APRD Summary for Week 14 Ronald M.

Castillo 堡明君 (110265506)

A Different Field

Johnston’s (2019, see Leutert & Haver, 2020) “China in a World of Orders (see Leutert &
Haver, 2020) stated that the international world if composed of “multiple international
orders,” not just by one. This was the chosen theory being extended upon by Leutert &
Haver (2020) in their journal article: “From Cautious Interaction to Mature Influence.” The
paper though was made puzzling on the how and the why of China’s evolution of
engagement towards the international investment regime. Leutert and Haver suggest a co-
evolution between state behavior, China in this case, and international orders as the cause of
such “multiple international orders.” However, the focus is on the co-evolving pair as
complementary variables.

The authors made use of an interesting research design by focusing on the primary source of
negotiated bilateral instruments of China with other states. The data were gathered from
two sources, first is fro UNCTAD’s database of investment policies and second, from
Chinese government websites. In a way, these documents were surveyed, totaling 256
documents (117 from the first source, 139 from the second). The method used qualitative
coding of the documents based on specific traits: partner state, region, date of signing,
current status, and the presence of security exception. These were tallied into tables, and
observations gleaned from the analysis were juxtaposed with empirical events and
observations from secondary sources. As can be found in the argument, it is co-evolution
which Leutert & Haver (2020) considers security exceptions as the “why” of China’s
evolution of engagement. With regards to the how, the design yielded four phases spanning
particular periods in time; first is cautious interaction (1970s, 1980s), second is active
participations (1990s), committed implementation (2000s), and mature influence (2013).

Before continuing with this response, I’d like to identify keywords which a non-IPE
specialist should be noting. Bilateral International Trade agreements are basic in IR, however
we need to clarify security exceptions. These, as defined in the article are waivers to a
signatory’s need to comply to certain parts or even to the full treaty if their own national
security is placed at risk at a particular point in time of the treaty’s duration (Leutert &
Haver, 2020).

Leutert & Haver’s (2020) work does not simply contribute an argument to the body of
International Political Economic (IPE) knowledge but also generate an original dataset on
the Chinese bilateral investment treaties. This is groundbreaking to me who has interests in
social networks and policy networks as components of social advocacy. Last week, Dr.
O’Brien said that those who can capitalize on research before or during the pandemic impact
emerges as winners. This manner of research opens pathways for field research which
makes use of empirical data without going out to the field and yet I doubt as can simply be
called “armchair.” There are many applications of this design. I’ve worked with an
environment advocacy research group in Manila, and this can be used not just as an analysis
of policy but in terms of finding agency within the network of policy. The same can be
applied to my research pathway now on gender advocacy.