Writing in the Party's top theoretical journal, the IR professor says “international relations theory” should not be treated as synonymous with Western international relations theory.
What is the purpose of having a specifically Chinese theory of IR? I know this is a typical Chinese reaction, but I want to question it. To me, it does not make sense to use geography as a classifying factor in social sciences or in sciences. There is no Chinese or western maths or physics. Why should it be different in social sciences?
Even though these new theories of international relations are more than welcome, I don't think it is appropriate to frame them as the 'Chinese School' of international relations.
First, there's the fact –already pointed out by the author– that they have different and even conflicting theoretical points, so framing them as one school of thought would be misleading.
Second, given the author's intention of combine them with Xi Jinping's thought, it surges the risk of conflating theory with political doctrine, therefore reducing their objectivity, universality, and atractiveness.
That's why, for the sake of the developmeny of these theories, I think it could be better if we treat them as separate corpus of knowledge
Great, multi-millennial, now so prosperous China does NOT have Integrity.
And what exactly is Integrity?
Integrity is the unwavering commitment to uphold, under any circumstance and without exception, the highest Ethical and Moral standards so painfully accumulated by Humanity — a Standard that continously evolves to protect all Human Dignity.
It is the absolute refusal to participate in, or remain silent, or do all it (or he/she) can about the systematic destruction of any people.
China welcomes with honors a sinister, evil figure [pederast, malign narcissist, supremacist, greedy, corrupt con artist] who mocks and disregards US and international law, commits war crimes against unarmed civilians—including schoolgirls—and is a total accomplice to the Genocides of Israel.
Realpolitik and the Rhetoric of Morality/Integrity: A Critique of Chinese Foreign Policy.
Old States like China bear a Historical Moral Duty [as Humanity advances] for their decisions transcending their legal Sovereignty. Russia and Iran do.
Those States are Moral Agents whose Legitimacy is contingent upon their contribution to Humaneness and Righteousness.
The disconnect between the normative rhetoric of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and its strategic Passivity suggests that its foreign policy is guided by Realpolitik rather than Ethical Integrity, those Moral Values so slowly and painfully accumulated by Humanity.
Although Beijing employs high-level moral language, characterizing the Gaza conflict as a "humanitarian catastrophe" and a "stain on the 21st century," it fails to reconcile these declarations with substantive, high-risk Action.
The Gaza Contradiction
China’s support for South Africa’s proceedings before the ICJ and its condemnation of the U.S. as an accomplice to genocide contrast sharply with its material restraint. To date, Beijing has avoided:
1. Economic Disruption:
Maintaining bilateral trade and technological ties with Israel.
2. Military Intervention:
Refraining from any military or coercive measures to enforce its declared humanitarian "red lines."
3. Verbal Commitment:
Systematically opting for diluted terminology (e.g., "excessive force" or "crisis") in formal UN contexts to avoid legal obligations that would force it to deploy military power under a formal "Genocide" designation.
Strategic Non-Interventionism and Iran
This pattern extends to the broader South West Asia.
Regarding Iran, China vocally defends sovereignty and international law against Western attacks. However, this defense is purely diplomatic; it lacks the sacrifice of national interests required to demonstrate genuine Moral Leadership, Integrity.
Conclusion: Interest over Ideology
Ultimately, China’s foreign policy is a calculation of national interest: prioritizing energy security, commercial profits from all the conflicting parties, and the preservation of domestic sovereignty precedents (such as Xinjiang and Taiwan) over humanitarian urgency.
In this framework, Confucian Ren (Humanity) and the claim of "Moral Superiority" function not as binding Ethical, Integrity Imperatives, but rather as soft power, easy instruments designed to secure leadership within the Global South.
China’s alignment with humanitarian causes is strategically selective, revealing a preference for rhetorical positioning over the costly and the Moral, Integrity Duty as a Superpower to relentlessly pursue effective International Justice.
Proposed Special International Tribunal for the Indictment of Israel and U.S. Government & Congress for Genocide in Gaza, War Crimes, and Unlawful Maritime Aggressions
Introduction
This document submits evidence for the indictment of Israel for the commission of the crime of genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip, and for the indictment of the U.S. government and Congress for active complicity, pursuant to the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948). Furthermore, this brief expands the scope of indictment to include systemic war crimes, extrajudicial killings, and unlawful aggression in international waters and against sovereign states.
