This paper discusses the strategic creation of communicative space in international relations and its importance for effective communication, particularly under the new media ecology of the 21st century. The three major global initiatives, as international public goods, aim to address significant human challenges and realize the vision of a better life. However, they face challenges in the global governance discourse system, such as Western hegemonic narratives and an unequal international communication order. Chinese scholars have proposed multi-dimensional communication strategies and promotion pathways, but there is a lack of theoretical research integrating symbolic content shaping, national identity construction, and communicative space building. This paper seeks to draw on relevant theoretical concepts to construct a theoretical framework for the "common meaning space" and explore methodological approaches to expanding the international communicative space for the three major global initiatives.

1. Common Meaning Space—A Theoretical Analytical Framework

The common meaning space serves as the foundation for effective communication and discursive identification, relying on the formation and expansion of shared meaning among communicative actors. This space involves three core elements: symbolic exchange, identity recognition, and field integration. Symbolic exchange refers to the process by which communicators and recipients negotiate shared interpretations of symbols through bidirectional meaning-making, dependent on code determination and discourse framing. Identity recognition includes two modes: immersive and co-present. The former emphasizes intersubjectivity, while the latter focuses on shared subjectivity. Field integration examines the agency of actors in shaping and transforming field structures, as well as the structural constraints and systemic effects of the field system, reflecting a mutual constitution between "agency and structure." Habitus and capital act as intermediary variables, jointly influencing field structures and individual communicative practices. The common meaning space emphasizes communication achieved through acknowledging differences and mutual benefit fostered by respecting individuality.

2. How the Common Meaning Space Helps Overcome the International Communication Challenges of the Three Major Global Initiatives

This section discusses the challenges faced by the three major global initiatives in international communication, including cognitive biases in intent perception, relationship-oriented cognitive predispositions, and deficiencies in collaborative cognition. Cognitive biases in intent perception manifest as Western misinterpretations and malicious speculations about the initiatives, such as theories of "replacing the international order," "hijacking discourse agendas," or "Sino-U.S. strategic competition." Relationship-oriented cognitive predispositions lead to polarized international attitudes, with support from the Global South and hostility from some Northern countries. Deficiencies in collaborative cognition refer to the uneven international recognition of the three initiatives, with the Global Development Initiative receiving more support while the Global Security Initiative and Global Civilization Initiative lag behind. To address these challenges, constructing a common meaning space is crucial. Symbolic exchange helps correct cognitive biases in intent perception, identity recognition mitigates relationship-oriented cognitive predispositions, and field integration compensates for deficiencies in collaborative cognition. Through these mechanisms, mutual recognition among nations can be fostered, the national attributes of the initiatives can be downplayed in favor of their global attributes, and international recognition of the three major global initiatives can be enhanced.

3. Constructing the Common Meaning Space for the Three Major Global Initiatives from an International Communication Perspective

From an international communication perspective, constructing a common meaning space for the three major global initiatives is key to achieving international recognition. As the proposer of these initiatives, China must adhere to the principles and operational logic of the common meaning space to enhance symbolic, identity, and spatial recognition. First, China should strengthen its capacity for symbolic shaping and advocacy, constructing symbolic recognition through meaning exchange. This involves creating shared initiative codes, shifting from prescriptive encoding to feedback-based encoding, incorporating the cognitive needs of international actors, addressing negative international perceptions, and engaging in shared production and feedback adjustment of initiative symbols. Additionally, conflict-based decoding should be upgraded to negotiation-based decoding, fostering constructive interaction and meaning negotiation among subjects and guiding audiences beyond discursive struggles toward discursive coordination.

Second, China should improve its role-playing and collective inquiry capabilities to construct subject recognition through identity transformation. By shifting perceptions of the "other"—from "hostile other" to "mutual other"—and leveraging the core mechanism of identity immersion (role-playing), skills in perspective-taking and empathy cultivation can be developed, facilitating global empathy. Furthermore, by constructing a shared superordinate in-group and expanding symbolic inquiry communities, different out-groups can be transformed into a common in-group, consolidating collective identity recognition.

Finally, China should strengthen the mutual constitution of "agency-structure" to construct spatial recognition through field integration. The common meaning space manifests as a bidirectional mutual constitution between agency and structure. The communicative and interactive space for the three major global initiatives should actively engage with this dynamic. Through these steps, China can effectively construct and expand the common meaning space, fostering international recognition.

4. Conclusion

Amid current global turbulence, realism and nationalism are resurging, while globalization risks and cooperative governance needs are driving the rise of idealism and cosmopolitanism, forming a "world realism" perspective. This perspective argues that although the international community exhibits realist tendencies, a cosmopolitan methodology should be adopted to address global issues, critiquing both the myth of cosmopolitan idealism and methodological nationalism. The three major global initiatives, grounded in the real needs of the international community and national developmental, security, and cultural interests, pursue cosmopolitan attributes and global governance ideals. The common meaning space, as a method to realize these ideals, offers methodological insights into negotiated meaning co-construction, interactive identity recognition, and mutually constitutive field integration. It redefines the possibilities for international cooperation and provides valuable references for resolving global disagreements.