3

The Development of Antarctic Legal Regulations and Policy Recommendations for China: A National Security Perspective

WU Hui and ZHANG Xinbo

[Abstract] The National Security Law of P.R.C. (2015) explains the meaning and implications of China’s national security at the legal level, of which the maintenance of national security in such new domains as Antarctica is part and parcel. China’s Antarctic exploration shall abide by a series of Antarctic legal regulations whose development is of strategic importance to China’s national security interests in Antarctica. The main contents of Antarctic legal regulations include peaceful use and demilitarization, shelving and freezing sovereignty disputes, freedom of scientific research, conservation of marine living resources, maritime security and overall environmental protection. In recent years, with the extension of the human“footprint” to the more pristine parts of the continent, the Antarctic legal regulations face some cutting-edge issues like the continuous efforts made by Antarctic claimants to strengthen their own respective territorial positions, the potential development of rules and regulations concerning Antarctic tourism, non-governmental activities, aviation activities, special conservation areas, and renegotiations of the Antarctic environmental damage liability system. These trends will surely exert a far-reaching impact on China’s national security interests in Antarctica. China can safeguard its interests more efficiently in Antarctica through enacting specific legislation, issuing relevant policy documents and actively exercising its international law rights.

[Keywords] national security, Antarctic legal regulations, trends of development,China’s countermeasures

[Authors] WU Hui, Vice President, Professor and Doctoral Supervisor, University of International Relations (Beijing, 100091); ZHANG Xinbo, Assistant Research Fellow, Institute of Maritime Security, China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (Beijing, 100081).

21

Security Anxiety, Signaling and China’s Strategic Reassurance to Southeast Asian Countries

CAO Dejun

[Abstract] For a rising China, it is of great importance to win the trust and confidence from its neighboring countries by adopting systematic strategic reassurance and projecting an image of responsible major country with self-restraint.However, in the practice of good-neighbor diplomacy over the past two decades,Southeast Asian countries have been beset by worries and misgivings about China’s true intentions due to power asymmetry and geographical proximity. Since 2008,Southeast Asian countries have become particularly concerned about China’s “core interests” discourse, the increasing number of diplomatic sanctions and multilateral initiatives with so called “unclear intentions”. Faced with the growing security concerns of Southeast Asian countries, China has taken a proactive approach to dispelling their doubts and boosting their trust levels by releasing reassuring signals to them. Contrary to the “coercive” strategy, the “reassurance” strategy underlines the importance of winning the trust and confidence of other countries via positive incentives. Based on a critical integration of the existing literature, this paper tends to discuss two important dimensions: ways of sending good will (emotion-substance)and sources of cost (endogenous-exogenous). Logically speaking, there are four paths to expressing reassuring good-neighboring signals: good neighborliness discourse, interdependence, selfless assistance and institutional restraint. Faced with China’s assurance, Southeast Asian countries will actively explore and identify their possible choices, and then examine and evaluate China’s signals from four strategic perspectives: bargaining, socialization, hedging exploration and institutional containment. Due to the problem of subjectivity in the credibility assessment of signals, Southeast Asian countries have different understandings of China’s reassurance efforts. In view of this, China’s diplomacy needs to stimulate perspective-taking and understand the exploratory attempts of these neighboring countries.

[Keywords] China’s peaceful rise, signal transmission, intention perception,strategic reassurance, trust building

[Author] CAO Dejun, Postdoctoral Researcher, School of International Relations of Peking University (Beijing,100871).

46

The Construction and Impact of Japan’s “Multi-Domain Defense Force” in the Competitive Era

MENG Xiaoxu

[Abstract] Japan’s new defense strategy of “multi-domain defense force” extends Japan’s defense from traditional fields of land, sea, air to multiple domains like space, cyberspace and electromagnetism with greater emphasis on an integrated defense among various domains. As a comprehensive defense strategy, it also underlines defense on all fronts and at all stages from peacetime to “emergency”,from self-defense to Japan-US alliance and multi-layered security cooperation, from“front battlefield” to “rear system”. In order to carry out “cross-domain operation”,Japan has put forward priority projects and focused actions, placing particular emphasis on acquiring and reinforcing relevant defense capabilities in new domains such as space, cyberspace and electromagnetic spectrum. At the same time, Japan has also enhanced its sea-air capabilities, missile defense and off-defense strike capabilities in traditional areas, and adjusted its self-defense force system accordingly. The integration of the new defense strategy into the Indo-Pacific concept has further facilitated the development of Japan’s multi-dimensional cross-domain defense system. Taken together, the new strategy of “multi-domain defense force” is formulated in a highly competitive era in which Japan endeavors to keep himself in tune with the US military strategic adjustments, consolidate the Japan-US alliance, actively assess and respond to the security situation in this particular era, effectively addressing the challenges of the global military transformation in those new fields, better resolve the existing island disputes and strengthen its maritime defense. All of these have fueled Japan’s strive to construct a new defense strategy that will bring about far reaching consequences. Japan’s defense autonomy seems rather difficult to attain, the cornerstones of Japan’s post-war security strategy may be changed, and competition may arise in the new fields with adverse effects on the construction of a favorable constructive security relationship between China and Japan. In this regard, China needs to further enhance its comprehensive strength, make positive efforts to clear up Japan’s doubts about security issues in the bilateral relations, expand defense exchanges and security dialogues, and enhance security mutual trust between the two countries.

