As international regime literature appeared in the early 1980s, international relations (IR) and international law (IL) began a dialogue. One aspect of the dialogue is focused on compliance. Compliance was originally an international legal concept, but more attention is now paid to it by political scholars. As Kal Raustiala and Anne-Marie Slaughter point out: ‘in many ways, the compliance literature is a microcosm of development in both fields, and particularly of the rapprochement between them’ (Raustiala and Slaughter, Reference Raustiala, Carlnaes, Risse and Simmons2002). International relations scholars and international lawyers provide some theoretical arguments about compliance. Teall E. Crossen reviews the contemporary literature concerning compliance. He illustrates that the competing schools of thought exist along a ‘compliance continuum’: at one end is the Chayesian approach advocating managing compliance, and at the other is the Downdian view arguing for enforcement when there are high incentives to defect (Crossen, Reference Crossen2003). In addition to theoretic debates, there are many empirical investigations in both disciplines. The scope concerns the environment, human rights, arms control, the WTO, and so on.
However, these explorations are placed more in the developed countries than in the developing countries. China's compliance is one of blind spots. At the present, the situation is changing. As China's participation in international organizations is increasing rapidly, China's compliance is on the agenda of discussion. China constitutes ‘a least likely case of compliance by virtue of its history, cultural traditions and power’ (p. 2). How China has complied with the norms, principles, and rules of the IGO and INGO, how it has cooperated with the international community and so on, naturally constitute attractive case studies of the relationship between China and international organizations. The analysis of compliance behavior not only opens a window that allows an observation of the relationship between China and international society, but contributes to answering the question: is China a threat, opportunity, or something else?
Chinese IR scholars began to explore the relationship between China and international organizations in the late 1990s. However, their focus was on the process of joining these organizations (Wang Yizhou, Reference Wang2003). It is a pity that the books did not pay more attention to compliance because of the scope of the subject. In fact, this is a common characteristic of Chinese studies in foreign scholarship. Ann Kent's book Beyond Compliance: China, International Organizations, and Global Security not only brings compliance into the analysis of China's international behavior, especially its behavior in an international organization, but also goes beyond compliance. This represents progress in addressing China's international organizational behavior.
Beyond Compliance is a sequel to Kent's earlier book entitled China, the United Nations and Human Rights: The Limit of Compliance (Kent, Reference Kent1997). In view of theoretical approach, Beyond Compliance has more theoretical interest than The Limit of Compliance. In the introductory chapter, it overviews compliance literature in both IL and IR. By drawing on Harold Koh's taxonomies, Kent concentrates on three main strands: liberalism, process-based theories, and rationalism. By investigating and comparing different strands of the categories, Kent moves away from the ‘international socialization and learning’ frame to ‘process-based’ theories (p. 246). She integrates the managerial theory of the international lawyers, Abram and Antonia Chayes, the transnational legal process theory of international lawyer, Harold Koh, and the international relations school of constructivism as the main theoretical underpinnings for the empirical case studies. At the same time, she provides critical explanations for the alternative theories that are no less applicable to China's case (pp. 13–16).
In the research, Beyond Compliance extends compliance to a more political question of cooperation. In Kent's view, beyond compliance is used as an analytical concept, meaning the need to move beyond sole consideration of formal compliance (and non-compliance) in evaluating the integration of a state into the international system to the broader political question of cooperation (and non-cooperation). After documenting the process of China's gradual intergration into the international community, from alienation to integration in chapter 2, the book adopts four cases to examine cooperation. Chapter 3 focuses on China and the International Security Regime through the Conference on Disarmament; Chapter 4 explores China and the international political economy regime through the World Bank and IMF; Chapter 5 examines China and the international environmental regime through the UNEP; Chapter 6 deals with China and the international human right through the ILO. Kent illustrates the process of China's entry into the above international organizations, highlights the complex interaction by using process-based compliance as an explanatory tool, and analyzes the extent to which China internalizes institutional norms and rules through the interacting process of domestic legislation, institution building, leadership policy, and social implementation (p. 32).
Beyond Compliance shows the landscape and dynamics of compliance and cooperation by connecting relevant theories in both IL and IR with specific cases from different perspectives. The conclusions are persuasive in certain ways, including the following arguments: China generally complies with the rules and its compliance has usually improved over time; China's compliance has been determined by mixed motives; while China normally ‘complies with international norms and rules, it has often not cooperated with them; China has had an important impact on the international system and the development of international law’ (pp. 4–5).
There are some weaknesses in this book. The ‘Rogue state’ label bestowed on China suggests prejudice. The essence of the ‘rouge state’ label is that certain states are excluded from international society (Saunders, Reference Saunders2006). The implication is that only when accepting shared ideas of European–American culture, can China become a normal state. The West is active, and China is passive. China is a follower. Therefore, changes in China are the results of European–American influences. This framework is the same as John King Fairbank's impact–response model in some ways. Maybe it relates to the structural focus in international relations theory. Although Beyond Compliance adopts process-based theory, its main emphasis is the external factors that effect China. This approach obscures the effect of China's own reforms and open policy on international organizations. After all, China is a rising power. Its attitude towards the world cannot be wholly controlled by the external factors. Beyond Compliance does not keep an appropriate balance between external and internal dynamics in explaining compliance and cooperation behavior.
