Huang Dahui and Wang Yuehe: "Integrating Development and Security" Drives the Construction of National Security Studies as a Discipline
China's national strategy adjusts in accordance with changes in the themes of the times, and shifts in national strategy drive the transformation of the disciplinary system. A disciplinary system is the normative framework and material manifestation of a discipline, divided into three levels: first, deep-seated disciplinary philosophy; second, the normative system of the discipline; and third, the material manifestation of the discipline. National strategic guidance serves as the deep-seated conceptual orientation and fundamental basis for the disciplinary system. Mao Zedong believed that the early period of the founding of the People's Republic of China (PRC) was situated in the "era of imperialism" and the "eve of proletarian revolution," with "war and revolution" as the primary characteristics of the era. After the Reform and Opening-up, Deng Xiaoping believed that "peace and development" were the themes of the era, and that China, as a member of the Third World, should focus on development and adhere to a peaceful policy. Following these changes in the themes of the times, the national strategy of the New China was "more focused on security" before Reform and Opening-up, and "more focused on development" from the start of Reform and Opening-up until the 18th Party Congress. This shift can be summarized as an adjustment from a national strategy of "security priority" to one of "development priority." The disciplinary system changed in response to the times, roughly undergoing two stages of evolution.
Entering the New Era, the themes of "peace and development" have faced increasing challenges. Geopolitical conflicts have occurred frequently in an era of great power competition; the rise of a new round of technological revolution has accelerated the evolution of major risks in numerous fields; structural contradictions in the global political and economic systems have become prominent; and the "Global South" has expressed an increasingly strong demand for an order that resists dependency and pursues autonomous development. Consequently, the Party Central Committee proposed the "changes in the world, the times, and history" to reveal changes in the national strategic environment. Simultaneously, "coordinating development and security" has become the overarching national strategy for China in the New Era. The Third Plenary Session of the 20th CPC Central Committee proposed that further comprehensively deepening reform requires the establishment of a "mechanism for adjusting disciplinary settings and talent cultivation models driven by national strategic needs." Against this backdrop, the new requirements of the "coordinating development and security" strategy for talent cultivation and the disciplinary system have gradually become clear, and the largest adjustment of the disciplinary and professional system in the history of the New China is currently underway.
In view of this, this article first reviews the evolutionary process of disciplinary system construction guided by national strategy in different periods of the New China to provide a historical reference for current disciplinary adjustments. Secondly, it elaborates on the epochal significance of coordinating development and security, the new demands placed on the disciplinary system, and the development opportunities facing "Greater Security" disciplines centered on National Security Studies. Finally, it analyzes the multi-level systematic layout of National Security Studies construction under the guidance of the Holistic Approach to National Security, as well as feasible paths for future disciplinary system construction based on this foundation.
I. The Disciplinary System under "Security Priority" and "Development Priority" Strategies
Under the national strategy of "security priority," in the early years of the New China, a disciplinary system oriented toward "industry and national defense construction" was formed to meet the needs of socialist industrial and national defense construction, bearing a heavy "imported" character. After Reform and Opening-up, the focus of the Party and state's work shifted, and the national strategy changed to "development priority." The disciplinary system was adjusted to align with the development of the socialist market economy and industrial structure, gradually building a disciplinary system oriented toward "openness, development, and stability."
(1) The "industry and national defense construction" oriented disciplinary system under the "security priority" strategy
At the very beginning of the New China, the Party Central Committee judged the theme of the era to be "war and revolution" and emphasized "security priority" in national strategy. In other words, for a long period after the founding of the PRC, our Party and state took the defense of the newborn democratic political power, national independence, and territorial integrity, as well as the protection of revolutionary achievements and the legitimate rights and interests of the people, as the fundamental tasks of national security. Accordingly, national defense and the military became the primary means of maintaining national security. From the 1950s to the end of the 1970s, under the "security priority" national strategy that placed greater emphasis on security, higher education and the construction of the disciplinary system possessed a strong "war preparation" character.
The establishment and formation of the "industry and national defense construction" oriented disciplinary system were driven by both national strategic orientation and practical needs. On the one hand, under the strategy of "leaning to one side" [1] toward the socialist Soviet camp and implementing a planned economy, Chinese higher education and disciplinary construction put forward the slogan of "comprehensive Sovietization," adopting a policy of "the whole country as a single chessboard" [2] to obey and serve the overall plan of national construction. Influenced by the Soviet disciplinary system, the initial setting of majors in New China’s higher education institutions prioritized the development of engineering, with majors related to heavy industry and the national defense industry seeing significant development. On the other hand, the Central Committee was deliberating the General Line for the Transition Period [3] and the "First Five-Year Plan," which urgently required industrial construction talent. The Korean War also exposed the weakness of China's national defense industrial base and the lack of military engineering academies and technical talent, which required unified deployment by the Central Committee to resolve. According to the enrollment scale of engineering colleges at that time, only 40,000 to 50,000 graduates could be provided during the entire First Five-Year Plan period, less than 25% of the demand at the time. In view of this, the Party Central Committee pointed out: "The speed of industrialization is determined first of all by the development of heavy industry; therefore, we must take the development of heavy industry as the focus of large-scale construction. Under the policy of 'fighting while stabilizing and building' [4]... we must first ensure the capital construction of heavy industry and the national defense industry."
Against this backdrop, the Party Central Committee took over and transformed existing engineering universities such as Tsinghua University and the Harbin Institute of Technology, and established the PLA Military Engineering Institute (Harbin Military Engineering), where five departments and 23 majors were set up according to military branches and weaponry. In addition, a group of engineering colleges with distinct industrial professional characteristics, such as the Dalian Institute of Technology (now Dalian University of Technology), the Northwest Institute of Technology (now Northwestern Polytechnical University), and the Nanjing Institute of Technology (now Southeast University), were gradually established, initially forming a relatively complete higher engineering education and professional system. In 1954, the "Classification and Setting of Professional Catalogs for Higher Education Institutions (Draft)" was released, classifying disciplines according to 11 national economic sectors such as industry, construction, and transportation. Engineering accounted for 55.3% of all majors, while majors in liberal arts, finance, and political science and law were significantly reduced.
