Quantising Geoeconomics: Pluralistic Reconciliation Between Security Protection and Economic Liberalisation Through a Quantum Worldview

Abstract

The international economic order is transitioning from neoliberalism, in which deeper economic integration was seen as contributing to mitigating conflicts, to a new geoeconomic order, in which economic interdependence is regarded as a security risk. Geoeconomics is represented by the resurgence of security protection in economic-security disputes. Due to its ambiguous definition, negative assertions, and inadequate response to criticism, the geoeconomic implications of international economic law remain unclear. Inspired by quantum international relations, in which quantum theories are integrated into social science, this thesis seeks to comprehend geoeconomics for the intensified economic-security irreconciliation through the theoretical framework of ‘quantising geoeconomics’.
Quantising geoeconomics is established by using quantum measurement and holism theories. Quantum measurement theory highlights probabilities. Using as an analogy, this thesis argues that geoeconomics has cooperative and competitive probabilities, as evidenced by the practices of China and the US. Quantum holism theory establishes that an object is part of the whole while simultaneously containing the whole. Applying as an ontology, this thesis illustrates the holographic characteristic of geoeconomics and argues that challenges caused by the emerging geoeconomics shall be systematically addressed at international, regional, and national levels. Quantising geoeconomics is applied through the quantising postcritique course. An ideal-typical taxonomy is used to analyse the dualistic classification of scholarship on cybersecurity governance. It advances pragmatism scholarship through quantising geoeconomics and proposes a pluralistic governance model, identifying national autonomy as the governance anchor and attaining homeostasis via regulatory coordination. The thesis further investigates the bifurcated jurisprudence on energy security, attributing the deficiencies to the binary perception of balancing competing interests. It concludes that quantising geoeconomics opposes a coherent programme for the global order and encourages pluralistic reconciliation in what appears irreconcilable. It recognises the geoeconomic basis of security-related concerns to provide an inclusive deference to national autonomy where applicable.