In the Pursuit of the Constructed Truth: Courtroom Questioning as a Persuasive Genre of Talk

ABSTRACT

In China, the police have been the single dominant player in criminal cases, while the procuracy and the courts have played only complementary roles. More often than not, as long as the police have launched a criminal investigation, the procuracy will prosecute the targeted person and the courts will return a guilty verdict. In the shadow of policing power, the Chinese criminal justice system operates with unique characteristics, with both the procuracy and the courts mostly coordinating with the police to address crime, but rarely practising ‘mutual constraint’. If a criminal prosecution encounters an irregularity, the three agencies coordinate with one another first and seek a solution that benefits all. Under this operational mode, both defendants and their lawyers are entirely excluded from the core decision-making process of the criminal justice system, in which they have no choice but to passively accept the result of the coordination between the police, the procuracy and the courts. Through an analysis of courtroom discourses, this paper unfolds the dynamics of criminal trials and the interactions between the defence, prosecutors and judges.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

¹ Cornelia Ilie, ‘Questions and Questioning’ in International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction, eds. Todd Sandel, Karen Tracy and Cornelia Ilie (Wiley Blackwell, 2015).

² Brenda Danet et al., ‘An Ethnography of Questioning in the Courtroom’ in Language Use and the Uses of Language, eds. Roger W Shuy and Anna Shnukal (Georgetown University Press, 1980), pp. 171–179.

³ Brenda Danet and Nicole C Kermish, ‘Courtroom Questioning: A Sociolinguistic Perspective’ in Psychology and Persuasion in Advocacy, ed. L N Massery II (The Association of Trial Lawyers of America, 1978), pp. 413–441.

⁴ William O’Barr, Linguistic Evidence (Academic Press, 1982); Susan Philips, ‘The Social Organisation of Questions and Answers in Courtroom Discourse’, Text 4(1–2), (1984), p. 225; Sandra Harris, ‘Questions as a Mode of Control in Magistrates’ Courts’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 49, (1984), p. 5; Sandra Harris, ‘Defendant Resistance to Power and Control in Court’ in Working with Language: A Multidisciplinary Consideration of Language Use in Work Contexts, ed. Hywel Coleman (Mouton de Gruyter, 1989), pp. 131–164; Hanni Woodbury, ‘Strategic Questions in Court’, Semiotica 48(3/4), (1984), p. 197; Viveka Adelswärd, Karin Aronsson, Linda Jönsson and Per Linell, ‘The Unequal Distribution of Interactional Space: Dominance and Control in Courtroom Interaction’, Text 7/4, (1987), p. 313.

⁵ Sandra Harris, ‘Pragmatics and Power’, Journal of Pragmatics 23(2), (1995), p. 117.

⁶ Meizhen Liao, A Study on Courtroom Questions, Responses and their Interaction: A Linguistic Perspective (Law Press, 2003); Janet Cotterill, Language and Power in Court: A Linguistic Analysis of the O.J. Simpson Trial (Palgrave Macmillan, 2002); John Gibbons, Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System (Blackwell, 2003); Susan Ehrlich, Representing Rape: Language and Sexual Consent (Routledge, 2001); John M Conley et al., ‘The Power of Language: Presentational Style in the Courtroom’, Duke Law Journal 14, (1978).

⁷ Harris (n 4).

⁸ Maxwell Atkinson and Paul Drew, Order in Court: The Organisation of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings (Humanities Press, 1979), p. 154.

⁹ Harris (n 4).

¹⁰ Doreen J McBarnet, ‘The Police, the Courts, and the Right to Silence’, paper presented to the Conference on Legal Reasoning and Legal Procedures, Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, Wolfson College, Oxford, 1978.

¹¹ Lord Justice Lawton, in R. v. Chandler, [1976] 1 W.L.R. 585, on appeal.

¹² Parkes v. The Queen, [1976] 1 W.L.R., 1251, quoted in McBarnet (n 10) pp. 1–2.

¹³ Mike McConville et al., Criminal Justice in China: An Empirical Inquiry (Edward Elgar, 2011).

