IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/woraff/v188y2025i3ne70021.html

Antiliberal Interventionism in Chinese Foreign Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Serafettin Yilmaz
  • Olga Daksueva

Abstract

Liberal interventionism invokes humanitarian imperatives to justify interference in the domestic affairs of sovereign states. China, however, has emerged as a vocal critic of this paradigm, advancing a distinct antiliberal interventionist stance rooted in three core principles: absolute sovereignty, state consent, and no‐strings‐attached developmentalism. This article examines how Beijing operationalizes these principles to pursue an illiberal interventionist agenda that both insulates its authoritarian governance model and promotes a global order divergent from liberal norms. While rhetorically opposing liberal interventionism, China simultaneously engages in subtle and pragmatic forms of intervention, particularly in the Global South, where its development model appeals to regimes resistant to Western conditionalities. Ultimately, China's antiliberal interventionism functions as both a defensive shield and a potent offensive tool in its broader ideological and geopolitical contest with the United States. 自由主义干涉主义援引人道主义原则, 为干涉主权国家内政辩护。然而, 中国已成为这一模式的公开批评者, 并提出了独特的反自由主义干涉主义立场, 其根源在于三大核心原则:绝对主权、国家同意和不附加任何条件的发展主义。本文探讨北京如何运用这些原则来推行非自由主义干涉主义议程, 既保护其威权主义治理模式, 又推动一种背离自由主义规范的全球秩序。中国在口头上反对自由主义干涉主义的同时, 也采取了微妙而务实的干预形式, 尤其是在全球南方国家, 其发展模式吸引了那些抵制西方条件限制的政权。最终, 中国的反自由主义干涉主义在其与美国更广泛的意识形态和地缘政治竞争中, 既充当了一道防御盾牌, 也成为了一项强有力的进攻工具。 El intervencionismo liberal invoca imperativos humanitarios para justificar la injerencia en los asuntos internos de Estados soberanos. Sin embargo, China se ha convertido en una crítica vehemente de este paradigma, promoviendo una postura intervencionista antiliberal distintiva, basada en tres principios fundamentales: soberanía absoluta, consentimiento estatal y desarrollismo sin condiciones. Este artículo examina cómo Pekín materializa estos principios para impulsar una agenda intervencionista iliberal que aísla su modelo de gobernanza autoritaria y promueve un orden global divergente de las normas liberales. Si bien se opone retóricamente al intervencionismo liberal, China participa simultáneamente en formas sutiles y pragmáticas de intervención, particularmente en el Sur Global, donde su modelo de desarrollo resulta atractivo para regímenes que se resisten a las condicionalidades occidentales. En última instancia, el intervencionismo antiliberal de China funciona tanto como escudo defensivo como potente herramienta ofensiva en su contienda ideológica y geopolítica más amplia con Estados Unidos.

Suggested Citation

  • Serafettin Yilmaz & Olga Daksueva, 2025. "Antiliberal Interventionism in Chinese Foreign Policy," World Affairs, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 188(3), July.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:woraff:v:188:y:2025:i:3:n:e70021
    DOI: 10.1002/waf2.70021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/waf2.70021
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/waf2.70021?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andreas Kern & Bernhard Reinsberg & Patrick E. Shea, 2024. "Why cronies don’t cry? IMF programs, Chinese lending, and leader survival," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 198(3), pages 269-295, March.
    2. Adler-Nissen, Rebecca & Zarakol, Ayşe, 2021. "Struggles for Recognition: The Liberal International Order and the Merger of Its Discontents," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 75(2), pages 611-634, February.
    3. Moravcsik, Andrew, 1997. "Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(4), pages 513-553, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aukje van Loon, 2020. "The Selective Politicization of Transatlantic Trade Negotiations," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 325-335.
    2. Jonas Tallberg & Thomas Sommerer & Theresa Squatrito, 2016. "Democratic memberships in international organizations: Sources of institutional design," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 59-87, March.
    3. Klaus H. Goetz & Ronny Patz & Theresa Squatrito, 2017. "Resourcing Global Justice: The Resource Management Design of International Courts," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 8, pages 62-74, August.
    4. Annie Young Song, 2023. "Beyond intergovernmental cooperation: domestic politics of transboundary air pollution in Korea and Singapore," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 397-413, December.
    5. Vaclav Vlcek, 2023. "Who cares about the UN General Assembly? National delegations size from 1993 to 2016," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 14(2), pages 349-360, May.
    6. Jeffry Frieden & Stefanie Walter, 2019. "Analyzing inter-state negotiations in the Eurozone crisis and beyond," European Union Politics, , vol. 20(1), pages 134-151, March.
    7. Anna Michalski, 2013. "Europeanization of National Foreign Policy: The Case of Denmark's and Sweden's Relations with China," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(5), pages 884-900, September.
    8. Vennesson Pascal, 2010. "Military Strategy in the Global Village," New Global Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 3(3), pages 1-43, February.
    9. Matera Paulina & Matera Rafał, 2019. "Why does cooperation work or fail? The case of EU-US sanction policy against Iran," Croatian International Relations Review, Sciendo, vol. 25(85), pages 30-62, November.
    10. Andrew Stravers, 2021. "Pork, parties, and priorities: Partisan politics and overseas military deployments," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(2), pages 156-177, March.
    11. Daniel S. Andrews & Stav Fainshmidt & Michael A. Witt & Ajai Gaur, 2025. "Foreign policy: implications for multinational firms," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 105-119, March.
    12. Axel Dreher & Valentin F. Lang & B. Peter Rosendorff & James Raymond Vreeland, 2018. "Buying Votes and International Organizations: The Dirty Work-Hypothesis," CESifo Working Paper Series 7329, CESifo.
    13. Paul Novosad & Eric Werker, 2019. "Who runs the international system? Nationality and leadership in the United Nations Secretariat," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 1-33, March.
    14. Jiping Dong & Shuai Chen & Fangyu Ding & Jun Zhuo & Mengmeng Hao, 2025. "Spatiotemporal characteristics and drivers of global cyber conflicts," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-12, December.
    15. Rebecca Adler-Nissen, 2016. "Towards a Practice Turn in EU Studies: The Everyday of European Integration," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(1), pages 87-103, January.
    16. Mathieu Rousselin, 2012. "The EU as a Multilateral Rule Exporter - The Global Transfer of European Rules via International Organizations," KFG Working Papers p0048, Free University Berlin.
    17. Wolfgang Wagner, 2017. "Liberal Power Europe," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(6), pages 1398-1414, November.
    18. Justin Leinaweaver & Robert Thomson, 2014. "Testing models of legislative decision-making with measurement error: The robust predictive power of bargaining models over procedural models," European Union Politics, , vol. 15(1), pages 43-58, March.
    19. Thiago Lima, 2021. "Brazil’s Humanitarian Food Cooperation: From an Innovative Policy to the Politics of Traditional Aid," Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy, Centre for Agrarian Research and Education for South, vol. 10(2), pages 249-274, August.
    20. Akbar, Yusaf H. & Kisilowski, Maciej, 2015. "Managerial agency, risk, and strategic posture: Nonmarket strategies in the transitional core and periphery," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 984-996.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:woraff:v:188:y:2025:i:3:n:e70021. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.