It is no exaggeration to say that Yan Xuetong's Ancient Chinese Thought, Modern Chinese Power is a path-breaking project that integrates ancient Chinese philosophy, Pre-Qin history, and contemporary International Relations (IR) theory. Although Yan has not introduced a new grand theory of IR in the book per se, he has paved a fresh theoretical and intellectual path to reforming current, western-philosophy-and-history-based IR theory. If scholars follow Yan's guidance and approach as laid out in the book, it will be no surprise to see developed more than one new IR theory.

The book is translated from Yan's research on pre-Qin international political philosophy and its implications for the rise of China. It consists of three parts: Yan's three articles on pre-Qin philosophical masters' writings on international politics;1 three critical reviews of Yan's articles by three brilliant Chinese scholars, as well as Yan's responses to his critics; and three useful appendixes giving background information on Yan's research. The book raises three major arguments in the book. They are: (i) norms and morality determine the stability of interstate order, and the hierarchical relation among states is conducive to world peace; (ii) humane authority is a superior model for great powers compared to hegemony and tyranny in international politics; and (iii) political power is the most important element of power compared to economic, military, and soft power. It is obvious that each of these arguments poses fundamental challenges to the major canons of contemporary IR theory.

In this review article, I first discuss the three significant contributions of Yan's book to the studies of ancient Chinese philosophy, IR theory, and China's foreign policy. I then raise certain questions after a reading of the book. My questions and critiques focus on the definitions of certain key concepts, such as morality and humane authority, the utility of ancient philosophy in advancing IR theory, and the implications for the study of China's foreign policy. I conclude that Yan's book represents an ideal pursuit by a realist.

Yan's emphases on morality, norm, humane authority, and political power may turn out as brilliant rhetorically, but as unrealistic in reality. One of the key problems lies in the operationalization of these key concepts in real world politics. Yan's idea of comparing and contrasting Chinese philosophy, Western philosophy, and contemporary IR theory is very creative. Merely focusing on ideational differences in ancient Chinese philosophy, however, is not sufficient to advance contemporary IR theory. Although searching the philosophical and cultural roots of China's foreign policy behaviour is a promising research enterprise, some of Yan's arguments and suggestions about China's foreign policy are normative in nature with difficulties in their practical and empirical verifications.