OBSERVARE
Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2
Thematic Dossier
Portugal and China in International Relations:
Historical Legacies and Contemporary Dynamics
February 2026
80
KNOWLEDGE, POWER AND THE MODERN INTERNATIONAL:
INSIGHTS FROM PORTUGAL–CHINA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
COOPERATION
CARLOS RODRIGUES
cjose@ua.pt
He is an Associate Professor with Habilitation in the Department of Social, Political and Territorial
Sciences at the University of Aveiro (Portugal), and an Integrated Researcher at the Research
Unit on Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies (GOVCOPP) and at the Centre for
Research in Higher Education Policies (CIPES). He holds a PhD in Social Sciences, a Master’s
degree in Innovation and Development Policies, and a Bachelor’s degree in Regional and Urban
Planning, all from the University of Aveiro. His research focuses on public policies for
development and territorial inequalities, and he also conducts scholarly work in the field of Asian
studies, particularly on science, technology and innovation policies, the internationalization of
higher education, and European Union–Asia relations. He is the author and co-author of several
scientific publications and has extensive experience participating in research projects and
knowledge transfer activities at both national and international levels. https://orcig.org/0000-
0001-6403-6959
Abstract
This study provides a critical appraisal of the evolving relationship between Portugal and China
in the domain of science and technology (S&T). It challenges functionalist and technocratic
approaches to international S&T cooperation by advancing an extended analytical framework
inspired by Shilliam’s conceptualisation of the “modern international”. The article argues that
S&T cooperation is shaped not only by institutional arrangements and policy instruments, but
also by historically constituted hierarchies, colonial and semi-colonial legacies, and
asymmetries in power, resources, and epistemic authority. The study concludes that the
“modern international” provides a fruitful framework to capture the historical depth and
political complexity of contemporary S&T cooperation between a global innovation
powerhouse and a semi-peripheral European country.
Keywords
Portugal, China, International S&T cooperation, Cooperation for Science, Knowledge power
asymmetries, Historical global hierarchies.
Resumo
Este estudo oferece uma avaliação crítica da evolução da relação entre Portugal e a China no
domínio da ciência e tecnologia (C&T). O artigo desafia abordagens funcionalistas e
tecnocráticas à cooperação internacional em C&T, avançando um quadro analítico ampliado
inspirado na conceptualização de Shilliam sobre o “internacional moderno”. Argumenta se que
a cooperação em C&T é moldada não apenas por arranjos institucionais e instrumentos de
política pública, mas também por hierarquias historicamente constituídas, legados coloniais e
semi coloniais, e assimetrias de poder, recursos e autoridade epistémica. O estudo conclui
que a noção de “internacional moderno” constitui um enquadramento fecundo para captar a
profundidade histórica e a complexidade política da cooperação contemporânea em C&T entre
uma potência global de inovação e um país europeu semi periférico.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2
Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies
and Contemporary Dynamics
February 2026, pp. 80-98
Knowledge, Power and the Modern International: Insights from Portugal–China Science
and Technology Cooperation
Carlos Rodrigues
81
Palavras-chave
Estratégia de hedging, Portugal, China, Estados Unidos.
How to cite this article
Rodrigues, Carlos (2026). Knowledge, Power and the Modern International: Insights from Portugal–
China Science and Technology Cooperation. Janus.net, e-journal of international relations.
Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies and
Contemporary Dynamics, VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2, February 2026, pp. 80-98.
https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.DT0126.4
Article submitted on 3rd November 2025 and accepted for publication on 28th January
2026
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2
Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies
and Contemporary Dynamics
February 2026, pp. 80-98
Knowledge, Power and the Modern International: Insights from Portugal–China Science
and Technology Cooperation
Carlos Rodrigues
82
KNOWLEDGE, POWER AND THE MODERN INTERNATIONAL:
INSIGHTS FROM PORTUGAL–CHINA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
COOPERATION
1
CARLOS RODRIGUES
Introduction
This research offers a critical appraisal of the evolving relationship between Portugal and
China in the realm of science and technology (S&T). It focuses on the cooperative
interactions between a small, underfunded S&T system, marked by several structural
limitations, and a global innovation powerhouse supported by a large, well-funded and
carefully planned systemic context (Pisani et al., 2025; Sun and Cao, 2024). Differences
in size and power invite a challenge to the adequacy of a purely functional and
technocratic analysis of S&T cooperation between the two countries, which, in the end,
would provide a neutral portrait of a tendentially balanced cooperative dynamics. By
contrast, this paper seeks to move beyond functional and technocratic perspectives in
order to examine how systemic asymmetries shape cooperation. In addition, it endeavors
to shed light over the underlying political dimensions, which unfold across the hierarchical
structures of globalized knowledge production.
This analytical context, in turn, raises theoretical challenges that mainstream approaches
to international relations may be unable to resolve. In broad terms, realist, liberal and
constructivist models, as articulated by authors such as Waltz (1979), Keohane (1984),
and Wendt (1992; 1995), do offer powerful insights into state behavior, yet limited in
their capacity to disentangle the complex and diverse dynamics of international S&T
cooperation. Is cooperation primarily a matter of power and competition, or part of a
broader effort to empower states pursuing national interests in a troubled world? The
realist perspective risks overlooking the persistence of cooperation despite rivalries,
geopolitical tensions or power asymmetries. Even amid intense geopolitical confrontation,
as in the case of the Cold War, Soviet and American scientists and research centers
cooperated in order to advance knowledge in specific fields, particularly space-related
research (Krige, 2019). Furthermore, the view, as in Waltz (1979, p. 98), that “variation
of structure is introduced, not through differences in the character and function of units
[of international political systems], but only through distinctions made among them
according to their capabilities”, focus on the effects of structure on cooperation between
nations, overlooking important historical and epistemic dimensions. Is cooperation
1
Conflict of Interests: The author declares that there are no conflicts of interest associated with this study.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2
Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies
and Contemporary Dynamics
February 2026, pp. 80-98
Knowledge, Power and the Modern International: Insights from Portugal–China Science
and Technology Cooperation
Carlos Rodrigues
83
important because it reduces the risk of international conflict by generating mutual gains
within a framework of strong institutions, rules and laws? The liberal approach may leave
in the shadows crucial political and cultural dimensions affecting S&T cooperation,
particularly due to its emphasis on institutional efficiency in mitigating problems arising
from imbalances in power, resources, capacities and policy priorities. According to
Keohane (1984, p. 51), cooperation “occurs when actors adjust their behavior to the
actual or anticipated preferences of others, through a process of policy coordination”.
