scholarly journals Discerning states’ revisionist and status-quo orientations: Comparing China and the US

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 613-640 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Chan ◽  
Weixing Hu ◽  
Kai He
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Institutions ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Transition Theory ◽  
Power Transition ◽  
Power Transition Theory ◽  
The Us ◽  
Rising Power ◽  
Over Time

International Relations literature often refers to states’ motivations as revisionist or status-quo oriented. Such attributions are especially prevalent in discourse on the power-transition theory, suggesting that the danger of war rises when a revisionist China catches up to a status-quo US. Such attributions, however, are rarely supported by systematic evidence providing a direct comparison of Chinese and US conduct. We undertake an analysis of how these countries have behaved differently over time according to their policy pronouncements, their participation in international institutions and agreements, and their voting in the United Nations. Our analysis challenges the conventional wisdom that a rising power tends to be revisionist whereas an incumbent hegemon is invariably committed to the defense of the international order.

scholarly journals Power Transition Theory Revisited: When Rising China Meets Dissatisfied United States

2019 ◽  
Vol 05 (03) ◽  
pp. 317-341
Author(s):  
Serafettin Yilmaz ◽  
Wang Xiangyu
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Transition Theory ◽  
Power Transition ◽  
Economic Implications ◽  
Power Transition Theory ◽  
The Status ◽  
Rising Power ◽  
The U.S

Dissatisfaction is a major concept in power transition theory, which postulates that a rapidly rising power tends to be dissatisfied with the international system and would thus attempt to reform or replace it, whereas the hegemonic power would, by default, be satisfied with and work to maintain the status quo. This paper, however, offers an alternative outlook on the reigning-rising power dynamics by examining the conditions for and implications of hegemonic dissatisfaction and rising power satisfaction. It argues that although China, as a potential systemic challenger harboring grievances against the existing global regimes, has been a recurrent subject for studies, it is the United States, the established hegemon, that appears increasingly dissatisfied with the status quo. The U.S. dissatisfaction is informed by a set of internal and external factors often justified with a reference to China as a challenger, and is manifested in a number of anti-system strategies, including unconventional diplomatic rhetoric, as well as withdrawal from various international institutions or attempts to undermine them. The U.S. discontent, as contrasted with China’s satisfaction as a rising power, has a number of potential geopolitical and economic implications at the bilateral, regional, and global levels, endangering the viability and sustainability of the universally accepted political and economic regimes.

scholarly journals Challenging the liberal order: the US hegemon as a revisionist power

2021 ◽  
Vol 97 (5) ◽  
pp. 1335-1352
Author(s):  
Steve Chan
Keyword(s):  
Decisive Role ◽  
International Order ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Transition Theory ◽  
Power Transition Theory ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Status ◽  
Distribution Of Power ◽  
Rising Power ◽  
Trump Administration

Abstract Current discourse on International Relations conflates international order and the interstate distribution of power. Many studies fail to clarify the concept of international order or to provide systematic empirical analysis that compares states' conduct in relation to this order. The prevailing tendency relies instead on rhetorical assertion or definitional fiat to attribute revisionist and status-quo motivations to different countries. For example, power-transition theory claims that rising states are typically revisionist, whereas established states are committed to the status quo. This article presents a contrarian view, arguing that the dominant or established state can be a revisionist. This state is not forever committed to those rules and institutions of international order that it has played a decisive role in fostering. Conversely, a rising state is not inevitably bent on challenging the order that has enabled its ascendance. Revisionism is thus not unique to a rising power; moreover, this state is not destined to be a challenger to international order and an instigator of systemic war as typically depicted in the current literature. I advance these propositions in the context of recent conduct by China and the US, suggesting that whereas China has become less revisionist over time (even while its power has increased), the US has become more so especially during the Trump administration. The major impetus challenging the liberal international order has come more from domestic sources in the West than from China.

Contest for Dominance: US–China Rivalry in Asia

China Report ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 56 (4) ◽  
pp. 484-500
Author(s):  
Mintu Barua
Keyword(s):  
Status Quo ◽  
Transition Theory ◽  
Territorial Disputes ◽  
Power Transition ◽  
Ongoing Debate ◽  
Internal Security ◽  
Power Transition Theory ◽  
The Status

There is an ongoing debate whether China is a satisfied power or a dissatisfied revisionist power. On the basis of the concept of regime insecurity and power transition theory, this article argues that the resolution of this debate mainly depends on some essentially interrelated complex factors—China’s assertive behaviour, China’s core interests, China’s internal security, and China’s involvement in territorial disputes. Moreover, this article examines the validity of the usual claim of power transition theory that the dominant power is always satisfied with the status quo, and contrary to this idea of power transition theory, this article suggests that the dominant power can be dissatisfied and revisionist too if its hegemony is under threat.