¹⁴ Jianhua Xu, Karen Joe Laidler and Maggy Lee, ‘Doing criminological ethnography in China: opportunities and challenges’, Theoretical Criminology 17(2), (2013), p. 271.

¹⁵ Børge Bakken, The Exemplary Society: Human Improvement, Social Control, and the Dangers of Modernity in China (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); Murray Scot Tanner and Eric Green, ‘Principals and Secret Agents: Central Versus Local Control over Policing’, The China Quarterly 191, (2007), p. 644; Michael Dutton, ‘Strike Hard! Anti-Crime Campaigns and Chinese Criminal Justice, 1979–1985’, The China Quarterly 162, (2000), p. 575; Susan Trevaskes, Policing Serious Crime in China: From ‘Strike Hard’ to ‘Kill Fewer’ (Routledge, 2010).

¹⁶ John M Conley and William M O’Barr, Just Words: Law, Language, and Power (2nd edn, The University of Chicago Press, 2005).

¹⁷ Michel Foucault, The Order of Things (Routledge, 1970); Michel Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse of Language (Pantheon Books, 1972).

¹⁸ Conley and O’Barr (n 16), p. 7.

¹⁹ Mengyan Dai, ‘Policing in the People’s Republic of China: A Review of Recent Literature’, Crime, Law and Social Change 50(3), (2008), p. 211.

²⁰ Author’s interview with police officers and trial judges 2019.

²¹ Paul Drew and John Heritage, ‘Analysing talk at work: An introduction’ in Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, eds. Paul Drew and John Heritage (Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 22–25; Stephen C Levinson, ‘Activity types and language’ in Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, eds. Paul Drew and John Heritage (Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 97.

²² Harris (n 4).

²³ Bin Liang and Ni He, ‘Criminal Defense in Chinese Courtroom: An Empirical Inquiry’, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 58(10), (2014), pp. 1230, 1235.

²⁴ Xin He and Kwai Hang Ng, ‘In the Name of Harmony: The Erasure of Demotic Violence in China’s Judicial Behavior’ International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 27, (2013), p. 97.

²⁵ Na Jiang, ‘Convicting the Innocent: What Causes Wrongful Convictions in China?’, The Chinese Journal of Comparative Law 3(1), (2015), pp. 161, 170–171; Xifen Lin et al., ‘Regulating the Power of Chinese Police through the Exclusionary Rule—An Empirical Study’, Policing and Society 29(9), (2019), pp. 1109, 1123; Baosheng Zhang and Fei Zheng, ‘Reforming the Criminal Evidence System in China’, Asian Journal of Criminology 9, (2014), p. 103.

²⁶ Jianhua Zhong and Guanghua Yu, ‘Establishing the Truth on Facts: Has the Chinese Civil Process Achieved This Goal’, Journal of Transnational Law and Policy 13, (2004), p. 393.

²⁷ Sabine Gless and Laura Macula, ‘Exclusionary Rules—Is It Time for Change?’ in Do Exclusionary Rules Ensure a Fair Trial?, eds. Sabine Gless and Thomas Richter (Springer, 2019).

²⁸ In 2010, the Supreme People’s Court, Supreme People’s Procuratorate, Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of State Security and the Ministry of Justice issued a joint regulation, which is known as Strictly Excluding Illegally Obtained Evidence in the Handling of Criminal Cases. This was the first time in the history of China’s criminal procedure that the highest judicial authorities collectively proclaimed that illegally obtained evidence would be excluded from consideration of the court.

²⁹ Weimin Zuo and Rongjie Lan, ‘Exclusionary Rule of Illegal Evidence in China: Observation from Historical and Empirical Perspectives’ in Do Exclusionary Rules Ensure a Fair Trial? A Comparative Perspectives on Evidentiary Rules, eds. Sabine Gless and Thomas Richter (Springer, 2019), pp. 307–328; Ruihua Chen, Models of Criminal Procedure System (Springer, 2022), pp. 302, 312; Song Guo, ‘Feifa Zhengju Weihe Nanyi Youxiao Paichu? (Why is it Difficult to Exclude the Illegal Evidence?)’, Faxue Luntan (Legal Forum) 4, (2012), p. 116; Yanyou Yi, ‘Exclusionary Rules in China’, Columbia Journal of Asian Law 29(1), (2015), p. 1; Xin He, ‘Plea Leniency and Prosecution-Centeredness in China’s Criminal Process’, University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 2022/45, August 8, 2022; Lin et al. (n 25), p. 1112.