This reasoning, although relevant to understand how cooperation can be ignited and
maintained, does not say much about the determining historical configuration of
preferences and the persistence of structural inequalities. Is cooperation a socially
constructed process underpinned by a widely shared set of rules, values and
expectations? The constructivist perspective, although powerful to analyze how identities
and cultures shape S&T-related international networks, may obscure the constraining
effects of intense technological competition among states and blocs. Wendt (1992, p.
395) argues that “anarchy is what states make of it” in order to bring identity and social
structure into the discussion. However, the author leaves the historical constitutions of
international relations and cooperation in the shadow. Moreover, and perhaps decisively,
these mainstream theories, - largely developed under the influence of Western
philosophy, political theory and history (Acharya and Buzan, 2010) - tend to be
ineffective in addressing the impact of the “ideational and perceptual forces which fuel,
in varying mixtures, both Gramscian hegemonies, and ethnocentrism and the politics of
exclusion”, as the same authors argue (Acharya and Buzan, 2010, p. 2). Hence, this
paper tests an extended frame of reference that allows, on the one hand, going beyond
a conception of international relations as solely shaped by power, institutions, or norms,
and, on the other hand, avoiding a Eurocentric theoretical bias. This concern echoes the
problem identified by Shilliam (2010, p. 5): “That the colonial condition has been more
the normal rather than exceptional historical path to modernity is woefully ignored in
theories and approaches to IR that tend to bolt imperialism and colonialism onto existing
frameworks and narratives that center upon an idealized European experience”.
The paper embeds the specific case of Portugal–China S&T relations within a framework
in which knowledge generation and technological development, transfer and exchange
are intertwined with history, power and dependency relations and global governance.
This ‘embedding’ not only legitimizes the extended framework as analytical reference but
also paves the way to bring Portugal’s colonial past into an account of interaction between
a global innovation powerhouse - underpinned by large-scale investments in research
and development, technology transfer and scientific diplomacy - and a small European
Union member state seeking to position itself strategically as a connector between Europe
and the Global South.
From a methodological point of view, the study follows a dominant qualitative, critical-
historical approach grounded in an interpretive effort underpinned by the ‘modern
international’ framework. Accordingly, the interpretative stance underpinning the
analytical strategy is informed by historical and postcolonial political economy
perspectives. Rather than seeking causal generalization, the study aims to contextualize
empirical patterns within broader structural, historical, and geopolitical dynamics shaping
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2
Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies
and Contemporary Dynamics
February 2026, pp. 80-98
Knowledge, Power and the Modern International: Insights from Portugal–China Science
and Technology Cooperation
Carlos Rodrigues
84
international S&T cooperation. Qualitative data were collected through documentary
analysis of bilateral agreements, memoranda of understanding, policy documents,
institutional reports, and official communications produced by Portuguese, Chinese, and
Macanese authorities, as well as by universities and funding agencies. Media reports and
institutional websites were also analyzed, namely to identify concrete cases of
cooperation, joint research centers, and funding initiatives. Although eminently
qualitative, the paper also resorts to data resulting from bibliometric analysis of co-
authored scientific publications indexed in the SCOPUS database and joint research
projects described in the CORDIS database. Publication and project counts, disciplinary
distribution, and relative weight within Portugal’s international collaboration profile were
analyzed for the period 2019–2025.
S&T Within the Modern International: Making the Case for Portugal and
China
Is the extended ‘modern international’ frame of reference fit to inform the study of
international S&T cooperation? Shilliam (2021) describes the international as something
that cannot be reduced, as realist theories tend to do, to a neutral, timeless space of
competitive interactions between states. Rather, it is the outcome of an evolutive process
shaped by historical circumstances (e.g. colonialism, race, slavery) (ibid.), as well as by
what Dube (2017, p. 76) terms “temporal and spatial hierarchies of modernity”. The
modern, in Shilliam’s view (2017, p. 76), emerges from the recognition that international
relations, both as a field of scholarly inquiry and as practice, developed alongside
European modernity, which itself was constructed through empire and colonial
subjugation, laying the foundations for a global configuration of unbalanced modernities.
Bringing Shilliam’s propositions to the domain of international S&T cooperation implies
the assumption that history is a determining factor in understanding the changing
imaginations, mechanics, politics, policies and practices of cooperation between scientific
and technological systems. This approach aligns with Wallerstein (1984)
conceptualization of a hierarchically structured world-system constituted by core, semi-
peripheral, and peripheral contexts. However, although the convergence in underlining
the historical production of global inequalities and the uneven distribution of scientific
and technological capacities, Shilliam’s ‘modern international’ places stronger emphasis
on colonial hierarchies imposed by imbalances in epistemic power. Accordingly, it
facilitates the reading of the transformation dynamics behind the former colonial
Portugal’s positioning as a semi-peripheral country within Europe, and China’s transition
from a semi-colonial condition to a core technological actor.
The co-evolution of scientific modernity and European colonial expansion resulted in a
divide between certain ‘developed’ states, positioning themselves as producers of
knowledge, developers of new technologies and centers of innovation, and other
‘developing’ states, cast as followers and passive users of knowledge and technologies
created by the former. Within this uneven hierarchical context, S&T cooperation becomes
a collaborative yet asymmetrical relationship between advanced mentors and latecomer
apprentices. This imbalance is far from being something of the past, as demonstrated by
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2
Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies
and Contemporary Dynamics
February 2026, pp. 80-98
Knowledge, Power and the Modern International: Insights from Portugal–China Science
and Technology Cooperation
Carlos Rodrigues
85
the burgeoning literature on the subject (e.g. Ishengoma, 2016; Cherry et al., 2018) and
the examples of Europe–Africa cooperation provided by Nordling (2015, p. 24): “the
Nairobi Industrial Court agreed that six Kenyan doctors in an international research
partnership had been systematically passed over for promotion and training, whereas
their European colleagues had flourished”, and “African scientists say that they often feel
stuck in positions such as data collectors and laboratory technicians, with no realistic
path to develop into leaders”. The argument, therefore, is that a form of colonial
continuity persists - often rhetorically reframed as “mutual heritage” or “shared history”
(Oancâ, 2025) - underpinned by a paternalistic approach that ultimately risks
reproducing further scientific and technological dependency.