Legal Framework
The Convention defines genocide as acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, including:
- (a) Killing;
- (b) Causing serious harm;
- (c) Inflicting life-destroying conditions;
- (d) Preventing births; or
- (e) Forcibly transferring children.
Complicity under Article III(e) includes aiding or abetting such acts. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) and International Criminal Court (ICC) provide precedents for jurisdiction and provisional findings. Additionally, these actions are contextualized within the broader framework of the UN Charter (Article 2(4) prohibiting the use of force) and international maritime law.
Case Against Israel
1. Acts of Genocide:
- As of April 2025, Gaza’s Health Ministry reports 50,500 deaths (1 in 44 residents), with 50% being women and children, averaging 93 daily (UN data). The Lancet (2025) estimates 186,000 total deaths, including indirect causes like starvation and disease, due to destruction of 84% of healthcare facilities and a blockade cutting water and electricity.
- Over 1.9 million (85% of Gaza’s population) are forcibly displaced, with 800,000 repeatedly moved under inhumane conditions (ICJ, 2024). Israel’s use of 25,000 tons of explosives and systematic targeting of schools, universities, and cultural sites reveals deliberate destruction.
- Starvation as a weapon is evident: Israel blocked all aid from March 2, 2025, doubling food prices and depleting supplies within days, despite ICJ orders (Amnesty International, 2024).
2. Intent to Commit Genocide
- Official statements reveal intent: Defense Minister Yoav Gallant called Palestinians “human animals,” and Netanyahu referenced Amalek (a biblical command to annihilate), indicating an intent to destroy Palestinians.
- UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese (2024) found “reasonable grounds” to conclude genocide is occurring, supported by the UN Special Committee’s findings of life-threatening conditions imposed intentionally.
3. Judicial Precedents
- The ICJ (January 2024) deemed Israel’s actions “plausible” violations of the Genocide Convention.
- The ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant (November 2024) for war crimes and crimes against humanity, reinforcing the seriousness of the case.
Case Against the U.S. Government and Congress
1. Complicity in Genocide:
- The U.S. provides over $3.8 billion annually in military aid, including weapons used in Gaza, and vetoed UN ceasefire resolutions, shielding Israel from accountability (Reuters, 2025). The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) argues this violates the Convention’s duty to prevent genocide.
- In January 2025, the U.S. House voted to sanction the ICC over Netanyahu’s warrant, prioritizing political allegiance over international justice, despite ICJ findings of genocide risk.
2. Knowledge and Will
- U.S. officials, including Senator Warren (2024), acknowledged the “plausible genocide” label. Nonetheless, military and diplomatic support persists, demonstrating willful complicity.
- The CCR’s lawsuit (2023) against Biden, Blinken, and Austin shows knowledge and deliberate support for genocide.
War Crimes, Unlawful Aggression, and Piracy in International Waters
This indictment further charges both the U.S. and Israeli governments with egregious violations of international law extending beyond Gaza, specifically citing the unlawful use of lethal force in international waters and direct aggression against the sovereign state of Iran.
1. Extrajudicial Killings and Piracy in the Caribbean and Pacific
- The indictment charges the U.S. Navy with committing war crimes and acts of state-sponsored piracy through the systematic targeting of unarmed civilians in small boats in international waters, specifically in the Caribbean and the Eastern, Central Pacific.
- Under the guise of counter-narcotics operations, U.S. naval forces have engaged in disproportionate and lethal force against unarmed civilian vessels. These instances constitute extrajudicial assassinations.
- Legal Argument on Maritime Piracy: While traditional definitions of piracy under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) emphasize private actors, this indictment argues that the deliberate, unauthorized, and lethal targeting of civilian maritime traffic by state naval forces in international waters constitutes a de facto form of state piracy and unlawful aggression. The U.S. government’s failure to prosecute these instances of lethal force against unarmed civilians demonstrates a policy of impunity and total disregard for the right to life on the high seas.