³⁰ Author’s interview with the trial judges 2019.

³¹ Pursuant to Article 129 of the Constitutional Law (Constitution of the People’s Republic of China), the People’s procuracy is the institution responsible for legal supervision.

³² Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China 2018, Article 57, Article 209, Article 228.

³³ Yu Mou, ‘Overseeing Criminal Justice: The Supervisory Role of the Public Prosecution Service in China’, Journal of Law and Society 44(4), (2017), p. 620; Weidong Chen, ‘Woguo Jianchaquan De Fansi Yu Chonggou—Yi Jianchaquan Wei Hexin De Fenxi (Rethink and Reconstruct the Power of Procuratorate: An Analysis Based on The Power of Prosecution)’, Faxue Yanjiu (Legal Research) 24(2), (2002), p. 3.

³⁴ McConville (n 13).

³⁵ Yu Mou, ‘The Constructed Truth: The Making of Police Dossiers in China’, Social and Legal Studies 26(1), (2017), p. 69.

³⁶ To prevent any doubts arising, the prosecutor may also speak in a relatively moderate manner. In fact, the presentation style of prosecutors is not only shaped by their institutional function and social identity, but also linked to their personal characteristics, interactional context, as well as the attitude of the hearer.

³⁷ Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11 (1954).

³⁸ John Henry Wigmore, A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law: Including the Statutes and Judicial Decisions of all Jurisdictions of the United States and Canada (3rd edn, Little, Brown and Company, 1942).

³⁹ Hanni Woodbury, ‘The Strategic Use of Questions in Court’, Semiotica 48(3–4), (1984), p. 197; Thomas A Mauet, Trial Techniques (4th edn, Little, Brown and Company, 1996), p. 437.

⁴⁰ Joanna Thornborrow, Power Talk: Language and Interaction in Institutional Discourse (Longman, 2002), p. 26.

⁴¹ Paul Drew, ‘Contested Evidence in Courtroom Cross-examinations: The Case of a Trial for Rape’ in Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, eds. Paul Drew and John Heritage (Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 470–520.

⁴² Robin Lakoff, ‘Questionable Answers and Answerable Questions’, in Issues in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Henry and Renee Kahane, eds. Henry Romanos Kahane, Renée Kahane, and Braj B Kachru, (University of Illinois Press, 1973), pp. 453–467.

⁴³ Linguistically, all conversations are organised into turns. A participant takes a turn whenever he or she begins to speak. In a conversation setting, powerful speakers have the power to initiate conversational exchanges, control the topic, decide who talks when and interrupt others. Mick Short, Exploring the Language of Plays, Poems and Prose (Longman, 1996); Harvey Sacks et al., ‘A Simplest Systematics for the Organisation of Turn-Taking for Conversation’, Language 50(4), (1974), p. 696.

⁴⁴ Weidong Ji, ‘The Judicial Reform in China: The Status Quo and Future Directions’, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 20(1), (2013), p. 185; Vladimir Evgen’evich Chugunov, Criminal Court Procedures in the Chinese People’s Republic (U.S. Joint Publications Research Service, 1961); Margaret Y K Woo, ‘Court Reform with Chinese Characteristics’, Washington International Law Journal 27(1), (2017), p. 241; Grenville Cross, ‘Chinese Courts Must Encourage Witness Cross-Examination to Ensure a Fairer Trial’, South China Morning Post, 12 April 2017, accessed November 25, 2019, https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2086693/chinese-courts-must-encourage-witness-cross-examination.

⁴⁵ McConville (n 13).

⁴⁶ Michael G Karnavas, ‘Judges’ Questioning: Are all Questions Fair Game?’, International Criminal Law Blog, 28 September 2016, accessed June 24, 2019, michaelgkarnavas.net/blog/2016/09/28/judges-questioning-are-all-questions-fair-game/.