However, contrary to what a superficial discussion of S&T uneven hierarchies might
suggest, Europe does not stand as the sole cradle of what we nowadays call science. This
becomes evident when examining the decisive historical contributions made by Arab
civilizations (e.g. astronomy, medicine, chemistry, mathematics) and by China (e.g.
printing, paper, gunpowder, mathematics, astronomy). Accordingly, questions arise
regarding the extent to which a framework centered on colonial legacies can be
straightforwardly extended to regions such as China or the Arab world, both of which
were at the forefront of technological development and innovation until at least the 13th
and 16th centuries respectively. In China’s case, however, the 19th and early 20th
centuries, although not configuring formal colonization as experienced in Africa or South
Asia, reflect a semi-colonial condition. As Reinhardt (2018) argues, China was not
formally colonized, yet it was clearly dominated by external powers. The Opium War of
1840, culminated in the victory of British imperial forces and the signing of the Treaty of
Nanjing, which, in brief, compelled China to handover Hong Kong to the British Crown
and to open several coastal cities to foreign residence and trade (Wright, 2011). This
traumatic episode underpins the contemporary discourse of the “Chinese Dream of
National Rejuvenation”, as expressed by Xi Jinping: “The Chinese nation is a great nation.
With a history of more than 5,000 years, China has made indelible contributions to the
progress of human civilization. After the Opium War of 1840, however, China was
gradually reduced to a semi-colonial, semi-feudal society and suffered greater ravages
than ever before. The country endured intense humiliation, the people were subjected to
great pain, and the Chinese civilization was plunged into darkness. Since that time,
national rejuvenation has been the greatest dream of the Chinese people and the Chinese
nation”
2
.
The Chinese Revolution and the founding of the People’s Republic in 1949 brought this
period of “humiliation” to an end. In this sense, China’s revolutionary transformation
aligns with the propositions of the “modern international” unveiling the possibility of
resisting colonial and semi-colonial legacies and their inherent uneven hierarchies
(Shilliam, 2011). Science and technology, deemed as crucial to modernizing the formerly
“humiliated” nation, became a strategic priority. The Communist Party called to “march
towards science”, under Chairman Mao’s motto: “Now that the relations of production
2
Speech by Xi Jinping at the ceremony marking the CCP centenary, July 1, 2021. Retrieved from
https://english.www.gov.cn/news/topnews/202107/01/content_WS60dd8d8ac6d0df57f98dc459.html.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2
Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies
and Contemporary Dynamics
February 2026, pp. 80-98
Knowledge, Power and the Modern International: Insights from Portugal–China Science
and Technology Cooperation
Carlos Rodrigues
86
have changed, it is necessary to increase productivity. Without science and technology,
productivity cannot be improved”
3
.
With planned science already well established and accepted in the country, namely due
to the Sino-Japanese War and Soviet influence (Wang, 2015), China launched a twelve-
year S&T plan in 1956. The Long-Range Plan for Scientific and Technological
Development (1956–1967)
4
, described as “the most celebrated of China’s past S&T
plans” (Sun and Cao, 2021, p. 5), laid the foundations for modern scientific development.
It forged a “triple alliance between workers, scientists and administrators” (Yamada,
1972, p. 502), meant to support the Great Leap Forward’s industrialization ambitions and
a self-reliant scientific system. Although the “hopelessly utopian” Great Leap Forward
strategy (Schoenhals, 1992, p. 591) and the turbulence of the Cultural Revolution, - with
its “distinctly anti-scientific tone” (Wu and Sheeks, 1970, p. 462) - produced serious
setbacks, these experiences informed later reforms. From 1978 onwards, under Deng
Xiaoping’s leadership, science and technology were repositioned at the core of China’s
modernization and development trajectory:
“The key to the four modernizations is the modernization of science and
technology. Without modern science and technology, it is impossible to build
modern agriculture, modern industry or modern national defense. Without
the rapid development of science and technology, there can be no rapid
development of the economy” (Xiaoping, 1978)
5
.
Strong centralized S&T planning and major policy initiatives - such as the 863 Programme
(1986), the 973 Programme (1997), Made in China 2025 (2015), the National Key R&D
Programme (2016) and the New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan
(2017) - have driven what Gewirtz (2019) describes as a new technological revolution.
Jabbour and Moreira (2023, p. 546) characterize this trajectory as a “New Projectment
Economy”, rooted in the “central role of China’s National System of Technological
Innovation since the second half of the twentieth century”.
China’s transformation into a global scientific and technological powerhouse
fundamentally challenges Western historical dominance in S&T and flattens the
hierarchies inherited from semi-colonial Western epistemic authority (Shilliam, 2015).
This ambition is encapsulated in Xinhua’s commentary on the 19th National Congress of
the CPC: “By 2050, two centuries after the Opium Wars, which plunged the ‘Middle
Kingdom’ into a period of hurt and shame, China is set to regain its might and re-ascend
to the top of the world”
6
.
3
Excerpt from a Mao Zedong speech in 1956 (Science and Technology Daily, July 7, 2012).
4
1956 - 1967年科学技术发展远景规划纲要 (1956—1967 Nián kēxué jìshù fāzhǎn yuǎnjǐng guīhuà gāngyào).
5
Speech at the Opening Ceremony of the National Conference on Science, March 18, 1978. Retrieved from
https://dengxiaopingworks.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/speech-at-the-opening-ceremony-of-the-national-
conference-on-science/.
6
Xinhua (2017). Commentary: Milestone congress points to new era for China, the world. Retrieved from
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-10/24/c_136702090.htm.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2
Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies
and Contemporary Dynamics
February 2026, pp. 80-98
Knowledge, Power and the Modern International: Insights from Portugal–China Science
and Technology Cooperation
Carlos Rodrigues
87
Portugal, now a small semi-peripheral European country, carries a colonial legacy that
situates it among the architects of persistent uneven global hierarchies. Its empire
stretched over Africa, Asia and South America. It was the outcome of an expansion
process that played a key role in the formation of the modern world system (Devezas
and Modelski, 2007). The same authors (Devezas and Modelski, 2007, p. 34) attribute
to the Portuguese two “very important transitions in the formation of the world system”,
namely, the “creation of a global network together with instruments of global reach [….]
and the emergence of some scientific commitment in system-building endeavor”. The
importance of science and technology would give structure to the Portuguese colonial
history, far beyond the decline at the end of Enlightenment, reaching the colonies’
independence, in the aftermath of the 1974 Carnation Revolution (Diogo and Amaral,
2012). Science functioned as an instrument of domination, as articulated in early
twentieth-century doctrines of the “science of colonization” (Costa, 2013).
