National Interests within UNESCO: How China Shaped the Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education
In this blogpost, which is part of NORRAG’s blog series on “International Organisations and the Global Governance of Education”, Xiaomin Li, David A. Turner and Danrong Li trace the development of UNESCO’s Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education, paying particular attention to the role of Chinese actors in the process.
It is widely acknowledged that UNESCO supports or imposes norms and standards for the operation of educational systems worldwide. Beneath that knowledge is the view of UNESCO as an active agent independently promoting convergence. In this post, we examine the development of the Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education (hereafter Global Convention) in an effort to understand UNESCO as an arena in which the different interests of nations are played out.
The Global Convention was adopted by the 40th Session of the UNESCO General Conference on 25 November 2019, and entered into force on 5 March 2023, three months after the twentieth state party ratified it. However, that final step was the culmination of more than ten years of preparatory work, and based on a number of regional conventions that preceded it. Why the delay, and how was it approved eventually?
To address this question, we trace the development of the Global Convention from its inception, through its various phases of negotiation, to its adoption. We pay particular attention to the activities of representatives of China and the European states who played major roles in the process of developing the Global Convention.
The preparatory work for the Global Convention started in 2011. From 2010 to 2018, the crucial period for the development of the Global Convention, Mr. Qian Tang was Assistant Director-General for Education at UNESCO. That fact is crucially important in this account of the Global Convention’s process, because Mr. Tang was not only a Chinese national but also a key mover in promoting the Global Convention. He has written extensively about the process in his book (Tang, 2020), which makes him an invaluable resource in gaining insights into the inner workings of the process that he promoted and led.
Tang (2020) believed that it was necessary to develop a global convention based on the pre-existing regional conventions, so that all countries would have globally accepted standards for the recognition of foreign qualifications. With the support of his senior management team, he set out to test the opinions of member states, and in November 2011 he led a team to attend a meeting of those reviewing the revision of the Asia-Pacific regional convention in Tokyo. The delegates were overwhelmingly in favour of the need for a global convention, and suggested that UNESCO conduct a feasibility study and submit it to member states for discussion (UNESCO, 2015).
As for China, since the country’s reform and opening up, the number of internationally mobile students had grown dramatically, in terms of inward and outward flows of students. China aspires to become a leader among countries that host international students, and had been engaged in extensive academic exchanges with foreign countries. The large number of Chinese students studying abroad had given rise to 54 bilateral agreements on mutual recognition of higher education qualifications (State Council of PRC, 2020). Considering these developments, the Chinese delegation to UNESCO supported the idea of a global convention and was willing to provide financial support (Tang, 2020).
Having tested the opinions of the member states and secured financial support, Tang returned to Paris to begin to press ahead with the matter. Two of the Education Sector’s retired experts on higher education were appointed as consultants to produce a feasibility study based on inputs from member states. The experts analysed in detail the need for and the possibility of a global convention, and set out the main objectives, basic principles and possible framework for such a convention. In October 2012, China funded and supported the convening of an international meeting of experts in Nanjing. At that meeting, experts from various countries strongly endorsed the conclusions of the feasibility study, and it was recommended that UNESCO should start work on it immediately (Tang, 2020).
The feasibility report was presented to the Executive Board at its spring session in 2013. With 58 members, the Executive Board provides the widest range of opinions of member states, apart from the General Conference itself. The majority of the members of the Executive Board supported the establishment of a convention, but some countries wished to work on a simpler but non-binding recommendation first, and then formulate a binding convention in the future. This was not a novel suggestion, since the General Conference had already adopted the Recommendations on the Recognition of Studies and Qualifications in Higher Education in 1993 (UNESCO, 2024). Given the tortuous workings of UNESCO, it is more likely that it was an effort to get the whole question of a convention lost in the UNESCO bureaucracy. However, Tang argued forcefully for going directly to a global convention, and the Executive Board decided to submit the feasibility study for discussion at the 37th session of the General Conference in the autumn of that year; the Conference would decide whether the standard-setting instrument should take the form of a recommendation or a convention (Tang, 2020).
The feasibility study was introduced at the 37th session of the General Conference. But the countries that were cautious about the establishment of a global convention insisted that it was premature. After a further round of expert meetings and consultation with member states, a preliminary progress report was submitted to the 38th session of the General Conference, held at the end of 2015. Had the Conference approved the report and agreed to appoint a drafting committee to take the convention forward, progress would have been more straightforward. However, despite seeing substantial progress in the work on the draft convention, the representatives of the countries that favoured delaying the process argued that they needed to see a draft of the convention before deciding whether to authorise the formal drafting process. This idea of having a draft available before the drafting could begin has the feel of a tactic to kick the convention into long grass.
The Conference decided to ask the Director-General to continue to consult member states, to organise a drafting committee, and to submit a progress report and a preliminary draft of a global convention to the 39th General Conference in the autumn of 2017. If that Conference were to endorse the proposal, the refining of the draft convention could continue, in order to submit a substantive draft to the 40th session of the General Conference at the end of 2019. This manoeuvre effectively added two years to the process of developing the Global Convention (Tang, 2020).
As a result of the decision of the General Conference, a drafting committee was established in 2016. Tang informed the Chinese delegation that they should seek to join this committee, since the country has always wanted to actively participate in global governance, and this is a good opportunity to do so. The Chinese recommended Dr Yue Kan from Zhejiang University to take a seat on the committee, creating the conditions for China to participate in drafting the Global Convention. The drafting committee consisted of 23 independent experts, including Dr Kan.
As the foregoing account makes clear, some countries were very much in favour of proceeding with the convention as quickly as possible, while others were less positive, or actively opposed to the idea of a convention. Norway was among the most vociferous supporters of rapid progress, while China offered material support and recommended an expert consultant, again indicating positive support for progress toward a convention. On the other hand, Germany and the US were among those that were most sceptical about the need for a convention, and advocated a more cautious path. This divergence shows that UNESCO is not a single entity, but its actions are the outcome of a more complex interaction between various parties. The Secretariat can set the agenda for discussion and decisions but not control the resolutions of the Executive Board. The Executive Board is responsible for the programme of work approved by the General Conference and also draws up the agenda for the General Conference. The General Conference can be guided in this way, but member states can frustrate the wishes of the Executive Board by delaying or rejecting proposal. Finally, each member state has its own authority over whether to ratify conventions or not.
The Authors:
Dr. Xiaomin Li is a lecturer at the Institute of International and Comparative Education of Beijing Normal University. She holds a PhD in Comparative Education and International Development from the Institute of Education, University College London. She is currently leading two research projects, one of which focuses on the interactions between nation states and international organisations and is supported by China’s Fundamental Research Fund for the Central Universities. Email: lixiaomin@bnu.edu.cn
Professor David Andrew Turner is Professor Emeritus of Education at the University of South Wales, UK. He has extensive experience of teaching in schools and universities in the UK. He is the author of several books, including Quality in Higher Education (Sense Publishing, 2012), Theory and Practice of Education (Continuum Books, 2007), and Comparative Education: A field in discussion (Brill, 2023), as well as numerous scholarly articles in peer reviewed journals. His research interests range across comparative education, higher education, education policy and leadership and management in education.
Danron Li is a master student at the Institute of International and Comparative Education of Beijing Normal University. Her MA dissertation focuses on the EU’s Erasmus Mundus Joint Master programme – Master in Research and Innovation in Higher Education (MARIHE).