⁴⁷ Shari Seidman Diamond, Marry R Rose, Beth Murphy and Sven Smith, ‘Juror Questions During Trial: A Window into Juror Thinking’, Vanderbilt Law Review 59 (6), (2006), p. 1927.

⁴⁸ Yanrong Chang, ‘Courtroom Questioning as a Culturally Situated Persuasive Genre of Talk’, Discourse and Society 15(6), (2004), p. 705.

⁴⁹ Zhiyuan Guo, ‘The First Step of the Long March: Implementing the Exclusionary Rules in China’, Asia Pacific Law Review 25(1), (2017); Zhiyuan Guo, ‘Exclusion of Illegally Obtained Confessions in China: An Empirical Perspective’, The International Journal of Evidence & Proof 21(1–2), (2016); Zuo and Lan (n 29).

⁵⁰ Jingkun Liu, The Exclusionary Rule of Illegal Evidence in China: Theory, Case, Application (Law Press China, 2019), p. vi.

⁵¹ Na Jiang, ‘The Potential to Secure a Fair Trial Through Evidence Exclusion: A Chinese Perspective’ in Do Exclusionary Rules Ensure a Fair Trial? A Comparative Perspective on Evidentiary Rules, eds. Sabine Gless and Thomas Richter (Springer Nature, 2019), pp. 163–211; Lin et al. (n 25); Zuo and Lan (n 29); Guo (n 49).

⁵² Deyong Shen, ‘Women Yingdang Ruhe Shiyong Feifa Zhengju Paichu Guize (How Should We Apply the Exclusionary Rule of Illegal Evidence’, People’s Court Daily, 28 June 2017; Ruihua Chen, ‘Xin Feifa Zhengju Paichu Guize De Bada Liangdian (Eight highlights of new exclusionary rule of illegal evidence), People’s Court Daily, 29 June 2017.

⁵³ Jeremy Daum, ‘Why China’s Exclusionary Rules Won’t Stop Police Torture’, 1 July 2017, accessed October 18, 2022.

⁵⁴ ibid.

⁵⁵ Elisa Nesossi and Susan Trevaskes, ‘Procedural Justice and the Fair Trial in Contemporary Chinese Criminal Justice’, Governance and Public Policy in China 2(1–2), (2017), pp. 53–55.

⁵⁶ Sida Liu and Terence Halliday, ‘Political Liberalism and Political Embeddedness: Understanding Politics in the Work of Chinese Criminal Defense Lawyer’, Law & Society Review 45(4), (2011).

⁵⁷ Chen Weidong ‘Yi Shenpan Wei Zhongxin: Jiedu, Shixian Yu Zhanwang (Making the Trial Central to the Process: Interpretation, Realization, and Prospects)’, Dangdai faxue (Contemporary Law Review) 4, (2016), p. 14; Liu and Halliday (n 56).

⁵⁸ Zhifeng Hu, ‘Zhencha Xunwen Luyin Luxiang Zhidu De Shehui Pinggu: Jishu, Guocheng Yu Wenti Daoxiang (Social Assessment of the System of Audio-visual Recording During Criminal Interrogation: Technology, Process and Problem-Oriented)’, Zhongguo Xinjing Xueyuan Xuebao (Journal of China Criminal Police College) 2, (2017), p. 34.

⁵⁹ Ruihua Chen, Xingshi Susong De Zhongguo Moshi (The Chinese Model of Criminal Procedure) (Law Press, 2010), p. 316.

⁶⁰ Changsheng Li, ‘Zouchu “Daibu Zhongxin Zhuyi” (Getting out of “Arrest-Centrism”)’, Jiancha Ribao (Procuratorial Daily), 23 September 2010, at 3.

⁶¹ Author’s interview with the police officers 2019.

⁶² Xinhuan Wang, ‘Dingzui Lu Yu Jixiao Kaohe (Conviction Rates and Performance Evaluations)’, Renmin Jiancha (People’s Procurator) 9, (2003), p. 49; Chen (n 59), pp. 310–311, 314.

⁶³ Procurators may appeal a first-instance acquittal under Article 181 of the PRC Criminal Procedure Law.