Although Portugal shares this colonial trajectory with other European powers, its case
exhibits two distinctive features: the relative underdevelopment of its S&T system
compared with core European states, and its consequent subordinate position within
European knowledge hierarchies. Portugal thus occupies a dual position, both
reproducing colonial hierarchies and remaining subject to those imposed by a structurally
unequal Europe. Its persistent underfunding of S&T, dependence on EU resources and
precarious scientific careers exemplify this condition (Gago, 1990). As such, Portugal is
a good illustration of Shilliam’s (2011) argument that colonial hierarchies are uneven and
layered, i.e., they are much more than a simple North-South divide.
Mobilising Shilliam’s concept of the “modern international” in the analysis of Portugal–
China S&T cooperation entails treating scientific collaboration as a historically situated
and politically embedded process rather than a neutral exchange among formally equal
partners. Accordingly, this implies the examination of the ways colonial and semi-colonial
legacies shape contemporary epistemic hierarchies and expectations of expertise and the
analysis of asymmetries in material resources, institutional capacity, and agenda-setting
power. In addition, it requires an effort to positioning bilateral cooperation within broader
global governance structures and geopolitical configurations, as well as to tracing how
historical narratives - e.g., the national rejuvenation in China or the post-imperial
Europeanisation and Atlanticism in Portugal - inform policy choices and cooperative
practices. These operational threads guide the empirical analysis, linking observable
cooperation mechanisms to deeper historical and structural dimensions.
S&T Portugal-China Cooperation: A Brief Overview
There is a wide and long-established consensus on the centrality of international
cooperation in enhancing the capacity of supranational, national and subnational S&T
systems to respond to increasingly complex global challenges (Gerrard, 1996; Lacasa
and Vogelsang, 2024). For small S&T systems, such as the Portuguese one, international
cooperation often becomes a structural need, crucial for addressing challenges such as
limited funding and the lack of critical R&D critical mass, as well as for fostering
modernization and qualitative improvement. As Patrício (2010, p. 178) observes,
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2
Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies
and Contemporary Dynamics
February 2026, pp. 80-98
Knowledge, Power and the Modern International: Insights from Portugal–China Science
and Technology Cooperation
Carlos Rodrigues
88
“Portuguese policymakers, researchers, academic staff and students have become quite
aware of the benefits of internationalization”. She adds: “A new culture has emerged,
the culture that is needed for a country to fit into the new knowledge-based global
economy”.
China, in turn, while modernizing its internal R&D capacity, has deliberately mobilized
international S&T cooperation as an instrument to bridge the technological and innovation
gap with advanced Western economies and, ultimately, to drive its transformation from
a technologically dependent country into a global innovation leader. In the words of Cao
(2024, p. 2): “China has rapidly ascended to become one of the world’s leading nations
for scientific research. While observers frequently point to China’s measures to boost
domestic science as being responsible for this development, international collaboration
has been at least equally critical in China’s scientific rise”.
The first formal agreement between Portugal and China dates back to 1982, three years
after the establishment of formal diplomatic relations. Motivated by a “desire to
strengthen the friendly relations between the two countries and to promote their
cooperation in the fields of culture, science, technology, art, education and sports, on the
basis of mutual benefit” (Diário da República, 1982, p. 2957), the agreement identified
as priorities cooperation between higher education institutes, academic mobility,
reciprocal scholarship granting and exchange of academic theses, teaching materials,
books and data. At that time, individual contacts between academics constituted the
main vehicle of cooperation. Evidence of such exchanges can be found, for example, in
the collaboration in materials science between Lopes Baptista, Professor at the University
of Aveiro, and Yi Pan, Professor at Zhejiang University, evidenced by a significant number
of joint publications (e.g., Pan and Baptista, 1996; 2000). This case also illustrates the
subsequent process of institutionalization that followed these initially individual-driven
interactions. The Basic Agreement on Scientific and Technical Cooperation signed in 1993
established an action-oriented institutional framework, notably through the creation of a
joint commission responsible for defining priorities and overseeing implementation, which
remains in place. The main areas of S&T cooperation were further specified in the Joint
Declaration supporting the Global Strategic Partnership signed in 2005: information and
communication technologies, biotechnology and biomedicine, physics, space sciences,
materials science, the environment and oceanography. This framework was reinforced in
subsequent years through additional agreements, including the Memorandum of
Understanding in the Areas of Science, Technology and Innovation (2012) and sectoral
agreements such as the Protocol on Cooperation in Research and Innovation in the Field
of Marine Sciences (2014), culminating in the seventeen Memoranda of Understanding
signed in 2018 within the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative. Among them, the
memorandum establishing the Portugal–China 2030 Science and Technology Partnership
introduced new fields of cooperation, including space-related research and the blue
economy.
China’s designation as a ‘systemic rival’ by the European Commission in 2019 (EC, 2019),
the COVID-19 pandemic crisis, and pressure from the United States for Portugal to
choose between its Western allies and China (Rodrigues, 2023) can be seen as factors
that have troubled Portugal–China cooperation, particularly in S&T, as illustrated by the
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2
Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies
and Contemporary Dynamics
February 2026, pp. 80-98
Knowledge, Power and the Modern International: Insights from Portugal–China Science
and Technology Cooperation
Carlos Rodrigues
89
Portuguese government’s decision to exclude Chinese firms from the development of 5G
networks. Rodrigues (2025, p. 198) refers to a “notable cooling of enthusiasm” after
2019. The same author (Rodrigues, 2025) adds that, in the case of Portugal, the cooling
effect, although visible in several domains, “did not relegate China to the category of
rival”. Accordingly, Portugal–China S&T relations may be described as sound yet
nuanced. Soundness is reflected in the joint establishment of research centers (Table 1),
joint research programmes and projects - including those promoted by the Portuguese
Foundation for Science and Technology and China’s Ministry of Science and Technology,
as well as EU-funded initiatives - and a substantial body of co-authored publications
(Table 2) produced through prolific cooperation between scientists in both countries, at
both individual and institutional levels.