In 1956, the 8th National Congress of the CPC summarized the experiences and deficiencies of the early stage of disciplinary system construction and proposed a comprehensive plan for talent cultivation and disciplinary settings in higher education based on the principle of "grasping the key points, taking care of the rest, and combining needs with possibilities." Premier Zhou Enlai pointed out in his report on the recommendations for the Second Five-Year Plan that the primary task of educational work remained the cultivation of industrial technical and scientific research talent to serve socialist industrialization and the construction of the national defense industry. From 1956 to 1957, the Ministry of Higher Education adjusted the scale and geographical distribution of departments and majors, proposing that "the construction of higher education must meet the requirements of socialist construction and must be coordinated with the development plans of the national economy." Higher industrial schools should gradually be integrated with industrial bases, and the scale of schools should be controlled. This move was also based on security considerations: first, to avoid the threat of war to higher industrial schools located in coastal areas; and second, to ensure that if they were struck, the losses caused by the small scale of the schools would not be great, and they would be easy to rebuild. Under this policy guidance, the geographical layout of disciplines and majors was restructured. A large number of universities in coastal areas moved to the western and inland regions, and large industrial colleges were split and reorganized. The most representative case was the relocation of part of Jiaotong University from Shanghai to Xi'an—founding Xi'an Jiaotong University.
In 1961, Deng Xiaoping presided over the formulation of the "Provisional Work Regulations for Higher Education Institutions Directly Under the Ministry of Education (Draft)," known as the "Sixty Articles on Higher Education," re-emphasizing the principle of seeking truth from facts in education. The orientation of prioritizing majors related to heavy industry and national defense construction in professional settings was maintained. In accordance with this spirit, in 1963, the Ministry of Education and the State Planning Commission formulated the first official disciplinary catalog of the New China—the "General Catalog of Majors for Higher Education Institutions" and the "Catalog of Top-Secret and Confidential Majors for Higher Education Institutions." These were classified by combining disciplines and industries, merging and standardizing some majors with overly narrow applications, and adding new majors needed for national construction that met the conditions for establishment. By 1965, there were 601 majors in universities nationwide, with engineering accounting for 52.4% and the proportion of liberal arts rising slightly (see Table 1). Overall, this version of the university disciplinary catalog basically met the talent needs for socialist industrialization, military equipment, the nuclear industry, "Third Line" [5] national defense projects, and transportation infrastructure construction under the "security priority" national strategy, marking the formal formation of the "industry and national defense construction" oriented disciplinary system in the early years of the PRC.
Table 1: Structural Category of Professional Catalog Settings in China's Higher Education Institutions (1965) (Table contents: Total 601; Engineering 315 (52.4%); Agriculture/Forestry 50 (8.3%); Medicine 11 (1.8%); Liberal Arts 72 (11.9%); Science 55 (9.1%); Politics/Law 1 (0.16%); Finance/Economics 21 (3.4%); Normal/Teaching 30 (4.9%); Sports 6 (0.9%); Art 40 (6.5%). Total distribution points: 2,833.) Data source: Jin Yiming (ed.), "The Trajectory of Chinese Socialist Education," East China Normal University Press, 2000, p. 270.
(2) The "openness, development, and stability" oriented disciplinary system under the "development priority" strategy
Following the Reform and Opening-up, the Party Central Committee judged the theme of the era to be "peace and development," with development being the priority in national strategy. In 1978, the Third Plenary Session of the 11th CPC Central Committee reached the judgment that "war can be avoided," and based on this, formulated the strategic policy of "focusing wholeheartedly on construction," realizing a shift in the strategic focus of the Party and the state. Under the "development priority" national strategy, the adjustment of the disciplinary system during this period revolved around the three major needs of "openness, development, and stability."
In the early period of Reform and Opening-up, the "industry and national defense construction" oriented disciplinary system was adjusted to meet the needs of the development of a "socialist planned commodity economy." Disciplinary system reform was placed on the agenda as an important component of the reform of the educational system. In 1978, the Ministry of Education revised the "Sixty Articles on Higher Education" and issued the "Provisional Work Regulations for National Key Higher Education Institutions (Trial Draft)," restoring the previous principle of scientifically setting majors according to national needs. In 1983, the Academic Degrees Committee of the State Council released the "Catalog of Disciplines and Majors for Granting Doctoral and Master's Degrees in Higher Education Institutions and Scientific Research Institutions (Trial Draft)," taking the lead in implementing a disciplinary structure of "disciplinary category—first-level discipline—second-level discipline."
With the implementation of the policy of "reform, opening-up, and invigorating the economy," China's economic and management disciplines and majors began to enter a period of recovery and development. In 1985, the Party Central Committee convened the first National Education Conference after the Reform and Opening-up, and subsequently issued the "Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on the Reform of the Educational System." With the basic policy of "facing modernization, the world, and the future," it proposed that the strategic goal for the development of higher education by the end of the 20th century was to build a disciplinary system with "complete categories and reasonable levels and proportions" commensurate with China's economic strength. Specifically, the "Decision" required "changing the unreasonable proportions of categories in higher education, accelerating the development of weak departments and majors such as finance, economics, political science and law, and management, and supporting the growth of emerging and marginal disciplines." According to statistics, the proportion of enrollment in economics and management (finance and economics) majors in universities was 4.3% in 1980, and by 1986, this proportion had increased to 10.2%. Driven by both policy guidelines and practical needs, the Ministry of Education conducted a large-scale revision of the undergraduate professional catalog and promulgated the revised version in 1987, promoting the scientific and standardized naming of majors, which enabled the restoration and addition of humanities and social science majors in universities.
After the 14th National Congress of the CPC, the demand for economic, management, and foreign-related talent generated by the transition to a socialist market economy grew rapidly, driving the transformation of the disciplinary system. Majors in economics, management, and foreign languages entered a period of prosperity. From 1990 to 1993, the State Education Commission promoted the revision of the disciplinary catalogs for graduate and undergraduate levels, achieving a unified division of 11 disciplinary categories for both catalogs. In 1993, the CPC Central Committee convened the second National Education Conference and released the "Outline for Reform and Development of Education in China," proposing that "in the 1990s, higher education must adapt to the needs of accelerating reform, opening-up, and modernization." While cultivating talent needed for teaching and scientific research positions, graduate education should also vigorously cultivate applied talent needed for economic construction and social development. Under this policy guidance, from 1994 to 1998, the number of distribution points for economics majors such as accounting, international finance, and international trade; management majors such as marketing, tourism management, economic information management, and real estate business management; language majors such as English, German, and Japanese; as well as the economic law major aimed at adjusting and regulating economic relations, increased significantly, with the largest increase reaching 130%.
