print

When Beijing says ‘no’:
how UK and French foreign policy practices are changing

Khludov I.S.,

MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia, i.khludov@inno.mgimo.ru

ORCID: 0000-0002-4480-9720 | RESEARCHER_ID: HGE-5377-2022

Baykov A.A.,

MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia, a.baykov@inno.mgimo.ru

elibrary_id: 621264 | ORCID: 0000-0003-0432-4603 | RESEARCHER_ID: ABC-9343-2020

Article received: 2026.05.04 11:19. Accepted: 2026.06.01 11:19


DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2026.04.10
EDN: LGSPIA

Rubric: Orbis terrarum

For citation:

Khludov I.S., Baykov A.A. When Beijing says ‘no’: how UK and French foreign policy practices are changing. – Polis. Political Studies. 2026. No. 4. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2026.04.10. EDN: LGSPIA (In Russ.)

Abstract

This paper examines how crisis situations shape British and French foreign policy practices in their bilateral relations with China. It should be noted at the outset that crises are not exceptions to the “normal” diplomatic process, rather a dispositif through which practices are made visible and finetuned. Drawing on the empirical cases of Tibet and Hong Kong in the UK’s relations with China and Tibet and Taiwan in France’s relations with China, the study shows that both powers follow a common sense of crisis adaptation: routine action is contested by Beijing, followed by a phase of disorientation, after which a new routine emerges. We identify adaptive practices during crises by means of practice tracing. The research first selects crisis episodes based on the public articulation of conflict between the UK/France and the PRC, and then analyses practices prior to the crisis and their subsequent changes after the disorientation phase. Particular attention is paid to the type of change (adaptive or situational), assessed through such criteria as duration, depth, symmetry of concessions, and the costs of adaptation. In the British case, crisis response is oftentimes conducive to centralised adjustment by the executive and to the development of a narrower margin of acceptable practices. France, by contrast, leans towards decentralisation: while the executive goes on to ritualistically acknowledge Beijing’s “red lines”, sensitive interactions are redistributed to parliamentary, municipal, academic, and corporate actors. The article concludes that London and Paris have not elaborated coherent strategies toward the PRC; instead, their China policies have evolved as a series of reactive adjustments under pressure from Beijing.

Keywords

China’s rise, practice turn, foreign policy practices, ontological security, middle powers, Sino-French relations, Sino-British relations, Hong Kong crisis, Tibet question, Taiwan Strait crisis.

Biao, Z. (2022). Rethinking China’s ‘economic coercion’: the case of the UK leaders’ meeting with the Dalai Lama in 2012. British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 25(3), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/13691481221126914

Boniface, P. (2019). La France face à la Chine, que faire? Revue internationale et stratégique, 115, 89-96. https://doi.org/10.3917/ris.115.0089

Bourdieu, P. (1980). Le sens pratique. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit. (In French).

Jian, J., & Yao, L. (2023). Britain’s China policy after Brexit: based on pragmatism or values first? Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International Relations, 16(1), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu06.2023.101

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity.

Helnarska, K.J. (2014). French–Chinese cooperation in the field of science culture. In J. Marszałek-Kawa (Ed.), The Asian Values Discourse – Myths, Paradoxes, Perspectives (pp. 199-211). Toruń: Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek.

Mengin, F. (2001). La politique chinoise de la France: Du mythe de la relation privilégiée au syndrome de la normalisation. Critique internationale, 3, 89-110. (In French). https://doi.org/10.3917/crii.012.0089

Miliband, D. (2024). Finding a role for Britain in the new global order. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 40(2), 387-395. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grae014

Mitzen, J. (2006). Ontological security in world politics: state identity and the security dilemma. European Journal of International Relations, 12(3), 341-370. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066106067346

Neklyudov, N.Ya., Baykov, A.A., & Shchekin, A.S. (2023). Crisis as practice: routinizing Russia – U.S. security rivalries. Polis. Political Studies, 6, 66-82. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2023.06.06

Pouliot, V. (2010). International security in practice: the politics of NATO-Russia diplomacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511676185