Table 1. Portugal-China cooperation: Joint Research Centers
Year
Initiative
2017
International Joint Research Center for Marine Biology - Partners: University
of Algarve and Shanghai Ocean University
2018
CASS-UC Centre of China Studies - Partners: University of Coimbra (UC) and the
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
2021
5GAIner - 5G + IA Networks Reliability Centre - Partners: Huawei, University
of Aveiro, IT- Institute of Telecommunications
2024
China-Portugal Joint Institute for Climate and Energy - Partners: China
University of Petroleum (Beijing) and IST- Instituto Superior Técnico
China-Portugal International Joint Laboratory in Herbal Medicines -
Partners: University of Lisbon (Faculty of Pharmacy) and Jiangxi University of
Traditional Chinese Medicine.
Sino-Portuguese Laboratory on Marine and Environmental Sciences -
Partners: Institute of Science and Environment (University of Saint Joseph Macao),
Portuguese Catholic University, Portuguese Institute for Sea and Atmosphere
(IPMA), and Institute of Oceanology (Chinese Academy of Sciences).
2025
Sino-Portuguese Joint Research Center for Sustainable Chemistry and
Materials - Partners: CICECO (University of Aveiro) and East China University of
Science and Technology.
China-Portugal Joint Laboratory on AI and Public Health Technologies -
Partners: INESC-ID, Guangzhou Laboratory, Guangzhou Medical University, and
Macao University of Science and Technology.
STARlab - Partners: University of Minho, University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro
and IAMCAS- Innovation Academy for Microsatellites Chinese Academy of Sciences.
Joint Laboratory in Artificial Intelligence for Healthy Longevity - Partners:
University of Coimbra and Macao Polytechnic University
Source: Author
As shown in Table 2, between 2019 and 2025 nearly 16,000 scientific articles indexed in
the SCOPUS database were co-authored by researchers working in Portugal and China,
representing approximately 4% of Portugal’s internationally co-authored output. During
this period, China ranked 10th among Portugal’s international scientific partners, in a list
led by Spain, the United Kingdom and Brazil.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2
Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies
and Contemporary Dynamics
February 2026, pp. 80-98
Knowledge, Power and the Modern International: Insights from Portugal–China Science
and Technology Cooperation
Carlos Rodrigues
90
Table 2. Portugal-China cooperation: co-authored papers (2019-2025)
Subject Area
Number
Engineering
2435
Physic & Astronomy
2282
Medicine
1490
Materials Science
1269
Computer Sciences
1014
Environmental Sciences
898
Chemistry
838
Biochemistry & Genetics
791
Biology
637
Earth & Planetary Sciences
565
Mathematics
536
Chemical Engineering
512
Social Sciences
446
Energy
380
Multidisciplinary
302
Immunology & Microbiology
244
Business & Accounting
200
Psychology
176
Pharmacology
174
Neuroscience
158
Economics & Finance
145
Decision Sciences
139
Health Professions
101
Arts & Humanities
82
Nursing
66
Veterinary
26
Dentistry
09
TOTAL
15915
Source: Scival Elsevier (n.d.)
Table 2 further indicates that more than 60% of these co-authored publications fall within
the fields of engineering, physics and astronomy, medicine, materials science and
computer science. Overall, cooperation appears strongly oriented towards technical and
applied sciences. This emphasis may be attributed to several factors, including China’s
innovation priorities, Portugal’s specialized expertise in these domains, and the objectives
of funding institutions. Moreover, the technical focus of early cooperative initiatives in
the 1980s appears to have shaped subsequent trajectories. A similar pattern is observed
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2
Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies
and Contemporary Dynamics
February 2026, pp. 80-98
Knowledge, Power and the Modern International: Insights from Portugal–China Science
and Technology Cooperation
Carlos Rodrigues
91
in Horizon Europe projects (2021–2027) coordinated by Portuguese organizations with
Chinese institutions as associated partners. According to the CORDIS database,
approximately 15% of the 107 projects coordinated by Portuguese entities involve
Chinese partners. This represents a significant increase compared with the Horizon 2020
programme (2014–2020), during which Chinese participation was marginal, with only
four out of 672 projects.
In this context, the general cooling of EU–China relations in the field of S&T appears to
have had a less pronounced impact on Portugal–China cooperation than in some other
EU member states, where stricter eligibility rules for R&D funding, heightened
knowledge-security concerns and restrictions on Chinese researchers’ access to sensitive
research facilities produced a stronger deterrent effect (Cai and Zheng, 2025).
Nevertheless, there is evidence that the deteriorating geopolitical environment -
particularly the strained relations between China, the EU and the United States - has
influenced Portugal–China cooperation, primarily at the level of public discourse.
While collaboration on the ground has remained largely robust, it has been accompanied
by a weakening of its public and political articulation. The case of the “5GAIner — 5G +
AI Networks Reliability Centre”, established in 2021 at the University of Aveiro and
funded by Huawei, illustrates this dynamic. The laboratory, which provides “a 5G
experimentation environment for the different stakeholders taking part in the 5G
ecosystem” (Quevedo et al., 2023, p. 514), developed internationally recognized R&D
projects and maintained close ties with industrial firms and public organizations. It was
awarded with the “Huawei Corporate-Level Excellent Technical Cooperation Project 2022”
and received considerable public attention. However, the ban imposed in May 2023 by
the Portuguese government on the participation of companies headquartered in non-
NATO countries in 5G development - a decision that directly affected Huawei - apparently
changed the situation. Signaling a shift in the relational dynamics between Portugal and
China (Rodrigues, 2025), this decision, as expected, impacted on the S&T cooperative
dynamics involving Huawei and research organizations. The research objectives pursued
by the 5GAIner laboratory are still underpinning research activities at the University of
Aveiro, but no connection to Huawei can be established with basis on available
information.
Exploring the Extended “Modern International”
Science and Technology cooperation between Portugal and China, despite differences in
power and scale, may be regarded as a natural development within the globally shared
understanding that the internationalization of scientific and technological systems is of
fundamental importance. However, when the aim is to test the extended concept of the
“modern international” as a meaningful analytical framework for examining cooperative
dynamics between the two systems, this notion of “naturality” acquires important
nuances. These nuances are grounded in history, geography and politics, and are rooted
in Macao. In this sense, when interpreting the current status of Portugal-China S&T
cooperation through the “modern international”, Macao provides an effective analytical
path to go beyond the limited view of cooperation as motivated by any sort of functional
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2
Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies
and Contemporary Dynamics
February 2026, pp. 80-98
Knowledge, Power and the Modern International: Insights from Portugal–China Science
and Technology Cooperation
Carlos Rodrigues
92
complementarity or convergence of interests. Rather, the current dynamics emerge from
historically constructed relations though which knowledge, power, and legitimacy have
circulated unevenly across colonial and post-colonial configurations.