To adapt to the scale and speed of socio-economic development, universities since...
Enrollment expansion began in 1999, and the fields of economics and management entered a period of rapid growth, becoming "prominent sciences" [6] within the philosophy and social sciences. On the eve of the 21st century, the development speed and overall scale of China’s ordinary higher education were clearly failing to keep pace with the rapid rate of social and economic development. Against this backdrop, the Third National Education Work Conference was convened in 1999. Then-Vice Premier of the State Council Li Lanqing formally announced at the meeting that higher education institutions would begin expanding enrollment, with the scale of admissions that year increasing by 44% year-on-year. The results of this policy were immediate. By 2002, China's gross enrollment rate reached 15%, and higher education transitioned rapidly from elite education into an internationally recognized stage of mass development. Constrained by hardware such as instruments and equipment, it was difficult to quickly expand programs in disciplines like science, engineering, and medicine. Conversely, majors in economics and management categories featured low operating costs, fast talent cultivation cycles, and high adaptability to social needs. Consequently, they became the preferred choice for university enrollment expansion, with the number of program sites and student populations continuing to increase over the following decade (see Table 2).
Table 2: Number of Program Sites, Student Enrollment, and Growth Rates for Economics and Management in 2002 and 2012 (Table data omitted in translation text but noted as reflecting significant growth: Economics sites grew by 173.3%, Management sites by 205.4%).
In addition to disciplinary growth driven by the demands of "opening up and development," the need to ensure "stability" within economic development gradually became prominent, driving the establishment of related disciplines and majors. Stability is the prerequisite for reform and development. Deng Xiaoping repeatedly expounded that "stability overwhelms everything" [7], while Jiang Zemin emphasized that "adhering to the principle that stability overwhelms everything" was a key junction in the basic experience of correctly handling the relationship between reform, development, and stability. The adaptation of the disciplinary system to the talent cultivation needs of "stability" was reflected in two aspects: external security and internal security. Externally, to study the new characteristics, laws, and technologies of modern warfare and to train high-level personnel for military science and education, the State Council approved the establishment of the Military Science disciplinary category in 1985. Internally, to adapt to the rapid development of public security higher education and the prominence of public security issues since the 21st century, the Ministry of Education approved the establishment of Public Security Studies and Public Security Technology as primary disciplines [8] under the Law and Engineering categories respectively in 2011. These disciplines systematically study public security policing activities and their laws, promote innovation in the basic theory, methods, and team-building theories of public security work, and train professional personnel to safeguard the "political situation of stability and unity" and the "stable and orderly social environment." The establishment of Public Security Studies as a primary discipline reflected a return of disciplinary layout and construction to strategic security needs, as well as the gap in professional talent related to maintaining national security and social stability.
II. Strategic Requirements for Coordinating Development and Security and the Adjustment of the Disciplinary System
After the 18th National Congress of the CPC, socialism with Chinese characteristics entered a New Era. Moving from "large" to "strong," yet currently in a state of being "strong but not yet fully consolidated," China is in a period of high risk for national security, facing a fundamental transformation in both its internal and external development and security environments. In this historical context, China has adjusted its national strategy to "coordinating development and security," which places new demands on the disciplinary system.
(1) Fully Understanding the Epochal Significance of Coordinating Development and Security
From the perspective of historical materialism, an "era" is a long historical stage, while "themes of the era" are the main characteristics and development trends of a specific period. The entry of socialism with Chinese characteristics into the New Era after the 18th National Congress means that our country has transitioned from the previous "development-priority" stage to a new stage of "giving equal weight to development and security." In this New Era, as the changes unseen in a century accelerate their evolution, the world has entered a new period of turbulence and transformation, and the era’s themes of "peace and development" are facing severe challenges.
Looking around the globe, on one hand, with the advancement of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, emerging technologies and industries are surfacing in clusters and iterating rapidly. Productive forces have developed quickly; data and artificial intelligence have become new means of production and tools of labor, and international financial monopoly capitalism has taken on new characteristics. On the other hand, in the decade or so since the 2008 global financial crisis, the international political and economic landscape has undergone profound changes, and the international security situation has become intertwined with chaos. In this global environment, the internal and external security problems faced by all countries have become increasingly severe. Whether in advanced economies or developing nations, many societies are seeing deepening divisions, rising populist trends, and prominent political polarization. Furthermore, after coming to power, some far-left or far-right governments have deflected domestic contradictions by adopting protectionist economic policies and pursuing national security strategies characterized by the quest for "absolute security." This has caused great damage to economic globalization and global security governance, leading to a resurgence of geostrategic military conflicts, fierce ideological struggles, and the return of the arms race to the world stage. Additionally, structural contradictions between the North and South have become more prominent, with the "North-South game" becoming the primary contradiction in global political and economic governance. The collective rise of a vast number of emerging economies has broken the situation of absolute Western dominance over the international political and economic order. The "Global South" is appearing on the international stage with a collective identity, demanding a change to the dependent development model of neoliberal globalization and seeking a voice in the formulation of global political and economic rules.
For China, "through long-term efforts, socialism with Chinese characteristics has entered a New Era; this is a new historical coordinate for our country’s development." This new historical coordinate means that our country's development is at a critical juncture of moving from quantitative to qualitative change. Overall, social productive forces have increased significantly, the total economic volume has risen to second in the world, and the production capacity of various industries ranks among the top globally in many respects. Compared to the early period of reform and opening up, one could say "the tables have turned" [9]. However, "the problems that arise after developing are no fewer than those faced when not developing." Risks in various fields and at multiple levels that were ignored under "development-priority" have gradually emerged. The "both ends abroad, large-scale import and export" [10] export-oriented economic model brought multiple structural pressures and problems, such as an unbalanced industrial structure, insufficient development momentum, contradictions in income distribution, and gaps between urban and rural areas and regions. The contradiction between the people's ever-growing needs for a better life and unbalanced and inadequate development has become the principal social contradiction, affecting the overall situation and carrying historical significance. At the same time, with the arrival of the era of great power competition, the systemic hegemon's suppression and restriction of China in political, economic, and other fields have intensified. In short, on the New Era's new journey, unpredictable and difficult-to-foresee long-term major security risks are constantly increasing, and the pressure to maintain political security and social stability internally is growing daily.
