Managing the U.S.-China Relationship in Three (and Three Alternative) Dimensions

Jingyuan Zhou

doi:10.1017/aju.2022.2

Abstract

Gregory Shaffer's article discussing the legal aspects of the multifaceted U.S.-China relationship is comprehensive, pragmatic, and timely at the twentieth anniversary of China's World Trade Organization (WTO) accession. Shaffer provides a surgical analysis of the “three central dimensions of this relationship: (i) the economic dimension; (ii) the geopolitical/national security dimension; and (iii) the normative/social policy dimension.” He also offers a targeted roadmap to reconceptualize a world where policies are increasingly securitized and to revitalize domestic safety valves embedded in the post-war economic system. Under Shaffer's proposed “Rebalancing Within a Multilateral Framework,” states enjoy more policy space and accommodation, subject to the proportionality principle and protection of third parties. Supplementing Shaffer's analysis, I offer three alternative dimensions, namely, the perceptions of businesses, states, and international organizations and how they complicate the successful delivery of Shaffer's proposal. I echo Shaffer's call for empathy between the United States and China regarding their respective domestic challenges and approaches to each other. Yet I contend that adequate trust and understanding of each other and the agreement over Shaffer's identification of interfaces/dimensions by decisionmakers of the two nations are susceptible to disruptions caused by the three alternatives I offer. Furthermore, I argue that a thorough and inclusive policy and legal analysis—designed in a coordinated way (“统筹” in Chinese)—should reduce negative externalities from the management of the U.S.-China relationship and minimize impacts for developing and least developed countries.

Highlights

Gregory Shaffer’s article discussing the legal aspects of the multifaceted U.S.-China relationship is comprehensive, pragmatic, and timely at the twentieth anniversary of China’s World Trade Organization (WTO) accession
Shaffer provides a surgical analysis of the “three central dimensions of this relationship: (i) the economic dimension; (ii) the geopolitical/national security dimension; and (iii) the normative/social policy dimension.”[1]. He offers a targeted roadmap to reconceptualize a world where policies are increasingly securitized and to revitalize domestic safety valves embedded in the post-war economic system.[2]
Self-restraint and empathy that limit impulsive reactions by U.S domestic businesses and interests could help smoothen the process. Both the United States and China are cognizant of the significance of their bilateral relationship, vowing not to let competition “veer into conflict.”[51]. Whichever path they take, they will need to make tough decisions that balance domestic priorities and international realities, which would set an example for how to manage future challenges

Summary

Three Alternative Dimensions

The U.S.-China relationship is a dynamic equilibrium shaped by the logic of markets and the logic of states.[4]. Unbridled corporate practices have likewise been subject to discipline in China.[6] Determined to redress perceived unfair practices, unorderly expansion, and inequality, and to achieve “common prosperity,”[7] the Chinese government initiated administrative and legislative actions against corporations, seeking to protect ordinary citizens’ interests and re-exert control.[8] selected Chinese business sectors with strategic importance such as semiconductors and artificial intelligence have been promoted. Corporations in both countries have started to feel tightened regulatory environments. Compare with AmCham Shanghai Releases 2021 China Business Report, AMCHAM SHANGHAI (Sept. 23, 2021) (finding that a third of the chamber’s members thought China’s policies would help their revenue and none would relocate production from China to the United States)

AJIL UNBOUND

Conclusion