⁶⁴ Kyung Yup Kim v. Minister of Justice of New Zealand and Attorney-General of New Zealand, at 136.

⁶⁵ Lin et al. (n 25).

⁶⁶ Kyung Yup Kim (n 64), at 229.

⁶⁷ Sida Liu and Terence Halliday, Criminal Defence in China: The Politics of Lawyers at Work (Cambridge University Press, 2016).

⁶⁸ Terence Halliday and Sida Liu, ‘Birth of a Liberal Moment? Looking through a One-Way Mirror at Lawyers’ Defense of Criminal Defendants in China’ in Fighting for Political Freedom: Comparative Studies of the Legal Complex and Political Change, eds. Terence Halliday et al. (Hart Publishing, 2007); Bin Liang, Ni He and Hong Lu, ‘Deep Divide in China’s Criminal Justice System: Contrasting Perceptions of Lawyers and the Iron Triangle’, Crime Law and Social Change 62(5), (2014), p. 585.

⁶⁹ Ethan Michelson, ‘Lawyers, Political Embeddedness, and Institutional Continuity in China’s Transition from Socialism’, American Journal of Sociology 113(2), (2007), p. 352; Liu and Halliday (n 67).

⁷⁰ Zuo and Lan (n 29).

⁷¹ Supreme People’s Court, ‘Statistic Report Related to Judicial Forms’, 8 July 2017, Xinhua News, accessed July 3, 2019, www.xinhuanet.com//legal/2017-07/08/c_1121284694.htm.

⁷² Rongjie Lan, ‘A False Promise of Fair Trials: A Case Study of China’s Malleable Criminal Procedure Law’, UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal 27(2), (2010), p. 153; Jiahong He, ‘Empirical Studies on the De-Functionalization of Criminal Trial in China’, Renmin Chinese Law Review: Selected Papers of the Jurist 1, (2013), p. 159; Elisa Nesossi, ‘The Right to a Fair Trial’, in Handbook on Human Rights in China, eds. Sarah Biddulph and Joshua Rosenzweig (Edward Elgar, 2019), pp. 493–515; Na Jiang, Wrongful Convictions in China: Comparative and Empirical Perspectives (Springer, 2016); Na Jiang, ‘The Presumption of Innocence and Illegally Obtained Evidence: Lessons from Wrongful Convictions in China?’, Hong Kong Law Journal 43, (2013), p. 745.

⁷³ Liu and Halliday (n 67).

⁷⁴ Guido Calabresi, ‘The Exclusionary Rule’, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 26, (2003), p. 111; Myron W Orfield, ‘Deterrence, Perjury, and the Heater Factor: An Exclusionary Rule in the Chicago Criminal Courts’, University of Colorado Law Review 63, (1992), p. 75; Malcolm R Wilkey, ‘Constitutional Alternatives to the Exclusionary Rule’, South Texas Law Journal 23, (1982), p. 531; Samuel Estreicher and Daniel Weick, ‘Opting for a Legislative Alternative to the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule’, University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review 78, (2010), p. 949; Michael T Kafka, ‘The Exclusionary Rule: An Alternative Perspective’, William Mitchell Law Review 27, (2001), p. 1895.

⁷⁵ Jing Li, ‘Zuigaofa: Qunian Quanguo Fayuan Shengjie Guojia Peichang An 2045 Jian (SPC: The Court Concluded 2045 Cases of State Compensation Cases Last Year)’, Renmin Wang (People’s Net), 10 March 2014, accessed December 13, 2019, http://www.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2014/03/id/1227247.shtml; Human Rights Watch, ‘Tiger Chairs and Cell Bosses: Police Torture of Criminal Suspects in China’, 13 May 2015, accessed December 13, 2019, https://www.hrw.org/report/2015/05/13/tiger-chairs-and-cell-bosses/police-torture-criminal-suspects-china.

⁷⁶ Harry M Caldwell and Carol A Chase, ‘The Unruly Exclusionary Rule: Heeding Justice Blackmun’s Call to Examine the Rule in Light of Changing Judicial Understanding about Its Effects outside the Courtroom’, Marquette Law Review 78, (1994), p. 45.