Facing such changes in the world, the era, and history, the Party Central Committee has adjusted the national strategy from "development-priority" to "coordinating development and security," emphasizing the proper handling of "risk complexes" in the process of moving from large to strong. The Fifth Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee re-evaluated the development environment, concluding that "China's development is still in a period of important strategic opportunity where much can be achieved, but it also faces severe challenges with many overlapping contradictions and increasing risks and hidden dangers." General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out at the meeting: "Various risks often do not appear in isolation; they are very likely to be intertwined and form a risk complex." Against the background of major risks gradually emerging, the 19th National Congress of the CPC for the first time clarified the overarching status of "coordinating development and security": "Coordinating development and security, strengthening the awareness of potential dangers, and being prepared for adversity in times of peace is a major principle of our Party's governance." The 14th Five-Year Plan listed "coordinating development and security" as a guiding ideology and important goal for economic and social development. The historical resolution on the Party's centenary clearly listed "coordinating development and security" as a strategic thought that the whole Party must adhere to in the New Era. The 20th National Congress of the CPC further wrote this thought into the General Program of the Party Constitution. The "Decision of the CPC Central Committee on Further Comprehensively Deepening Reform and Advancing Chinese-path Modernization" (hereinafter referred to as the "Decision") adopted by the Third Plenary Session of the 20th CPC Central Committee highlighted "focusing on coordinating development and security" in its content arrangement, making "coordinating development and security" an overarching national strategy that runs through all aspects and the entire process of the Party and state work, guiding the further comprehensive deepening of reform and the advancement of Chinese-path modernization.
The white paper "China's National Security in the New Era" published in May 2025 [11] pointed out that "China attaches great importance to coordinating development and security, establishing the philosophy that both development and security are 'hard truths' [12], and striving to achieve a benign interaction between high-quality development and high-level security," necessitating the promotion of a dynamic balance and mutual reinforcement between development and security. In terms of connotation, "coordinating development and security" means that development is the foundation and security is the prerequisite; they are like the two wings of a bird or the two wheels of a vehicle. It requires upholding a systems perspective, planning and deploying economic and social development together with national security, and advancing them simultaneously. In terms of layout, "coordinating development and security" requires the construction of a new development pattern "with the domestic cycle as the mainstay and the domestic and international dual circulation promoting each other," achieving high-level self-reliance and self-strengthening in economic development and science and technology under an open environment. Simultaneously, it involves building a new security pattern to safeguard the new development pattern, promoting the modernization of the national security system and capabilities, achieving solid and resilient social security and effective public security governance internally, and taking the initiative in great power competition while properly protecting overseas interests externally.
(2) New Demands of Coordinating Development and Security on the Disciplinary System
The implementation of coordinating development and security is a systematic undertaking. To achieve a dynamic balance between high-quality development and high-level security, the foundation lies in cultivating high-level, high-quality talent that meets national strategic needs. In 1983, Deng Xiaoping proposed that education should be "oriented toward modernization, the world, and the future." Forty years later, in 2023, the Central Committee anchored the guiding ideology once again from the new position of advancing Chinese-path modernization, pointing out that the adjustment and optimization of discipline and major settings must be "oriented toward the frontiers of world science and technology, the main economic battlefield, the major needs of the country, and the lives and health of the people."
The core of the pulling effect of the strategy of coordinating development and security on the adjustment of the disciplinary system lies in "coordination." This is reflected in the "two sides of one coin" characteristic of the disciplines and majors that the state prioritizes for development—that is, they possess both development and security orientations. On one hand, the disciplines and majors centrally established and emphatically developed must meet the needs for talent in the development of "new-type industrialization, informatization, urbanization, and agricultural modernization," and align with the development needs of emerging technologies and industries in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. On the other hand, these disciplines and majors also possess security attributes, used to prevent multi-faceted threats and suppression that systemic great powers might take against China's rise in the fields of politics, economy, technology, and culture. They aim to eliminate systemic security risks that may emerge at any time in the process of moving toward Chinese-path modernization, truly realizing high-level self-reliance and self-strengthening in scientific and technological innovation, talent cultivation, and discourse systems. Therefore, changes in national strategy in the New Era have placed two new demands on the disciplinary system: strengthening interdisciplinary, emerging, and foundational disciplines; and constructing an independent knowledge system for Chinese-path modernization while highlighting the "Four New" [13] constructions.
First, the new characteristics of development and security require promoting the integration of disciplines, laying out emerging and frontier disciplines, and consolidating foundational disciplines. They require a problem-oriented approach to respond to major strategic needs, thereby achieving high-level scientific and technological self-reliance and self-strengthening. Most achievements of the new round of technological revolution and industrial transformation are generated in interdisciplinary fields, and the security problems presented by "risk complexes" possess unprecedented complex connectivity. These two new realities of development and security require that the development of disciplines move away from the previous practice of vertical extension and begin horizontal interdisciplinary integration. This involves promoting exchange and cooperation between different disciplines, strengthening problem-orientation and demand-pull, and on this basis, constructing "new research problems, research methods, and knowledge systems that are different from existing disciplines and cannot be replaced by any single existing discipline"—that is, "interdisciplinary studies" [14]—to solve major strategic problems in the process of Chinese-path modernization.
In 2016, General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out at the National Science and Technology Innovation Conference that it is necessary to "strengthen the disciplinary foundation and cultivate growth points for emerging interdisciplinary subjects." In 2018, the fifth National Education Conference since the beginning of Reform and Opening-up—and the first in the New Era—stipulated the need to "adjust and optimize the regional layout of universities, disciplinary structures, and specialized settings, with an emphasis on cultivating innovative, composite, and applied talents." In 2022, the report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC explicitly took "strengthening the development of basic disciplines, emerging disciplines, and interdisciplinary subjects, and accelerating the development of Chinese-path, world-class universities and strong disciplines" as the guiding ideology for adjusting the disciplinary system. In July 2024, the "Decision" adopted by the Third Plenary Session of the 20th CPC Central Committee set new requirements for the disciplinary system to support mechanisms for comprehensive innovation: "Deploy urgently needed disciplines and majors in an unconventional manner, strengthen the development of basic, emerging, and interdisciplinary subjects and the cultivation of top-tier talents, and focus on enhancing innovation capabilities." In September 2024, the sixth National Education Conference once again emphasized strengthening these disciplines and talents, requiring methodologically that we "uphold and apply a systems thinking [15], and coordinately promote educational development, scientific and technological innovation, and talent cultivation."
