“Unlike other research institutions, think tanks are political in nature; and they are responsible for policy research, training skills in political analysis and having political influence. When a think tank has political influence it means that it has influence in academic circles, the society, and the world” (Zhao Minghao, 2016, pp. 36–37).
“During imperial China, the emperor had his own ‘think tanks’ and ‘brain trusts’, which have often been overlooked because they did not look like modern-day think tanks in the west. They also practiced both top-down and bottom-up consultations and suggestions. Even today, government officials often set up a temporary consultation group on major issues, because it is a part of Chinese traditional culture” (Yuan Peng, 2016b, p. 23).
As a result, given its special role and the sources of access derived, FPTTs represent vital foreign policy actors (Jakobson & Knox, 2010) deeply rooted in Chinese culture, capable of shaping predominant patterns of perception and framing the scope of Chinese foreign policy behavior and strategy in a certain issue area. Briefly, they perform a whole range of roles and tasks. Its traditional role (decision-maker influence) is the publication of (written) content, particularly on issues of interest to the PRC government. Such content includes reports, books and journals as well as other formats. While these different types greatly differ in terms of their level of distribution, the frequency of publication, the language of publication, topical focus as well as accessibility92 [62] and circle of recipients93, they naturally serve a number of different objectives ranging from scientific advice and policy briefings, engaging with public opinion in China, to joining the international debate or informing certain international audiences of foreign policy experts about issues of Chinese foreign policy. In addition to publication and written analysis and commentary, FPTTs conduct and present scientific advice and consulting activities with government officials on a direct and personal level (in both institutionalized and ad-hoc frameworks) (Mc Gann, 2012). In this vein, particularly with respect to ad-hoc frameworks, personal ties between scholars and high-ranking government officials are crucial for FPTT staff when decision-making influence is concerned. Furthermore, the enhancement of academic exchange is another core objective. Thus, FPTTs maintain close ties to scientists and policy experts abroad, for instance by attending and organizing international conferences or establishing institutionalized cooperation frameworks with external bodies (abroad and domestic). The most prestigious think tanks94 in China with a (special) focus on international politics include:
- China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR) (affiliated to Ministry of State Security, overseen by CPC Central Committee),
- China Institute of International Studies (CIIS) (affiliated to Ministry of Foreign Affairs),
- Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) (affiliated to State Council),
- Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (SIIS) (affiliated to Ministry of Foreign Affairs),
- Academy of Military Sciences (AMS) (affiliated to Ministry of Foreign Affairs).
In addition, several other smaller institutes95 are directly related to famous Chinese universities, yet still being subject to governmental oversight:
- Tsinghua University [63] (e.g. Institute of International Studies/Modern International Relations),
- Beijing University (e.g. Center for International and Strategic Studies),
- Renmin University,
- China Foreign Affairs University,
- Fudan University,
- Shanghai International Studies University.
Altogether, Chinese FPTTs, due to their omnidirectional and multidimensional influences on foreign policy-making and debate, constitute a particularly interesting research subject. At the same time, their significance is substantially and continuously increasing given their rapidly growing role in China’s scientific advisory system. This development is associated with China’s foreign policy decision-making, the special structure of FPTTs therein, and the PRC’s increasing dependence of and reliance on such expertise (see box below). That said, foreign policy-making in China is neither transparent nor does it follow transparent rules and procedures. Hence, several alternate research subjects such as parliamentary debates on issues of foreign policy are either largely absent or not accessible from the outside. At the same time, reproducibility and identification of decisive decision-making processes and negotiations in China remain almost impossible tasks for researchers. Against this backdrop, a close look at FPTTs, given their special affiliation with government and/or party bodies and their official function to inform and advise the political elite as well as their ability to influence political agendas, constitutes a viable option for gaining insights into Chinese debates, perception patterns, preferences, and interpretations on foreign policy issues regardless96.
2.5 Summary Analytical and Theoretical Chapter
In sum, this chapter introduced the theoretical framework required to address the research question later on. To be precise, respect dynamics were conceptualized as an alternative variable of international relations research. In addition, three theory-derived hypotheses have been established with the purpose of providing substantial answers as to the existence, role and possible implications of respect dynamics in Chinese elite discourses on the South China Sea. Finally, six indicators of respect dynamics have been introduced that guide the respect experience identification process in chapters 4.2 and 4.3. Consecutive chapters will entail the analytical application of the theoretical and methodological framework to this book’s case study. At first, a general overview of the latter will be provided.
[64] 3. The South China Sea Dispute
This chapter introduces the single case study, the South China Sea dispute. In general, the case study is divided into two sub-cases to provide for “in-case comparison” (Collier, 1993, p. 112). As the case design (see below) demonstrates, both sub-cases have been chosen based on estimates regarding the status of these two countries as attributed by China. Another selection criterion is associated with the key role that both actors inhibit in the SCS dispute and region, respectively.
Table 1: Single Case Design
| Single case design | Status ascribed to external SCS stakeholder | Self-ascribed status (China) | Recommendation/preferences |
| Sub-case I: Discourses on U.S. conduct in the SCS | High (estimated) | Before 2012: medium (estimated) | Subject to analysis |
| Sub-case II: Discourses on Philippine conduct in the SCS | Medium (estimated) | As of 2012/2013: high (estimated) | Subject to analysis |
Source: Own representation
Overall, the single case study selected requires a special emphasis on the context the SCS dispute is embedded in, particularly the dispute’s historical background, its sources of conflict and tension and its core stakeholders as well as the claimant parties’ conflicting claims and objectives.
[65] 3.1 Historical Background and Sources of Conflict
The South China Sea refers to a vast marginal sea area of around 3,500,000 square kilometers (Figure 2). It is located south of the People’s