Macao became a permanent Portuguese trading base in 1557 through a concession
granted by the Ming dynasty and was formally transformed into a colonial territory more
than three centuries later, following the signing of the Lisbon Protocol and the Sino-
Portuguese Treaty of Friendship and Commerce in 1887. Although never ratified, the
treaty conferred sovereignty over the territory upon Portugal. Portuguese colonial rule
persisted until 1976, when China gradually resumed certain sovereign powers within the
post-revolutionary Portuguese decolonization process, culminating in Macao’s handover
to China in 1999 and its incorporation into the “One Country, Two Systems” framework
as the second Chinese Special Administrative Region. The smooth and successful
negotiations during the transition period (1988–1999) are widely regarded as a key
foundation of the stable and mutually beneficial relations that endure today.
Historically, Macao has served as a crucial gateway between European and Chinese
cultures and systems of knowledge. As Soen (2004, p. 219) observes, “during the late
sixteenth and early seventeenth century Macao was a vibrant Portuguese trading center
where Europeans and Chinese exchanged products and knowledge… and became a
keystone in cultural exchange between East and West and China”. Its role as an entry
point for Western medical knowledge during the late Ming and early Qing dynasties (Wu
et al., 2024), European mathematical sciences (Jami, 2004), and Chinese pharmaceutical
knowledge transmitted to Europe (Golvers, 2018) exemplifies this mediating function.
Even in periods when Portuguese authority over Macao was severely contested,
particularly during the nineteenth century, the enclave “continued to function for China
as an important point of entry for Western ideas” (Edmonds, 1993, p. 5).
From the perspective of the ‘modern international’, Macao is providing support to
cooperative practices that can be deemed as embedded in older regimes of global
ordering and inherent uneven hierarchies. Hence, the framework provides the
understanding of Portugal-China S&T cooperation as a reconfigured continuation of
historically driven modes of international engagement that present unbalances,
mediation, and symbolic power as constitutive dimensions. As such, it is not a simple
matter of responding to the challenges of globalized science. This calls forth the need to
know more about the extent to which Macao continues to fulfil a mediating role,
nowadays under Chinese sovereignty. One central argument is that Portugal’s colonial
legacy - although now residual - has been reprocessed into symbolic capital (Ferraz de
Matos, 2020), providing significant leverage for the development of exchanges and
cooperative networks between China, Portugal and Portuguese-speaking countries. This
symbolic capital has been institutionalized, most notably through China’s establishment
in 2003 of the Forum for Economic and Trade Cooperation between China and
Portuguese-Speaking Countries (Forum Macao), which uses the Portuguese language as
a structuring element supporting Macao’s role as a platform linking China, Portugal and
their former colonies (as well as Equatorial Guinea).
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2
Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies
and Contemporary Dynamics
February 2026, pp. 80-98
Knowledge, Power and the Modern International: Insights from Portugal–China Science
and Technology Cooperation
Carlos Rodrigues
93
Macao’s function as a bridging territory also extends to international S&T cooperation, as
formalized in the Framework Law for Science and Technology issued by the SAR
Legislative Assembly in 2000 and in the Administrative Regulation governing the Macao
Science and Technology Development Fund (FDCT) established in 2004. Notably, FDCT’s
institutional communications explicitly identify Portugal - alongside mainland China - as
a major partner in international S&T cooperation (FDCT, 2024). In addition to formal
agreements between the Portuguese government and the Macao SAR (e.g., the 2001
cooperation agreement), a range of policy instruments support collaboration, including
memoranda of understanding between FDCT and Portugal’s Foundation for Science and
Technology (FCT), (e.g., the 2017 agreement establishing joint R&D funding
programmes, researcher mobility schemes and joint dissemination initiatives). These
mechanisms have supported projects linking Portuguese and Chinese R&D organizations,
particularly in fields such as marine sciences and health technologies (Leandro and Li,
2025).
Institutional partnerships, - especially between higher education institutions in Macao
and Portugal, have long played a central role in fostering S&T cooperation and extending
it to Chinese partners. The University of Macau’s Vice-Rector for Global Affairs, Rui
Martins, who serves the institution since 1992, states that the university “shoulders the
mission of linking mainland China, Macao, and Portugal” (Leong et al., 2025, p. 25).
Similarly, the University of Saint Joseph’s initiative to establish a research alliance on
healthy ageing involving six Portuguese and two Chinese universities illustrates the
capacity of Macao-based institutions to generate cooperative networks.
While institution-driven cooperation has expanded, official funding mechanisms have
shown signs of contraction. Antunes (2025, p. 1117) notes that the only dedicated joint
funding programme involving FCT and FDCT, -launched in 2017-, has not issued new
calls since 2019. This contrasts with the continued prominence of China–Macao–Portugal
cooperation in official discourse. A partial explanation may lie in FDCT’s growing strategic
engagement with Brazil, as evidenced by the joint funding scheme negotiated with
FAPESP in 2024 and launched in 2025 (FDCT, 2025).
The substantial disparities in S&T capabilities and resources between China and
Portuguese-speaking countries, - including Portugal and Brazil-, invite a critical historical
interpretation that points to a reconfiguration of dependencies between former colonizers
and (semi-)colonized societies. China’s scientific and technological development
represents a form of epistemic sovereignty with growing influence over global knowledge
production (Qiu et al., 2025). Conversely, Portugal’s imperial decline has repositioned it
from a center of knowledge dissemination to an epistemically dependent semi-periphery
(Reis, 2020). This inversion creates new asymmetries within S&T cooperation and
requires, as Antunes (2025, p. 1117) argues, “special care in ensuring that this
collaboration is done between equals and reduces this asymmetry”.
Yet, Portugal’s colonial legacy also provides network and symbolic resources that
compensate, to some extent, for its peripheral position. These resources enhance
Portugal’s capacity to function as a gateway in international S&T cooperation, not only
towards the so-called Global South, particularly the Portuguese-speaking world, but also
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2
Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies
and Contemporary Dynamics
February 2026, pp. 80-98
Knowledge, Power and the Modern International: Insights from Portugal–China Science
and Technology Cooperation
Carlos Rodrigues
94
towards Europe. This symbolic and network power, in turn, helps explain China’s strategic
interest in Portugal. Macao epitomizes the complexity of these layered historical,
symbolic and geopolitical dynamics.