Second, Chinese-path modernization is the world's first new path for a non-capitalist country to achieve modernization. On the new journey of the New Era, coordinating development and security requires an independent knowledge system [16] suited to Chinese characteristics, promoting the construction of the "Four New" categories: New Engineering, New Medicine, New Agriculture, and New Liberal Arts. Constructing the "Four New" is both an innovation in disciplinary direction and a paradigm shift to adapt to new developmental trends; it is also a forward-looking strategic deployment based on national security considerations to respond to major threats, systemic risks, and challenges in the process of Chinese-path modernization, providing solutions and intellectual support for development and security issues across various fields.
In 2019, the Ministry of Education issued the Opinions on Deepening the Reform of Undergraduate Education and Teaching to Comprehensively Improve the Quality of Talent Cultivation (hereinafter "the Opinions"), proposing to deepen supply-side structural reform of university majors and "use the construction of New Engineering, New Medicine, New Agriculture, and New Liberal Arts to lead and drive the adjustment, optimization, and connotative enhancement of the professional structure in universities." This Opinion was continuously deepened in subsequent years, culminating in the 2023 Reform Plan for the Adjustment and Optimization of Discipline and Major Settings in General Higher Education jointly issued by five departments including the Ministry of Education. This plan systematically proposed the overall scheme, targeted goals, and specific paths for the "Four New." In 2025, the CPC Central Committee and the State Council issued the Outline of the Plan for Building a Leading Country in Education (2024–2035) (hereinafter "the Outline"), which explicitly required deepening the "Four New" construction and "strengthening the coordination of science and technology education with humanities education, promoting the integration of science and engineering, the interpenetration of different engineering fields, the fusion of medicine and engineering, and the intersection of agriculture and engineering." The Outline simultaneously called for the construction of an independent knowledge system of Chinese philosophy and social sciences, "focusing on major theoretical and practical issues in Chinese-path modernization, leading innovation in knowledge, theory, and methodology in the philosophy and social sciences with the Party's innovative theories, and constructing an independent knowledge system with the identifying concepts and original theories of each discipline as the pillar." Furthermore, the Outline proposed "strengthening education on the Constitution and the rule of law, national security education, and national defense education" to comprehensively enhance national security and legal awareness within the education sector.
(3) "Greater Security" Disciplines Centered on National Security Studies Face Development Opportunities
The pursuit of qualitative breakthroughs in the discipline and major system in the New Era is fundamental to quantitative accumulation.
During the decade from 2012 to 2022, China's higher education achieved a historic leap from mass participation to universalization, reaching the level of upper-middle-income countries. In 2022, there were 3,013 higher education institutions with a total enrollment of 46.55 million students, an increase of over 11 million in ten years. By 2024, the gross enrollment rate for higher education in China exceeded 60%, the population with higher education reached 250 million, the total number of R&D personnel ranked first in the world, and total social R&D expenditure ranked second globally. Regarding the scale of enrollment by disciplinary category, over the decade, Education doubled; Medicine, Agriculture, and Engineering grew by nearly two-thirds; and Law, History, and Art within the humanities and social sciences grew by nearly 50%. Meanwhile, Economics and Management—highly popular during the "development-first" stage—saw growth slow to only 20-30%. The enrollment scale for Literature, where foreign languages and journalism/communication were the main growth points, shrank by one-quarter (see Table 3).
Table 3: Comparison of Higher Education Enrollment Scale by Disciplinary Category (2012 vs. 2022) (Unit: 10,000 people)
| Category | 2012 | 2022 | Growth Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Philosophy | 12.63 | 2.83 | -77.5% |
| Economics | 91.17 | 111.96 | 22.8% |
| Law | 63.79 | 92.23 | 45.4% |
| Education | 59.47 | 119.3 | 100.6% |
| Literature | 276.23 | 206.32 | -25.3% |
| History | 8.84 | 13.33 | 50.7% |
| Science | 149.49 | 162.25 | 8.53% |
| Engineering | 513.9 | 807.56 | 57.1% |
| Agriculture | 30.28 | 51.13 | 68.8% |
| Medicine | 119.5 | 203.56 | 70.3% |
| Military Science | 0.083 | 0.022 | -73.5% |
| Management | 278.85 | 354.3 | 27% |
| Art | 139.61* | 206.04 | 47.6% |
| Interdisciplinary | N/A | 0.043 | N/A |
*Note: The Arts category was newly established in the 2012 catalog. Data from China Statistical Yearbook of Education 2013. Sources: China Statistical Yearbook of Education 2012; China Statistical Yearbook of Education 2022.
Coordinating development and security means aligning the demand for disciplines and majors with the strategic goals of high-quality development and high-level security. This leads higher education in the universalization stage toward "quality improvement and upgrading," concentrating efforts on cultivating New Era talents capable of addressing major development and security issues in the process of Chinese-path modernization. The new round of disciplinary adjustment focuses on the two strategic needs of development and security, establishing China’s 14th disciplinary category—"Interdisciplinary Studies." The "Four New" majors have become the main force of new additions to the catalog, while some popular majors that expanded rapidly under the "development-first" strategy have been cut or transformed, moving toward a path of connotative development [17]. Simultaneously, since the establishment of Public Security Studies as a first-level discipline, there has been a strong momentum returning to security strategic needs within the disciplinary system. In this new round of adjustment, "Greater Security" majors centered on National Security Studies have been met with development opportunities.
First, led by the "Four New" construction, the new round of disciplinary adjustment has established a batch of disciplines and majors adapted to new technologies, industries, business forms, and models. "Intelligence + Traditional Engineering" has become a typical and rapidly developing model for New Engineering. New Medicine focuses on the public's increasing health requirements and the massive demand for the health and elderly care industry as China enters a stage of "deep aging." New Agriculture serves the "Three Rural Issues" [18] and the Rural Revitalization strategy, promoting the accelerated upgrading and transformation of higher forestry and agricultural education. The construction of the New Liberal Arts is intended to build the "Three Major Systems"—the disciplinary, academic, and discourse systems—of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics. Majors such as Fintech, the digital economy, and digital media arts have grown rapidly, and "Philosophy and Social Science Laboratories" have become a new model for organizing scientific research.