2. Unlawful Attacks on Iranian Sovereignty and Vessels
- Both the U.S. and Israel are charged with the unlawful use of force and acts of aggression against Iran. This includes unauthorized military strikes on Iranian territory, as well as the interception and destruction of civilian and state-affiliated maritime vessels in international waters.
- These attacks constitute clear violations of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Neither the U.S. nor Israel possessed legal justification or UN Security Council authorization for these offensive military operations.
- The targeting of Iranian assets and the assassination of school girls on Iranian soil or in international waters represent a dangerous precedent of state-sponsored extrajudicial killing that undermines the foundational principles of international law and state sovereignty.
3. Pattern of Contempt for International Law
- The inclusion of these maritime and regional acts of aggression demonstrates a consistent pattern by both the U.S. and Israeli governments. Both states operate under the assumption of exceptionalism, systematically ignoring UN Security Council resolutions, ICJ rulings, and fundamental tenets of international humanitarian law. This pattern of behavior is not isolated but forms a modus operandi of unchecked military aggression that necessitates the intervention of a Special Tribunal.
Justification for a Special International Tribunal
A new UN Special International Tribunal is urgently needed, as the ICJ and ICC face structural delays (e.g., ruling expected in 2026) and U.S. obstruction. Israel’s refusal to comply with ICJ orders (such as lifting aid restrictions) and U.S. diplomatic protection demand an independent body with authority to indict and prosecute. Furthermore, the failure of existing international mechanisms to address the broader scope of U.S. and Israeli war crimes—including state violence in international waters and unlawful attacks on Iran—proves that current institutions are structurally incapable of delivering justice.
Conclusion
Documented evidence—mass killings, forced displacement, induced starvation, explicit intent, unlawful maritime aggression, and extrajudicial assassinations in international waters—establishes a comprehensive case against Israel for genocide and war crimes, and against the U.S. for active complicity and its own independent violations of international law. Ongoing U.S. and Israeli contempt for the UN Charter and international judicial orders constitutes a grave threat to the global legal order. The Tribunal must act urgently to uphold international law, halt state-sponsored piracy and aggression on the high seas, and prevent the further destruction of the Palestinian people.
What is the purpose of having a specifically Chinese theory of IR? I know this is a typical Chinese reaction, but I want to question it. To me, it does not make sense to use geography as a classifying factor in social sciences or in sciences. There is no Chinese or western maths or physics. Why should it be different in social sciences?
Even though these new theories of international relations are more than welcome, I don't think it is appropriate to frame them as the 'Chinese School' of international relations.
First, there's the fact –already pointed out by the author– that they have different and even conflicting theoretical points, so framing them as one school of thought would be misleading.
Second, given the author's intention of combine them with Xi Jinping's thought, it surges the risk of conflating theory with political doctrine, therefore reducing their objectivity, universality, and atractiveness.
That's why, for the sake of the developmeny of these theories, I think it could be better if we treat them as separate corpus of knowledge
Great, multi-millennial, now so prosperous China does NOT have Integrity.
And what exactly is Integrity?
Integrity is the unwavering commitment to uphold, under any circumstance and without exception, the highest Ethical and Moral standards so painfully accumulated by Humanity — a Standard that continously evolves to protect all Human Dignity.
It is the absolute refusal to participate in, or remain silent, or do all it (or he/she) can about the systematic destruction of any people.
China welcomes with honors a sinister, evil figure [pederast, malign narcissist, supremacist, greedy, corrupt con artist] who mocks and disregards US and international law, commits war crimes against unarmed civilians—including schoolgirls—and is a total accomplice to the Genocides of Israel.
Realpolitik and the Rhetoric of Morality/Integrity: A Critique of Chinese Foreign Policy.
Old States like China bear a Historical Moral Duty [as Humanity advances] for their decisions transcending their legal Sovereignty. Russia and Iran do.
Those States are Moral Agents whose Legitimacy is contingent upon their contribution to Humaneness and Righteousness.
The disconnect between the normative rhetoric of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and its strategic Passivity suggests that its foreign policy is guided by Realpolitik rather than Ethical Integrity, those Moral Values so slowly and painfully accumulated by Humanity.