A first and foremost finding concerns Macao’s persistence in assuming a mediating role
in Portugal-China S&T cooperation. Consequently, there is scope to argue that colonial
legacies are not residual, they are, rather, reactivated and institutionalized according to
the nature of change in geopolitical conditions. Macao’s mediation, though, occurs within
a context of asymmetric scientific capacity and power. In fact, while China is
strengthening its S&T system and soundly shaping global research agendas, Portugal
suffers from limited resources and power inherent to its semi-peripheral position within
the EU. Nevertheless, linear readings of dependency can be challenged, namely due to
Portugal’s historical ties, linguistic heritage, and institutional networks, which, namely in
the Portuguese-speaking world, foster forms of brokerage that may offset material
constraints. This duality made of enabling possibilities and structural constraints reveals
the ‘modern international’ as a productive frame of reference to deal with the tensions of
cooperation, hierarchy, and historical transformations.
Conclusion
This study has examined the evolving relationship between Portugal and China in the
field of S&T, moving beyond a purely functionalist and technocratic approach. While such
perspectives illuminate institutional mechanisms and measurable outcomes, they are
insufficient for understanding the deeper historical and structural forces shaping
cooperation. To address this gap, the study has tested an extended analytical framework
inspired by Robbie Shilliam’s conception of the modern international, which foregrounds
history and acknowledges the enduring influence of colonial and semi-colonial legacies in
structuring global science and technology.
China’s transformation into a global research and innovation powerhouse complicates
traditional colonial analytical assumptions. The historical narrative that cast Western
science as a civilizing gift has been unsettled by China’s capacity to challenge Western
epistemic dominance and reconfigure global hierarchies of knowledge production. At the
same time, Portugal’s post-imperial trajectory has repositioned it within the semi-
periphery of the global S&T system, weakening its capacity to reproduce former colonial
hierarchies.
Against this backdrop, Portugal–China Science and Technology cooperation emerges as
both asymmetrical and strategically significant. China views Portugal as a gateway to
Europe and Portuguese-speaking scientific spaces, while Portugal seeks expanded
funding opportunities, access to advanced research infrastructures and enhanced
international visibility through engagement with China. Macao stands as the most
tangible expression of this complex dialectic.
Despite geopolitical tensions and structural asymmetries, the analysis confirms the
relevance and analytical strength of a historical, colonial and post-colonial framework for
understanding contemporary S&T cooperation between nations.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2
Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies
and Contemporary Dynamics
February 2026, pp. 80-98
Knowledge, Power and the Modern International: Insights from Portugal–China Science
and Technology Cooperation
Carlos Rodrigues
95
References
Acharya, A; Buzan, B. (2010). Why is there no non-Western international relations
theory? An introduction. In Acharya, A; Buzan, B. (eds.). Non-Western international
relations theory: perspectives on and beyond Asia. Routledge.
Antunes, A. (2025). Research in Science and Technology: Challenges and Opportunities
in the Cooperation Between China, Angola, and Portugal. In Li, Y, Leandro, F.J., Tavares
da Silva, J. & Rodrigues, C. (Eds.). The Palgrave Handbook on China-Europe-Africa
Relations. Palgrave-Macmillan.
Cai, Y., & Zheng, G. (2025). Navigating shifts in Europe-China higher education
cooperation: An institutional logics perspective. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 29(2), 214-234.
Cao, C. (2024). Innovation in China: Domestic Efforts and Global Integration. La Jolla:
UC Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation; MERICS.
Cherry, A., Haselip, J., Ralphs, G., & Wagner, I. E. (2018). Africa-Europe research and
innovation cooperation: global challenges, bi-regional responses. Springer Nature.
Costa, L. (2013). Conhecer para Ocupar. Ocupar para Dominar. Ocupação Científica do
Ultramar e Estado Novo. História: revista da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do
Porto, n. 3, 41-58
Devezas, T. & Modelski, G. (2007). The Portuguese as system-builders: technological
innovation in early globalization. In Modelski, G., Devezas, T. and Thompson, W. (Eds.),
Globalization as evolutionary process: modelling global change. Routledge.
Diário da República (1982). Decreto nº 103/82. Diário da República, I Série, nº 218,
20/09/1982, 2957-2960.
Diogo, M.P. & Amaral, I.M. (Eds.) (2012). A outra face do império: ciência, tecnologia e
medicina (séc. XIX e XX). Colibri.
Dube, S. (2017). Subjects of modernity: time-space, disciplines, margins. Africa Sun
Media.
EC (2019). EU-China- A strategic outlook. European Commission.
Edmonds, R. L. (1993). Macau: Past, present and future. Asian Affairs, 24(1), 3-15.
FDCT (2025). Relatório Anual do Fundo para o Desenvolvimento das Ciências e da
Tecnologia de 2024. Fundo para o Desenvolvimento das Ciências e Tecnologia.
FDCT (2024). Relatório Anual do Fundo para o Desenvolvimento das Ciências e da
Tecnologia de 2023. Fundo para o Desenvolvimento das Ciências e Tecnologia.
Ferraz de Matos, P. (2020). Colonial representations of Macao and the Macanese:
Circulation, knowledge, identities and challenges for the future. Portuguese Journal of
Social Science, 19(1), 61-82.
Gerrard, J. (1996). The importance of international cooperation in science and
technology. SRA Journal, 28(1), 29.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2
Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies
and Contemporary Dynamics
February 2026, pp. 80-98
Knowledge, Power and the Modern International: Insights from Portugal–China Science
and Technology Cooperation
Carlos Rodrigues
96
Gewirtz, J. (2019). The Futurists of Beijing: Alvin Toffler, Zhao Ziyang, and China's “New
Technological Revolution,” 1979–1991. The Journal of Asian Studies, 78(1), 115-140.
Golvers, N. (2018). ‘Jesuit Macau’ and its ‘paper collections’ in the exchange of knowledge
between Europe and China (17th and 18th centuries). In Barreto, L.F. and Wu, Z. (Eds.),
Travels and Knowledge (China, Macau and Global Connections). Centro Científico e
Cultural de Macau e Fundação Macau.