Second, "only by discarding the old can the new emerge" [19]. The new round of disciplinary reform has vigorously optimized and adjusted disciplinary distribution, eliminating a batch of majors no longer suited to economic and social development. Looking at the overall data from 2014 to 2023, two types of majors were heavily withdrawn or merged: (1) majors that grew to meet the needs of the "development-first" strategy and the "low-end embedding" in the global value chain division of labor, such as product design, industrial design, and fashion design (related to product manufacturing and export), marketing and advertising (related to market expansion), and public service management (related to corporate management and public relations); (2) majors related to electronic computers and derivative technologies—the core of the Third Industrial Revolution—which are facing a decline. For example, Information Management and Information Systems (Management), Information and Computing Science (Science), and Electronic Information Science and Technology (Engineering) all ranked in the top ten for withdrawals over the decade.
Third, by constructing the Interdisciplinary Studies category with a problem-oriented approach, the state aims to cultivate high-level innovative, composite, and applied talents, with "Greater Security" disciplines centered on National Security Studies becoming a new growth point. Since the 2015 National Security Law of the People's Republic of China made "incorporating national security education into the national education system" a legal requirement, "Greater Security" disciplines have accelerated their development and expansion. The Ministry of Education actively responded to the requirements of the National Security Law, proposing the establishment of National Security Studies as a first-level discipline in the 2018 Implementation Opinions on Strengthening National Security Education in Primary, Secondary, and Higher Schools. In December 2020, the Academic Degrees Committee of the State Council and the Ministry of Education issued a notice officially establishing the "Interdisciplinary Studies" category and the first-level disciplines of "Integrated Circuit Science and Engineering" and "National Security Studies." These two first-level disciplines directly target talent cultivation in critical areas: "Integrated Circuit Science and Engineering" was established to achieve breakthroughs in core technologies and fundamentally solve the "chokepoint" [20] problems restricting China's integrated circuit industry; "National Security Studies" was established to implement the Holisitic Approach to National Security, fulfill the national security education plans in the National Security Law, and cultivate a large number of national security talents with a global vision, a holistic perspective, strategic thinking, political awareness, and a sense of responsibility. In 2021, the Measures for the Setting and Management of Interdisciplinary Subjects (Trial) stipulated that the setting of such subjects must be based on a "pressing demand of a certain scale for talents in that discipline, with a stable trend of growing demand." Under this policy guidance, the 2022 version of the Catalog of Disciplines and Majors for Graduate Education set disciplines like Design, Remote Sensing Science and Technology, Intelligent Science and Technology, and Nano Science and Engineering (responding to emerging tech needs), as well as Cultural Heritage, Cryptography, and Area Studies (addressing cultural, data, and overseas interest security), as first-level disciplines under the Interdisciplinary Studies category.
Since then, the construction of the "Greater Security" disciplinary and major system centered on National Security Studies has entered the "institutionalized fast lane." Driven by the strategy of coordinating development and security, national security-related research has entered a period of acceleration, integrating different subjects and fields that previously touched on national security. The focus has shifted toward studying national security from a holistic, systemic, and dynamic perspective, actively engaging in cross-disciplinary work. Under the leadership of the interdisciplinary National Security Studies, a systematic New Era Chinese national security knowledge system is taking shape. For example: "Cyberspace Security" for data and network security; "Integrated Circuit Science and Engineering" for breaking technological security dilemmas; "Remote Sensing Science and Technology" for national security, economic construction, sustainable development, and global change research; "Biological Breeding Science" for food security; "History of the CPC and Party Building" and "Discipline Inspection and Supervision" [21] to maintain political security and address stubborn and recurring problems in Party building (especially the promotion of clean government); and "Area Studies" to expand services for the Belt and Road Initiative and conduct research on the protection of overseas interests—all fall within the scope of "Greater Security" disciplines.
In August 2025, the Central Leading Group for Education issued the Action Plan for Adjusting and Optimizing the Setting of Disciplines and Majors in Higher Education (2025–2027). This further standardized the coordinated leadership system for adjusting the setting of disciplines and majors, highlighting the guiding role of national strategy in disciplinary adjustments. It provided top-down institutional support for the construction of "comprehensive security" [22] disciplines centered on National Security Studies. The plan pointed out that the adjustment and optimization of discipline and major settings must focus on the "Four Facets" [23] and establish a sound mechanism for adjusting discipline settings and personnel training models driven by scientific and technological development and national strategic needs. Simultaneously, the plan proposed establishing a coordination mechanism whereby the Central Leading Group for Educational Work provides unified leadership, and the Academic Degrees Committee of the State Council establishes working groups with relevant departments to promote the differentiated layout and construction of foundational, applied, and strategic disciplines. As a strategic discipline, the construction and layout of the "comprehensive security" category centered on National Security Studies must always follow the unified leadership and deployment of the Central Committee, responding to the needs for knowledge and personnel generated by the Holistic Approach to National Security and the strategy of coordinating development and security.
III. The Disciplinary Layout and Institutional Construction of National Security Studies
Under the guidance of the Holistic Approach to National Security and the coordination of development and security, National Security Studies has, since its inception, preliminary formed a "trinity" systemic layout covering national security domains, academic degree levels, and geographical distribution. From the perspective of institutional construction, the framework for the classification and setting of National Security Studies, curriculum standards, and professional journal systems has taken shape. However, internal academic research norms and disciplinary evaluation/incentive systems, as well as external training systems, scholarly associations, and funding systems, require further refinement.
(1) The Systemic Disciplinary Layout of National Security Studies Under the Guidance of the Holistic Approach to National Security
China’s National Security Studies focuses on the specific security issues of a major socialist power in the stage of moving "from being big to being strong." It is a comprehensive, interdisciplinary core support discipline that implements the Holistic Approach to National Security and serves the strategy of coordinating development and security. The Holistic Approach to National Security is the fundamental compliance and guide for action for the overall national security work in the New Era. Its core lies in the epistemology of the "comprehensive security" concept and the methodology of systemic thinking and scientific coordination. It emphasizes integrating national security into all aspects and the entire process of the Party and state's work, forming a powerful synergy that converges all fronts, aspects, and levels—including the Party, government, military, civilians, and academia. National Security Studies represents the contribution of the "academic" force within this synergy; it is the normative and material manifestation of the intellectual community’s implementation of the Holistic Approach to National Security and its support for the "security" pillar within the "two wings" [24] of coordinating development and security. Since the establishment of the discipline in 2020, National Security Studies has developed rapidly under the guidance of the Holistic Approach to National Security. Twenty-one universities have already established doctoral programs. In the process of construction and layout, the epistemology of "comprehensive security" and the methodology of systemic scientific coordination have been flexibly applied, preliminary forming a "trinity" systemic layout across security domains, academic levels, and geographical regions.