[Keywords] competition era, Multi-Domain Defense, cross-domain operation, USJapan alliance

[Author] MENG Xiaoxu, Associate Research Fellow, Institute of Japanese Studies,Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (Beijing, 100007).

76

The Health Security Strategy of America and Its Challenges to Global Health Security System

JIN Jiyong

[Abstract] The 21st century has witnessed an array of serious threats to global health security posed by such emerging and reemerging infectious diseases as COVID-19, Ebola, SARS and H1N1, which makes it an urgent task for the international community to improve global health governance. The Trump administration failed to formulate a specific global health security policy in its early days, although the United States has played an important role in global health security governance. Global Health Security Strategy, first released by the Trump administration in May 2019, was the formal announcement of its global health security policy. Focusing on addressing infectious disease threats, the Strategy adopts a national security-oriented and whole-of-government approach and fully reflects the core tenets of President Trump’s foreign policy doctrine:“burden-sharing”, “America First” and anti-multilateralism. Due to shared vulnerabilities in global health security, all countries have been tied together.Effective global health security governance calls for global multilateralism.Therefore, the national security-oriented Global Health Security Strategy characterized by “America First” policy is not compatible with the realization of global health security. The aforementioned mindset of the Trump administration not only undermines the foundation of international political cooperation necessary for building an effective global health security system, but also exacerbates the financing system of global health security, thus inevitably posing a challenge to the global health security system.

[Keywords] Trump administration, Global Health Security Strategy, infectious diseases, America First, COVID-19

[Author] JIN Jiyong, Associate Professor, Ph.D. Supervisor and Deputy Dean,School of International Relations and Public Affairs, Shanghai International Studies University (Shanghai, 200083).

96

US Biodefense Policy and National Security

LIU Changmin and SONG Mingjing

[Abstract] The US biodefense policy is the government’s platform for action aimed at countering biological threats, mitigating biological risks, and preparing in advance for, responding to, and recovering from biological incidents. Since the beginning of the 21st century, successive presidents have paid particular attention to the formulation and improvement of the US biodefense policies. From President George W. Bush to President Donald Trump, six relevant bills, seven national strategy reports and five executive orders have been issued. The US government seeks to elevate biodefense and biosecurity as a critical imperative in its national security strategy by building a bidirectional, solid, and systematic “biosecurity shield” framework via substantial funds, specialized agencies, integrated resources management and enhanced international cooperation. All these moves aim to successfully address the challenge posed by terrorist organizations’ constant efforts to seek biological weapons, proactively respond to the persistent pressure generated by hostile countries’ possession and development of biological weapons and efficiently tackle the weak binding regulations of the international community. The US biodefense policy has a dual impact on global biosecurity. On the one hand, it will promote international cooperation by conducting exchanges and dialogues with other countries or relevant international organizations as well as providing biosecurity assistance to them. On the other hand, subject to massive biodefense projects, enormous input in terms of funds and the “domestic security interests always go first” thinking, it may incur risks and thus jeopardize the global biosecurity situation.

[Keywords] biodefense policy, bioterrorism, biological weapons, national security,biosecurity

[Authors] LIU Changmin, Professor and Doctoral Supervisor, Department of International Relations, School of Political Science and Public Administration,China University of Political Science and Law; SONG Mingjing, Ph.D. Student,Department of International Relations, School of Political Science and Public Administration, China University of Political Science and Law (Beijing, 100088).

127

Fragmentation in Security Construction of Biodiversity Issues

WANG Sidan

[Abstract] The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) have been the significant institutional frameworks for global environmental governance and cooperation since 1992. Biodiversity issues deserve more attention from the international community in terms of international cooperation, social recognition and progress in actions and governance. While biodiversity governance is no less urgent than other global environmental issues, its fragmented securitization is not conducive to the construction of a holistic security awareness. The fragmentation in security construction of biodiversity issues presents itself at four levels: ecological conservation, objectives of governance, international negotiations, states and other actors. As far as the ecological conservation is concerned, it is important to raise people’s security awareness about biodiversity. The objectives of governance focus on the links between the “Aichi Targets” and security. The international negotiations cover such issues as financial mechanisms, resource mobilization, access and benefit-sharing (ABS) to and of genetic resources, protected areas (PAs) and the mainstreaming of the issue. Contracting parties and other actors have not only raised their own concerns about different topics but also integrated the construction of biodiversity security into multiple security concerns such as food, water, public health and economic security. However, although the biodiversity issue has been incorporated into security discourse, its fragmented security construction fails to promote effective global governance due to a lack of common awareness of biodiversity security as well as concise and clear-cut governance objectives and paths.

[Keywords] biodiversity, securitization, security construction, ecological security,environmental security, security governance

[Author] WANG Sidan, Lecturer, Institute of International Relations, China Foreign Affairs University (Beijing, 100037).