Search

This paper complicates the classic security dilemma by considering the notions of ontological security and relational deterrence. It studies how the ontological security dilemma has emerged between the US, China, and Taiwan from the relational perspective and how these spiral chains will further develop in the future. The paper incurs the literature on relational analysis to expound on how different ontological security concerns allude to relational deterrence between the three actors. Taiwan's separatism is more of a threat to China's relational self than to physical security because the separatist does not belong to any already agreed relationship. A geometric model and a few simulations yield three unconventional findings. 1) The less advantaged the US military is over China, the less likely armed unification will occur. 2) The US anti-Chinese tendency is irrelevant in determining the probability of armed unification. 3) What may escalate the spiral are China's anti-Taiwan independence and Taiwan's anti-unification. Case sensitivity indicates the ontological sensibilities of a security dilemma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are ample national, transnational, and international geopolitical conflicts around the world, the two most prominent likely being the current ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war, and the conflict between Taiwan (the Republic of China) and China (the People's Republic of China). To avoid criticism or the label of political bias, academics might refrain from using the term Taiwan or might not refer to it as a country. Similarly, they might not know whether they should refer to Crimea or the Donbas as being Ukrainian or Russian. Authors currently have little guidance and are somewhat left to their own devices when it comes to referring to these and other locations and territories, uncertain of the names that should be used to indicate them. They might also observe disclaimers on publishers' websites, in the footer of editorial board pages, or even as a small notice in their own manuscripts placed there by the publisher that distance the publisher from geopolitical conflicts and/or territorial claims, claiming neutrality, independent of whether those papers mention those conflicts, or not. Such disclaimers might be perceived as self-serving, placing the onus of responsibility of the choice of territorial term on authors' shoulders, so publishers should offer clearer advice to authors and editors on how to better handle this issue, that is, how to accurately name locations in geopolitically sensitive areas. There is a risk that papers that are insufficiently sensitive to such issues may be labelled as erroneous, and subjected to correction or retraction, or the authors may be subjected to public criticism or humiliation, so resolving this issue falls within the realm of academic publishing ethics. Currently, very little advice exists for geopolitical issues in the Committee on Publication Ethics and International Committee of Medical Journal Ethics ethics-related publishing guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Through a multi-sited physical and virtual ethnography of Chinese migrant women's entrepreneurship in Taiwan, this paper illuminates the role of digital migrant entrepreneurship in the making of globalisation. In the digital age of gendered migrant entrepreneurship, it challenges the long-lasting dichotomy between 'bottom-up' and 'top-down' globalisation and contributes to the theoretical debate about migrant transnational entrepreneurship, elucidating how capitalism and globalisation can take multiple forms. Drawing on Chinese women's migratory biographies and the commercial geographies of the objects they trade between China and Taiwan, it shows how our global economic system is simultaneously forged by supply-chain capitalism and migrants' digitalised petit capitalistic practices. Chinese migrant workers firstly manufacture goods whilst working for multinational companies in China, then, after marriage-migration, they commercialise the products in Taiwan via WeChat. Findings illustrate the link between ICTs, migrant entrepreneurship, gendered social networks, and border transgressions in shaping a mutable globalisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]