First, National Security Studies is constructed under the centralized and unified leadership of the Party, oriented toward problems and aligned with the needs of specific national security domains, forming a systemic layout of "five major elements + key fields." The Holistic Approach to National Security requires upholding the Party's absolute leadership over national security work. Similarly, the construction of National Security Studies, guided by this approach, accepts the unified allocation and leadership of the Party Central Committee. Guided by the "five major elements" [25] of the Holistic Approach to National Security, the discipline highlights its service in maintaining security in the political, economic, military, technological, cultural, and social fields, while maintaining the tenet of people's security as the value guide throughout. In coordination with this, the institutions authorized to grant doctoral degrees in the first-level discipline [26] of National Security Studies include comprehensive universities such as Peking University, Tsinghua University, Renmin University of China, Beijing Normal University, Fudan University, Nanjing University, Jilin University, Shaanxi Normal University, Xinjiang University, and Zhengzhou University. They also include higher education institutions and national high-end think tanks specializing in specific key security fields, such as the National Defence University, People's Public Security University of China, Southwest University of Political Science and Law, University of International Relations, National University of Defense Technology, Minzu University of China, University of International Business and Economics, Guangdong University of Finance and Economics, Dalian Maritime University, and the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR). These construction units determine their focused research directions and key fields based on their existing advantages and characteristics, ensuring that personnel training more closely aligns with the professional and qualitative demands of national security practice.
Second, National Security Studies currently comprises four second-level disciplines and three academic levels (undergraduate, master's, and doctoral), forming a preliminary academic layout of "four second-level disciplines + bachelor-master-doctorate." National Security Studies is an interdisciplinary field that takes the fundamental and global security issues concerning national survival and development as its research object. It is also the only interdisciplinary category that bridges the humanities and sciences, capable of awarding degrees in four categories: Law, Management, Engineering, and Military Science. In terms of disciplinary hierarchy, National Security Studies currently consists of four second-level disciplines: National Security Thought and Theory, National Security Strategy, National Security Governance, and National Security Technology, each containing several research directions. Regarding academic levels, the discipline grants degrees at the undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral levels. Master’s and doctoral units are primarily comprehensive universities, while undergraduate units are concentrated in a few political science and law-oriented institutions.
Third, the construction of National Security Studies academic sites emphasizes not only "horizontal" coordination across security domains and "vertical" coordination across academic levels but also geographical coordination. It integrates regional security strategies according to local conditions, preliminary forming a "East-West-South-North-Central" geographical layout. The Eastern region is the core area of China's economic development and functions as the political and economic center; the layout here integrates the strategy of accelerating modernization, with sites concentrated in core cities like Beijing and Shanghai. The Western region is the geographical intersection of national security and development strategies, bearing the important task of maintaining stability and development in border areas; here, the layout highlights service to key areas such as political security and territorial security. Disciplinary construction in the Central region integrates the "Rise of Central China" regional strategy, focusing on security strategies for grain, energy, and the internet. In the Northeast, construction integrates the "Northeast Revitalization" strategy, based in the Northeast Asian geopolitical region and emphasizing defense, grain, energy, ecological, and industrial security, as well as Northeast Asian regional security research. Furthermore, the Southern region (South China) has a large economic volume and backs the Hong Kong and Macao Special Administrative Regions; it is the front line for the development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, and thus its layout focuses on economic, financial, and overseas interest security.
(2) The Institutional Construction Path of Chinese National Security Studies
Definitions of the connotation of "disciplinary institutions" in academia generally include both internal and external aspects. The first is the internal spirit and concepts—the "institutional spirit of the discipline"—which includes the classification and setting of the discipline, curriculum standards, academic research norms, and disciplinary evaluation and incentive systems, forming a fixed tradition of knowledge and thought. The second is external material and norms—namely, that "a discipline is not merely a matter of pure knowledge, but a kind of social practice"—which includes the personnel training system, scholarly organizations and conference systems, professional journal systems, and disciplinary funding systems, forming a mature academic community. Internal knowledge categories and external social power together constitute the "knowledge-power complex" of the disciplinary institution. Therefore, dynamic "institutionalization" at these two levels is the necessary path for the formation and development of a discipline.
National Security Studies has begun to take shape in both internal and external institutional construction, emphasizing "highlighting advantages and developing characteristics" in specific systems. Regarding the construction of internal conceptual and normative paradigms, the classification system has been standardized into four second-level disciplines, with specialized directions set according to the expertise of the constructing universities. Curriculum standards must meet the basic requirements for master’s and doctoral degrees, adhering to the integration of the Holistic Approach to National Security into the curriculum system, with specific courses determined by the research needs of concrete security domains. Regarding the external social operational paradigm, the annual academic community conference system has been preliminarily established, and professional academic journals focusing on national security theory and specific issues, such as National Security Studies and National Security Forum, are continuously being established and developed.
As a discipline established and built through a top-down approach, the further high-quality development of National Security Studies requires streamlining and clarifying leadership responsibilities in the top-level design. It necessitates strengthening unified planning and task allocation, coordinating and supporting the construction of both internal and external disciplinary institutions, and deepening the second-level disciplines and professional directions to ensure that disciplinary construction always responds to the strategic needs of the Holistic Approach to National Security and the coordination of development and security. Specifically, efforts should be made across multiple dimensions and levels, including academic norms, evaluation and incentive systems, personnel training systems, scholarly organizations, and funding systems.
First, promote the construction of academic norms for National Security Studies to form a national security theoretical system with Chinese characteristics. Constructing a theoretical system is the core issue of the academic system of National Security Studies and the kernel and support for disciplinary development. Only by forming a fixed theoretical paradigm can the long-term development and renewal of the discipline be guaranteed. Theoretical construction must not be superficial; it must firmly grasp the direction of national security with Chinese characteristics, deepen research into the foundational theories of National Security Studies, and specialize in domain-specific national security theories, moving the discipline toward a more theoretical and academic direction. The transmission and disciplining of theories and norms depend on high-quality textbooks and research results as carriers. The sequential publication of the "National Security Studies Discipline Construction Project Series," presided over by the National Security Studies Subject Review Group of the Academic Degrees Committee of the State Council, serves as a starting point. In the future, a batch of authoritative textbooks and academic results with profound academic connotations must be published to create an atmosphere for high-level academic discussion within the field and provide a set of objective research standards for students majoring in National Security Studies.