⁷⁷ Liu and Halliday (n 67).

⁷⁸ Kwai Hang Ng and Xin He, Embedded Courts: Judicial Decision-Making in China (Cambridge University Press, 2017).

⁷⁹ Various forms of Party intervention are systemic and reasonably formalized—both through practice and through Party policies, directives and guidelines. Yulin Fu and Randall Peerenboom, ‘A New Analytic Framework for Understanding and Promoting Judicial Independence in China’ in Judicial Independence in China: Lessons For Global Rule Of Law Promotion, ed. Randall Peerenboom (Cambridge University Press, 2009); Hualing Fu, ‘Criminal Defence in China: The Possible Impact of the 1996 Criminal Procedural Law Reform’, The China Quarterly 153, (1998), pp. 31, 33.

⁸⁰ The possible interference may come from the president of the court, head of division or other senior judges, the adjudicative committee or higher-level courts.

⁸¹ Xin He and Kwai Hang Ng, ‘“It Must Be Rock Strong!”: Guanxi’s Impact on Judicial Decision-Making in China’, Centre for Chinese & Comparative Law Research Paper No. 2017/004, twenty-first Century China Center Research Paper No. 2017–05.

⁸² Xin Zhou, ‘China Reaffirms Goals to Rebalance Economy, Reduce Poverty and Improve the Environment’, South China Morning Post, 5 March 2018, accessed November 27, 2018, https://www.scmp.com/news/china/economy/article/2135811/china-reaffirms-goals-rebalance-economy-reduce-poverty-and; Liqun Cao and Francis T Cullen, ‘Thinking About Crime and Control: A Comparative Study of Chinese and American Ideology’, International Criminal Justice Review 11, (2001), pp. 58, 61; Ronald J Troyer, ‘Chinese Thinking about Crime and Social Control’ in Social Control in the People’s Republic of China, eds. Ronald J Troyer, John P Clark, and Dean G Rojek (Praeger), pp. 45–56; Benjamine Van Rooij and Carlos Wing-Hung Lo, ‘Fragile Convergence: Understanding Variation in the Enforcement of China’s Industrial Pollution Law’, Law & Policy 32 (1), (2010), p. 14; Yanzhong Huang, ‘Why China’s Good Environmental Policies Have Gone Wrong’, The New York Times, 14 January 2018, accessed November 27, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/14/opinion/china-environmental-policies-wrong.html.

⁸³ Halliday and Liu (n 68); Liang, He, and Lu (n 68).

⁸⁴ Kyung Yup Kim (n 64), at 197.

⁸⁵ Committee against Torture, Concluding Observations on the Fifth Periodic Report of China, UN Doc CAT/C/CHN/CO/5 (3 February 2016) Article 32.

⁸⁶ Kyung Yup Kim (n 64), at 228.

⁸⁷ ibid.

⁸⁸ Committee against Torture (n 85).

⁸⁹ ‘Sweden Rejects China’s Request to Extradite Former Official’, Reuters, 9 July 2019, accessed July 11, 2019, https://www.reuters.com/article/sweden-extradition-china/sweden-rejects-chinas-request-to-extradite-former-official-idUSL4N24A1KD; Richard Milne, ‘Swedish Court to Consider Extradition of Chinese Official’, Financial Times, 17 June 2019, accessed July 11, 2019, https://www.ft.com/content/336681c0-8eb4-11e9-a1c1-51bf8f989972.

⁹⁰ Keegan Elmer, ‘Sweden “Unlikely” to Extradite Chinese Fugitive Qiao Jianjun as Supreme Court Sets Him Free’, South China Morning Post, 21 June 2019, accessed July 4, 2019, https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3015562/sweden-unlikely-extradite-chinese-fugitive-qiao-jianjun.

⁹¹ Karin Aronsson et al., ‘The Courtroom Hearing as a Middle Ground: Speech Accommodation by Lawyers and Defendants’, Journal of Language and Social Psychology 6(2), (1987), p. 99; Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall, ‘Power in International Politics’, International Organisation 59(1), (2005).