1. Introduction

Post-Cold War ethnic and religious conflicts have triggered humanitarian crises, with Western interventions yielding poor results. China actively participates in global governance, exploring new approaches to resolving hotspot issues, with Xi Jinping emphasizing joint efforts with Global South countries to uphold peace. The theoretical dilemma of humanitarian intervention lies in the relationship between sovereignty and human rights, while in practice, challenges arise regarding the actors, timing, and methods of intervention. Foreign scholars focus on China's intervention motives, while domestic scholars propose new concepts such as creative, consultative, and constructive intervention. However, these have yet to clearly distinguish China’s approach from Western interventions or explain how China conducts constructive intervention without interfering in internal affairs. Further in-depth exploration is needed regarding conceptual norms and practical models to form an accurate understanding.

2. Analysis of Related Concepts in Humanitarian Intervention

This paragraph delves into the concept of humanitarian intervention and its relationship with international intervention. First, humanitarian intervention is a subset of international intervention, involving the interaction between the principle of state sovereignty and the practice of international intervention. Second, it distinguishes between interference, intervention, and legitimacy, noting that "intervention" emphasizes rationality and legality more than "interference," with legitimacy reflected in three dimensions: justification, procedure, and method. Next, it differentiates between broad and narrow intervention—broad intervention includes interference, intervention, and constructive intervention, while narrow intervention specifically refers to constructive intervention that does not undermine the sovereignty of other states. Finally, it discusses the relationship between the "Responsibility to Protect" and humanitarian intervention, emphasizing that the international community may assume a residual responsibility when sovereign states fail to fulfill their obligations to protect human rights, while constructive intervention represents a new form of intervention that genuinely aids human rights protection while respecting sovereignty.

III. The Limitations of Post-Cold War Western Humanitarian Intervention Models and Rule-Based Governance Approaches

After the Cold War, Western countries strengthened their international involvement in human rights affairs through the humanitarian intervention model, concocting the theory of "new interventionism" to emphasize the necessity and legitimacy of coercive intervention. However, these interventions often suffer from issues such as the misuse of intervention justifications, the expansion of intervention scope, and violations of due process, undermining their legitimacy and yielding generally poor outcomes—sometimes even worsening the human rights conditions in the target countries.

The Western humanitarian intervention model insists on applying uniform standards to all nations, adhering to a governance-by-rules approach, or a homogenized path, which exposes its limitations. The lack of intervention legitimacy manifests in the abuse of intervention justifications, the broadening of intervention scope, and the disregard for due process. The ineffectiveness of interventions is evident in their failure to genuinely alleviate crises, while instead disrupting local political ecosystems and hindering socio-economic development.

The limitations of the governance-by-rules approach lie in the selective nature of Western humanitarian interventions, which exhibit double standards and neglect civilizational diversity. By imposing their own interpretation of human rights as a universal standard for coercive intervention, they struggle to gain broad acceptance. The rigid and homogenizing nature of governance-by-rules risks transforming it into a tool for the rule-makers' self-interest, leading to practical incompatibility in diverse contexts.

The problems exposed by humanitarian interventions epitomize the dilemmas of governance-by-rules, demonstrating that relying solely on this approach cannot fully resolve complex humanitarian issues. The international community must seek more proactive and effective scientific governance methods. China's proposed "constructive intervention" approach is gaining increasing attention, embodying a more flexible and adaptive relational governance path that could serve as a vital method for addressing global humanitarian challenges.

IV. Core Characteristics of Humanitarian Intervention and "Constructive Engagement" under the Relational Governance Approach

The limitations of humanitarian intervention based on the rule-based governance approach were discussed, and the relational governance approach was proposed as a supplement. The relational governance approach emphasizes the effective resolution of humanitarian crises through relationship management, prioritizing the balance of relational proximity and distance in regional and systemic contexts. The article first introduces the concepts of relational assumptions and relational governance, pointing out that society is constructed by human relationships, individual existence is a social-relational existence, and relationships are the fundamental unit of social analysis. Next, the article analyzes humanitarian intervention from the perspective of relational governance, highlighting that relational interests, trust relationships, relational longevity, and the principle of comfort are the core elements of the relational governance approach in addressing humanitarian issues. Relational interests emphasize that the realization of an actor's interests must be achieved in conjunction with the interests of others; trust relationships serve as the foundation for actors to interpret each other's actions and motivations positively; relational longevity requires consideration of long-term risks and benefits; and the principle of comfort demands attention to the emotions and sensitivities of the governed on sensitive issues. Finally, the article elaborates on the core characteristics of "constructive intervention" and its relational governance logic. "Constructive intervention" emphasizes returning to the essence of humanitarianism, respecting the autonomy of the involved state, adhering to the principles of legality and "impartiality," actively fostering trust and consensus, balancing development and security, and upholding long-termism. This approach embodies the logic and philosophy of relational governance, offering a reasonable and feasible pathway for global human rights governance.

V. Examining Relational Governance in "Constructive Engagement": A Case Study of China's Involvement in Addressing the Myanmar Issue

Since the Myanmar military took over power in 2021, the humanitarian crisis in Myanmar has intensified, increasing the necessity for international intervention. China has adopted a relational governance approach to address the Myanmar issue, promoting an effective governance model through "constructive engagement." China safeguards the relational interests of all parties, fosters consensus, advances regional cooperation, assists Myanmar in coordinating with neighboring countries to resolve the refugee issue, proposes a "three-phase solution," and establishes a joint working group mechanism. China builds and strengthens trust between China and Myanmar, encourages mutual confidence-building and dispelling doubts among all parties, maintains friendly relations, and calls for both sides to bridge differences within the constitutional and legal frameworks. China supports ASEAN in playing a leading role, creating long-term favorable conditions for resolving the crisis, emphasizes joint promotion with ASEAN, and upholds the tradition of the "ASEAN Way." China adheres to the principle of comfort, insists on respecting sovereignty and the concept of "assistance based on consent," engages in a gentle manner under the UN framework, and stresses the necessity of consultation with regional organizations where the concerned country is located.

6. Conclusion

Western countries leverage their dominant international position to construct a humanitarian discourse system that aligns with their own interests, yet it deviates from the essence of human rights protection, facing theoretical challenges and practical dilemmas. China's "constructive engagement" emphasizes a return to the essence of humanitarianism, adhering to the principle of non-interference in internal affairs, and provides a reasonable and feasible solution for global human rights governance.

The Western model follows the logic of rule-based governance, emphasizing the inevitability of conflict and the binding nature of norms, characterized by individual rationality. In contrast, the Chinese approach embodies the logic of relational governance, highlighting the integration of interests and emotions, the fluidity of relationships, and the pursuit of harmony, reflecting a collective ethical orientation.

In addressing the Myanmar issue, China has advanced a governance path focused on relational interests, trust-building, long-term orientation, and comfort, which has gained recognition from all parties in Myanmar. Despite fluctuations in Myanmar's situation, the positive role of "constructive engagement" cannot be denied. China needs to further explore effective policy tools and preventive measures to play a more active role in humanitarian crises.