Ishengoma, J. M. (2016). North–South research collaborations and their impact on
capacity building: A Southern perspective. In Halvorsen T. and Nossum J. (Eds.). North–
South knowledge networks: Towards equitable collaboration between academics, donors
and Universities. African Minds.
Jabbour, E., & Moreira, U. (2023). From the national system of technological innovation
to the “New Projectment Economy” in China. Brazilian Journal of Political Economy, 43(3),
543-563.
Jami, C. (2004). Teachers of mathematics in China: the Jesuits and their textbooks
(1580-1723). In Saraiva, L. (Ed), History of Mathematical Sciences: Portugal and East
Asia II. World Scientific Publishing.
Keohane, R. O. (1984). After hegemony: cooperation and discord in the world political
economy. Princeton Press.
Krige, J. (Ed.). (2019). How knowledge moves: Writing the transnational history of
science and technology. University of Chicago Press.
Lacasa, I., & Vogelsang, M. (2024). Enhancing international collaboration in science,
technology, and innovation to achieve sustainable development goals. Science and Public
Policy, 51(3), 509-525.
Leandro, F.J. & Li, Y. (2025). Global Partners Not Contiguous Neighbors: The Potential of
Sino-Portuguese Cooperation. In Li, Y, Leandro, F.J., Tavares da Silva, J. & Rodrigues,
C. (Eds.). The Palgrave Handbook on China-Europe-Africa Relations. Palgrave-
Macmillan.
Leong, B.; Ip, D.; Wang C., Li, T. (2025). UM’s Academic Cooperation with Higher
Education Institutions in Portugal. UMagazine, Issue 31, Spring/Summer 2025, pp. 23-
28. University of Macau.
Gago, J. M. (1990). Manifesto para a Ciência em Portugal. Gradiva.
Nordling, L. (2015). Africa's fight for equality. Nature, 521(7550), 24-25.
Oancă, A. (2024). Colonialism as ‘shared history’? Negotiating European colonial heritage
in Casablanca and beyond. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 1-14.
Pan, Y., & Baptista, J. L. (2000). Spontaneous infiltration of iron silicides into silicon
carbide powder preforms. Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 83(12), 2919-2924.
Pan, Y., & Baptista, J. L. (1996). Chemical instability of silicon carbide in the presence of
transition metals. Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 79(8), 2017-2026.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2
Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies
and Contemporary Dynamics
February 2026, pp. 80-98
Knowledge, Power and the Modern International: Insights from Portugal–China Science
and Technology Cooperation
Carlos Rodrigues
97
Patrício, M. T. (2010). Science policy and the internationalisation of research in
Portugal. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(2), 161-182.
Pisani, N., Boekhout, H. D., Heemskerk, E. M., & Takes, F. W. (2025). China's rise as
global scientific powerhouse: A trajectory of international collaboration and specialization
in high-impact research. Research Policy, 54(8), 105288.
Qiu, S., Steinwender, C., & Azoulay, P. (2025). Who stands on the shoulders of Chinese
(Scientific) Giants? Evidence from chemistry. Research Policy, 54(1), 105147.
Quevedo, J., Perdigão, A., Santos, D., Silva, R., & Aguiar, R. L. (2023). 5GAIner: Taking
the verticals into the 5G road. In 2023 Joint European Conference on Networks and
Communications & 6G Summit (EuCNC/6G Summit) (pp. 514-519). IEEE.
Reinhardt, A. (2018). Navigating Semi-Colonialism: Shipping, Sovereignty, and Nation-
Building in China, I860-I937. Harvard University Asia Center.
Reis, J. (2020). Portugal as a European periphery: Imbalances, dependency, and
trajectories. In Cordeiro Santos, A. & Teles, N. (Eds.). Financialisation in the European
Periphery. Routledge.
Rodrigues, C. (2025). Portugal: pragmatism in uncertain times. In Esteban, M.; Otero-
Iglesias, M. & de Esperanza, C. (eds.), Quest for strategic autonomy? Europe grapples
with the US-China rivalry. European Think Tank Network, January 2025.
Rodrigues, C. (2023). EU-China relations: Exploring the possibility of cognitive
dissonance. E-Janus, 14(1, TD1).
Schoenhals, M. (1992). Yang Xianzhen's Critique of the Great Leap Forward. Modern
Asian Studies, 26(3), 591-608.
Shilliam, R. (2021). Decolonizing Politics: An Introduction. Polity Press.
Shilliam, R. (2015). The black Pacific: Anti-colonial struggles and oceanic connections (p.
208). Bloomsbury Academic.
Shilliam, R. (Ed.) (2011). International Relations & Non-western Thought. Routledge.
Shilliam, R. (Ed.). (2010). Non-Western thought and international relations. In Shilliam,
R. (Ed.), International Relations & Non-western Thought. Routledge.
Soen, V. (2004). The EU and Macau: when history motivates political co-operation. In
Duchene, G.; Dumoulin, M. (eds.), L'Europe et l'Asie: actes de la IXe Chaire Glaverbel
d'études européennes 2003-2004 -Brussel, 219-240.
Sun, Y.; Cao, C. (2024). The political economy of science, technology, and innovation in
China. Cambridge University Press.
Sun, Y.; Cao, C. (2021). Planning for science: China’s “grand experiment” and global
implications. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 1-9.
Wallerstein, I. (1984). The politics of the world-economy: The states, the movements
and the civilizations. Cambridge University Press.
Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Random House.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD2
Thematic Dossier - Portugal and China in International Relations: Historical Legacies
and Contemporary Dynamics
February 2026, pp. 80-98
Knowledge, Power and the Modern International: Insights from Portugal–China Science
and Technology Cooperation
Carlos Rodrigues
98
Wang, Z. (2015). The Chinese developmental state during the Cold War: the making of
the 1956 twelve-year science and technology plan. History and Technology, 31(3), 180-
205.
Wendt, A. (1995). Constructing international politics. International security, 20(1), 71-
81.
Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power
politics. International organization, 46(2), 391-425.
Wright, D. C. (2011). The history of China. Greenwood.
Wu, Y.; Sheeks, R.B. (1970). The Organization and Support of Scientific Research and
Development in Mainland China. Praeger.
Wu, B., Gong, H., & Wang, X. (2024). A study on Macau’s role in the eastward spread of
western medicine from the perspective of procedural grounded theory. Medicina, 8(2),
8-12.