Although Beijing employs high-level moral language, characterizing the Gaza conflict as a "humanitarian catastrophe" and a "stain on the 21st century," it fails to reconcile these declarations with substantive, high-risk Action.
The Gaza Contradiction
China’s support for South Africa’s proceedings before the ICJ and its condemnation of the U.S. as an accomplice to genocide contrast sharply with its material restraint. To date, Beijing has avoided:
1. Economic Disruption:
Maintaining bilateral trade and technological ties with Israel.
2. Military Intervention:
Refraining from any military or coercive measures to enforce its declared humanitarian "red lines."
3. Verbal Commitment:
Systematically opting for diluted terminology (e.g., "excessive force" or "crisis") in formal UN contexts to avoid legal obligations that would force it to deploy military power under a formal "Genocide" designation.
Strategic Non-Interventionism and Iran
This pattern extends to the broader South West Asia.
Regarding Iran, China vocally defends sovereignty and international law against Western attacks. However, this defense is purely diplomatic; it lacks the sacrifice of national interests required to demonstrate genuine Moral Leadership, Integrity.
Conclusion: Interest over Ideology
Ultimately, China’s foreign policy is a calculation of national interest: prioritizing energy security, commercial profits from all the conflicting parties, and the preservation of domestic sovereignty precedents (such as Xinjiang and Taiwan) over humanitarian urgency.
In this framework, Confucian Ren (Humanity) and the claim of "Moral Superiority" function not as binding Ethical, Integrity Imperatives, but rather as soft power, easy instruments designed to secure leadership within the Global South.
China’s alignment with humanitarian causes is strategically selective, revealing a preference for rhetorical positioning over the costly and the Moral, Integrity Duty as a Superpower to relentlessly pursue effective International Justice.
What Israeli genocide Fernando? Why use a discussion of this importance to propagate fake political accusations?
Proposed Special International Tribunal for the Indictment of Israel and U.S. Government & Congress for Genocide in Gaza, War Crimes, and Unlawful Maritime Aggressions
Introduction
This document submits evidence for the indictment of Israel for the commission of the crime of genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip, and for the indictment of the U.S. government and Congress for active complicity, pursuant to the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948). Furthermore, this brief expands the scope of indictment to include systemic war crimes, extrajudicial killings, and unlawful aggression in international waters and against sovereign states.
Legal Framework
The Convention defines genocide as acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, including:
- (a) Killing;
- (b) Causing serious harm;
- (c) Inflicting life-destroying conditions;
- (d) Preventing births; or
- (e) Forcibly transferring children.
Complicity under Article III(e) includes aiding or abetting such acts. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) and International Criminal Court (ICC) provide precedents for jurisdiction and provisional findings. Additionally, these actions are contextualized within the broader framework of the UN Charter (Article 2(4) prohibiting the use of force) and international maritime law.
Case Against Israel
1. Acts of Genocide:
- As of April 2025, Gaza’s Health Ministry reports 50,500 deaths (1 in 44 residents), with 50% being women and children, averaging 93 daily (UN data). The Lancet (2025) estimates 186,000 total deaths, including indirect causes like starvation and disease, due to destruction of 84% of healthcare facilities and a blockade cutting water and electricity.
- Over 1.9 million (85% of Gaza’s population) are forcibly displaced, with 800,000 repeatedly moved under inhumane conditions (ICJ, 2024). Israel’s use of 25,000 tons of explosives and systematic targeting of schools, universities, and cultural sites reveals deliberate destruction.
- Starvation as a weapon is evident: Israel blocked all aid from March 2, 2025, doubling food prices and depleting supplies within days, despite ICJ orders (Amnesty International, 2024).
2. Intent to Commit Genocide
- Official statements reveal intent: Defense Minister Yoav Gallant called Palestinians “human animals,” and Netanyahu referenced Amalek (a biblical command to annihilate), indicating an intent to destroy Palestinians.
- UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese (2024) found “reasonable grounds” to conclude genocide is occurring, supported by the UN Special Committee’s findings of life-threatening conditions imposed intentionally.
3. Judicial Precedents
- The ICJ (January 2024) deemed Israel’s actions “plausible” violations of the Genocide Convention.