Pouliot, V. (2014). Practice Tracing. In A. Bennett & J.T. Checkel (Eds.), Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool (pp. 237-259). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139858472.013

Rees, W., & Xu, R. (2024). Shared adversaries in the Anglo-American Special Relationship: from the Cold War to contemporary threats. China International Strategy Review, 6, 156-171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42533-024-00162-9

Summers, T. (2022). Britain ad Hong Kong: the 2019 protests and their aftermath. Asian Education and Development Studies, 11(2), 276-286. https://doi.org/10.1108/AEDS-09-2020-0205

Tran, E. (2023). Twitter, public diplomacy and social power in soft-balancing China–France relations. Journal of Contemporary China, 33(146), 267-294. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2023.2193150

Wei R., Burnham P., & Kerr P. (2023). Reassessing Thatcher’s foreign policy: the Sino-British Declaration 1984. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 26(3), 848-863. https://doi.org/10.1177/13691481231190502

Wei, R., & Summers, T. (2025). The Chinese government’s negotiating strategy over the future of Hong Kong: Revisiting the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration. The International History Review, 48(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/07075332.2025.2466463

Xu, R., & Wang, R. (2025). The radical change in the UK’s China policy in the post-Brexit era: from economic opportunism to ideological confrontation. British Politics, 20, 520-548. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41293-025-00290-9

Yuhan, J. (2023). Opinions on the political consensus of developing bilateral relations after the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and France in 1964. Journal of Political Science Research, 4, 62-67. https://doi.org/10.23977/polsr.2023.040208

Yuhui, Y. (2025). Process-tracing the shift in UK’s China policy post-2020. International Journal of Asian Social Science Research, 2(6), 46-57. https://doi.org/10.70267/ijassr.250206.4657

Zahardi, C. (2022). European foreign and security policy towards China: the cases of France, Germany and the United Kingdom. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-12259-0

Zhang, J. (2022). The Francization of the European Union and its implications. Contemporary International Relations, 32(3), 27-44.

Baykov, A. A., Crowley-Vigneau, A., Neklyudov, N. Ya., & Zhang, T. (2025). Integration in crisis: towards a new explicative model. Baltic Region, 17(2), 4-29. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.5922/2079-8555-2025-2-1

Chernega, V.N. (2022). Resources and instruments of France’s policy of power: between the desired and the actual. Russia and the Contemporary World, 4, 80-99. https://doi.org/10.31249/rsm/2022.04.05

Chernega, V.N. (2024). French policy towards China in the context of rivalry between Washington and Beijing. Current Problems of Europe, 4, 165-181. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31249/ape/2023.04.09

Chikhachev, A. (2023). France’s military and political strategy in the Indo-Pacific after creation of AUKUS. World Eсonomy and International Relations, 67(12), 60-70. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2023-67-12-60-70

Godovanyuk, K. (2019). The Hong Kong Factor in the UK-Chinese Relations. Nauchno-analiticheskiy vestnik Instituta Evropy RAN, 6, 122-127. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15211/vestnikieran6201999121126

Godovanyuk, K.A. (2024). Defense against foreign interference: the two-tier logic of UK foreign policy shaping. Comparative Politics Russia, 15(4), 155-171. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.46272/2221-3279-2024-4-15-9

Heidegger, M. (2015). Sein und Zeit. (Russ. ed.: Heidegger M. Bytie i vremya. Moscow: Akademicheskiy proekt).

Khudaykulova, A.V., & Neklyudov, N.Y. (2019). The concept of ontological security in international political discourse. MGIMO Review of International Relations, 12(6), 129-149. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2019-6-69-129-149

Rastegaev, D.O. (2025). Routinisation of the victimhood as a mechanism of ontological security seeking: the case of Serbia. Political Science (RU), 2, 182-203. (In Russ.) http://www.doi.org/10.31249/poln/2025.02.08

Vasiliev, V.S. (2024). “Cold War” between the USA and China: the role and interests of Great Britain. Current Problems of Europe, 4, 125-143. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31249/ape/2024.04.07

See also: