international law, international economic law, financial law and investment law. Since 1999, over 110 articles of his, in English and/or Chinese, have been published in the periodicals in China and foreign countries. Meanwhile, his published monographs include 国际经济 法律自由化原理研究 (Research on the Theory of Liberalization of International Economic Law, 2005), 现代国际关系理论视野下的国际法 (International Law from the Perspective of Modern International theory, 2006), 当代国际法的发展： 一 种 从 国 际 关 系 理 论 视 角 的 分 析 (The Development of Contemporary International Law: An Analysis from the Perspective of International Relations Theory, 2010).