- The ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant (November 2024) for war crimes and crimes against humanity, reinforcing the seriousness of the case.
Case Against the U.S. Government and Congress
1. Complicity in Genocide:
- The U.S. provides over $3.8 billion annually in military aid, including weapons used in Gaza, and vetoed UN ceasefire resolutions, shielding Israel from accountability (Reuters, 2025). The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) argues this violates the Convention’s duty to prevent genocide.
- In January 2025, the U.S. House voted to sanction the ICC over Netanyahu’s warrant, prioritizing political allegiance over international justice, despite ICJ findings of genocide risk.
2. Knowledge and Will
- U.S. officials, including Senator Warren (2024), acknowledged the “plausible genocide” label. Nonetheless, military and diplomatic support persists, demonstrating willful complicity.
- The CCR’s lawsuit (2023) against Biden, Blinken, and Austin shows knowledge and deliberate support for genocide.
War Crimes, Unlawful Aggression, and Piracy in International Waters
This indictment further charges both the U.S. and Israeli governments with egregious violations of international law extending beyond Gaza, specifically citing the unlawful use of lethal force in international waters and direct aggression against the sovereign state of Iran.
1. Extrajudicial Killings and Piracy in the Caribbean and Pacific
- The indictment charges the U.S. Navy with committing war crimes and acts of state-sponsored piracy through the systematic targeting of unarmed civilians in small boats in international waters, specifically in the Caribbean and the Eastern, Central Pacific.
- Under the guise of counter-narcotics operations, U.S. naval forces have engaged in disproportionate and lethal force against unarmed civilian vessels. These instances constitute extrajudicial assassinations.
- Legal Argument on Maritime Piracy: While traditional definitions of piracy under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) emphasize private actors, this indictment argues that the deliberate, unauthorized, and lethal targeting of civilian maritime traffic by state naval forces in international waters constitutes a de facto form of state piracy and unlawful aggression. The U.S. government’s failure to prosecute these instances of lethal force against unarmed civilians demonstrates a policy of impunity and total disregard for the right to life on the high seas.
2. Unlawful Attacks on Iranian Sovereignty and Vessels
- Both the U.S. and Israel are charged with the unlawful use of force and acts of aggression against Iran. This includes unauthorized military strikes on Iranian territory, as well as the interception and destruction of civilian and state-affiliated maritime vessels in international waters.
- These attacks constitute clear violations of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Neither the U.S. nor Israel possessed legal justification or UN Security Council authorization for these offensive military operations.
- The targeting of Iranian assets and the assassination of school girls on Iranian soil or in international waters represent a dangerous precedent of state-sponsored extrajudicial killing that undermines the foundational principles of international law and state sovereignty.
3. Pattern of Contempt for International Law
- The inclusion of these maritime and regional acts of aggression demonstrates a consistent pattern by both the U.S. and Israeli governments. Both states operate under the assumption of exceptionalism, systematically ignoring UN Security Council resolutions, ICJ rulings, and fundamental tenets of international humanitarian law. This pattern of behavior is not isolated but forms a modus operandi of unchecked military aggression that necessitates the intervention of a Special Tribunal.
Justification for a Special International Tribunal
A new UN Special International Tribunal is urgently needed, as the ICJ and ICC face structural delays (e.g., ruling expected in 2026) and U.S. obstruction. Israel’s refusal to comply with ICJ orders (such as lifting aid restrictions) and U.S. diplomatic protection demand an independent body with authority to indict and prosecute. Furthermore, the failure of existing international mechanisms to address the broader scope of U.S. and Israeli war crimes—including state violence in international waters and unlawful attacks on Iran—proves that current institutions are structurally incapable of delivering justice.
Conclusion
Documented evidence—mass killings, forced displacement, induced starvation, explicit intent, unlawful maritime aggression, and extrajudicial assassinations in international waters—establishes a comprehensive case against Israel for genocide and war crimes, and against the U.S. for active complicity and its own independent violations of international law. Ongoing U.S. and Israeli contempt for the UN Charter and international judicial orders constitutes a grave threat to the global legal order. The Tribunal must act urgently to uphold international law, halt state-sponsored piracy and aggression on the high seas, and prevent the further destruction of the Palestinian people.