Second, improve disciplinary evaluation and incentive systems to promote the further professionalization of National Security Studies academic activities. Teaching and research teams are the primary organizational supports for institutional construction. However, as research and teaching activities proceed, the problem of evaluation mechanisms has gradually become prominent, with ambiguities existing in the certification of academic results and disciplinary talent. Most researchers in interdisciplinary categories come from different traditional disciplines, and existing national security organizations are often university-level coordination platforms, while researchers belong to various departments. The construction of evaluation and incentive systems for National Security Studies needs to further explore scientific and refined "dual-appointment" [27] and evaluation mechanisms. In title promotion and the certification of results, emphasis should be placed on whether the work closely addresses major practical national security issues and actively responds to national strategic needs. Young scholars in related fields with active thinking should be encouraged to participate in research on national security topics, producing excellent results that truly focus on national security and respond to the concerns of the era.
Third, innovate the personnel training system, enhance the orientation toward practice, utility, and effectiveness, and emphasize the long-term development, cultivation, and output paths for talent. As an interdisciplinary field, National Security Studies is highly problem-oriented and requires cross-disciplinary cooperation and knowledge integration. This requires universities and research institutions to encourage students and young scholars to conduct interdisciplinary and wide-ranging academic exploration, fostering national security systems thinking and strategic thinking. Faced with national security issues in the New Era, various disciplines tend to use their original knowledge systems for analysis, and there are practical difficulties in synergy and cooperation. Therefore, training systems must use the Holistic Approach to National Security as a guide to understand the global planning and guidance involved in maintaining national security. Simultaneously, institutions should identify their research and training focus based on their own strengths and characteristics, establishing a number of fixed faculty positions to enhance the systematic and organized nature of research and the discipline, thereby solving the problems of disciplinary decentralization and fragmentation. The ultimate goal of disciplinary construction is personnel training; the mission of National Security Studies lies in responding to the country's urgent needs by cultivating a large number of national security talents with global vision, strategic thinking, political awareness, and a sense of responsibility. Diversifying the "output" (career paths) will better attract excellent talent to the discipline. Social demand should be well-linked so that National Security Studies can quickly enter the recruitment catalogs of relevant government departments and enterprises, forming a robust market for national security talent.
Fourth, strengthen the scholarly organization and funding systems for National Security Studies. Scholarly associations, as non-profit mass academic organizations voluntarily formed by personnel engaged in professional teaching and research nationwide, play an important role in promoting exchanges between professionals and driving the formation of training systems, research norms, and evaluation systems...
The role of a “catalyst.” As an interdisciplinary field spanning the liberal arts and sciences, establishing a professional association system for National Security Studies likewise exerts a significant positive effect on the progress of disciplinary institutionalization. It helps maintain the correct forward direction during the process of disciplinary development, ensuring that work is closely centered on national strategic requirements. Simultaneously, it facilitates interdisciplinary crossing and interaction, strengthening the ability of academic practitioners across different traditional disciplines and specialties to update their knowledge and broaden their research horizons. Furthermore, the grant system is also crucial to the development of a discipline. Grant systems, funded by the state or social forces, operate through mechanisms of autonomous application, expert review, and merit-based support. They constitute the core supporting mechanism for academic innovation, and their competitive funding models significantly enhance the efficiency of research resource allocation. The Third Plenary Session of the 20th CPC Central Committee [28] listed "the modernization of the national security system and capacity" as a vital strategic deployment for further comprehensively deepening reform. However, among the various levels of grant systems, such as the National Social Science Fund and the National Natural Science Foundation, there is as yet no unified national security category. This creates a contradiction between actual strategic demand and the void in the grant system. Therefore, specialized national security categories should be established within grant systems at all levels to focus on major theoretical and practical problems of national security, preventing the grant system from restricting disciplinary development or hindering the implementation of the national strategy of “balancing development and security.”
IV. Conclusion
The needs of national construction and social development are the fundamental basis for universities to establish disciplines and majors. Only by elevating one’s vision to the macro-strategic height of balancing development and security can one better understand how National Security Studies emerged in response to the times and promote its disciplinary construction toward becoming deeper and more substantive. Under the influence of a national strategy of “security-priority,” the disciplinary and professional systems prior to Reform and Opening-up [29] exhibited clear “Soviet-style” characteristics, adapting to the needs of national defense and socialist industrialization for personnel in heavy industry and military technology. Driven by the national strategy of “development-priority,” the disciplinary and professional systems after Reform and Opening-up adapted to the transition of an export-oriented socialist market economy characterized by “both ends abroad, high-volume imports and exports” [30], as well as the great development of computer technology brought about by the Third Technological Revolution; consequently, economics and management disciplines, along with electronic computer and derivative technology majors, became “prominent studies.”
As socialism with Chinese characteristics enters the New Era, China—transitioning from being large to being strong, yet not quite strong yet—is in a high-risk period for national security. The national strategy has been adjusted to “balancing development and security.” Driven by this shift in national strategy and a new round of technological and industrial revolution, the adjustment of the disciplinary system in the New Era features two major transformations: first, an emphasis on the construction of interdisciplinary, emerging, and foundational disciplines; second, an emphasis on the construction of the “Four New” fields: New Engineering, New Medicine, New Agriculture, and New Liberal Arts. These transformations are driven by the strategic goal of “achieving high-level self-reliance and strength in technological innovation, talent cultivation, and discourse systems.” This goal is also the underlying logic of the strategy of balancing development and security leading the adjustment of the disciplinary system. In this context, “Great Security” disciplines centered on National Security Studies have encountered a developmental opportunity. After several years of concentrated top-down construction, National Security Studies has preliminarily formed a “trinity” disciplinary layout. In the future, it will still be necessary to further streamline leadership responsibilities, strengthen the internal and external institutional construction of the discipline, and continuously adjust the direction of focus according to changes in national security practice and the situation, providing talent and intellectual support for properly responding to new situations and challenges on the new journey of Chinese-path modernization.
Author Biographies: Huang Dahui: Professor at the School of International Studies, Renmin University of China; Chief Expert of the Interdisciplinary National Security Platform at Renmin University of China. Wang Yuehe: Doctoral candidate in National Security Studies at the School of International Studies, Renmin University of China. Source: Teaching and Research, Issue 11, 2025. Editor: Huihui