My latest peer-reviewed article … an analysis of the history and contemporary policy implications of the post-1970s “One China” framework in international politics … has just entered into production at The China Quarterly.
Given surging frictions across the Taiwan Strait and between the U.S. and China, as well as significantly deepening concerns and interest in demonstrating support for democratic Taiwan in Japan, Australia, and other major U.S. allies in Europe, this article–and the special issue initiative of which will be a part–has (unfortunately) become even more timely than I feared it might when Dalton Lin (Georgia Tech) and I launched the project three years ago… Please take a look!
The version-of-record PDF will eventually be available from the publisher *open-access*. For now, a suggested citation and link to a (freely downloadable) Accepted Manuscript PDF are below.
- Adam P. Liff and Dalton Lin, “The ‘One China’ Framework at Fifty (1972-2022): The Myth of ‘Consensus’ and its Evolving Policy Significance.” Forthcoming at The China Quarterly.
- Abstract: This lead article surveys the history and evolving policy legacies of the “One China” framework 50 years after Nixon’s historic 1972 visit to China. It begins by introducing key concepts and highlighting the crucial difference between Beijing’s self-defined “One China principle” and the U.S.’, Japan’s, and key other countries’ variable “One China” policies as it relates to Taiwan. It argues that three seminal 1970s’ developments consolidated a “One China” framework as an informal institution of international politics. The ambiguity baked in by Cold War-era geopolitical necessity provided flexibility sufficient to enable diplomatic breakthroughs between erstwhile adversaries, but also planted seeds for deepening contestation and frictions today. Recent developments—especially Taiwan’s democratization and Beijing’s increasingly proactive assertion of its sovereignty claim—have transformed incentive structures in Taipei and major international partners. The net effect is that the ambiguities—and myth of consensus—underpinning the framework’s half-century of success face unprecedented challenges.