Power Transition Theory and the Essence of Revisionism

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan M. DiCicco
Keyword(s):  
Research Program ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Transition Theory ◽  
Critical Examination ◽  
Power Transition ◽  
Power Transition Theory ◽  
The Status ◽  
Thucydides Trap ◽  
Distribution Of Power ◽  
Theory Research

Power transition theory and Graham Allison’s Thucydides Trap Project are discussed in tandem with two complementary aims: to highlight theoretical and empirical contributions of the power transition research program, and to provide critical perspective on the Thucydides Trap Project. Conventional-wisdom approaches of this sort are distinguished from power transition theory, the empirical international relations theory proposed by A. F. K. Organski and further articulated and tested by generations of scholars. The theory’s central elements—national power, stages of power transition, shifts in the distribution of power, international order and the status quo—are identified and discussed, with a focus on key variables used to explain war and peace among contending states. A comparative, critical examination of the Thucydides Trap Project is used as a lens for spotlighting key empirical contributions of the power transition theory research tradition and the value of adhering to norms of scientific rigor. Opportunities for further growth and development are noted, with special attention afforded to essential features of the power transition theory research program, including the study of (1) the timing and initiation of war; (2) rising powers’ dissatisfaction with the status quo, and a possible distinction between dissatisfaction and revisionism; and (3) reducing the risk of violent, revisionist challenges.

scholarly journals THE DECLINING HEGEMONY OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE GROWING INFLUENCE OF CHINA: A CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE ON POWER TRANSITION THEORY IN THE 21ST CENTURY

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (18) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nasa'i Muhammad Gwadabe
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Relations ◽  
21St Century ◽  
International System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Transition Theory ◽  
Power Transition ◽  
Power Transition Theory ◽  
Rise Of China ◽  
The Rise Of China

The apparent eroding in the hegemonic power of the United States and the sustained growth of China has triggered debate as to whether the rise of China will be peaceful or conflictual. Structural realism posits that the world is characterised by the anarchic ordering principle in which there is no central authority sitting above the states. Therefore, the absence of a “leviathan” on the international system automatically makes every state equal on the system which created an atmosphere of competition for the maximisation of power for survival. On a similar line of reasoning, the Power Transition theory as a variant theory within realism postulates that when the international system is structured based on the principle of hierarchy, peace will reign. It means that when international relations are regulated and influenced by a dominant power, the international system becomes stable. But the emergence of a dissatisfied powerful nation to challenge the hegemon usually ends up in war. Based on this assumption, Power Transition theorists argued that the rise of China to rival the dominance of the United States could not be peaceful. The Power Transition theory has influenced many academics to have the belief that the two nations will end up in “Thucydides’ Trap”. This belief has aggravated the matter beyond the reasonable level and has instilled panic in the mind of foreign policymakers which could jeopardise world peace and international cooperation. Hence, this paper aims to critically evaluate the deficiency of the Power Transition theory in the 21st century in explaining the current United States-China relations and the prospect of peace or war between the two nations using process tracing. Accordingly, in this paper, it is argued that in the 21st century, an armed confrontation between the United States and China is highly unlikely. Because in today’s world, nations (including the United States and China) are intertwined by the forces of globalisation which created inexorable economic interdependence. Additionally, there is rapid advancement in military technology and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction which came with the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Consequently, there is a need to revisit the Power Transition theory to accommodate contemporary factors. The inclusion of the current variables into the Theory will make it applicable and adequately fit in the discourse of international relations and global politics of the 21st-century international system.

scholarly journals The Role of Global Powers in the Prolongation of the Syrian Conflict

2020 ◽  
Vol V (I) ◽  
pp. 29-35
Author(s):  
Saima Gul ◽  
Muhammad Tayyab
Keyword(s):  
Transition Theory ◽  
Power Transition ◽  
Main Determinant ◽  
Power Transition Theory ◽  
Syrian Civil War ◽  
The Us ◽  
Syrian Conflict ◽  
Near Future ◽  
Global Powers

Since the peoples uprising in 2011 against the authoritarian regime of Bashar Al Assad and its oppressive policies, Syria is entangled in a long spiral of violent conflict. Though several factors explain the violent nature of the conflict and its longevity. However, the geopolitical interests of the regional and global powers like Saudi Arabia vs. Iran and the US vs. Russia respectively, in this country has been the main determinant of this war. The intervention of the US and Russia in this war for their vested geopolitical interests has brought havoc and disaster to the country. By supporting opposite parties both these states have, instead of creating peace, prolonged the conflict for almost a decade. This paper tries to analyze the role of the global powers in the Syrian civil war, through the Power Transition Theory. No prospects of peace are visible in the near future as long as they try to balance one anothers power or unless there emerges a clear dominant power.

Conclusion

2019 ◽  
pp. 368-390
Author(s):  
Michael Zürn ◽  
Klaus Dieter Wolf ◽  
Matthew D. Stephen
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Politics ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Transition Theory ◽  
Power Transition ◽  
Rising Powers ◽  
Power Transition Theory ◽  
Issue Area

The concluding chapter draws together the findings and compares them across chapters, issue areas, and actors. Three findings are most noteworthy. First, the demands of both rising powers and NGOs can be characterized as in some cases status quo oriented and in others reformist. There are only a few signs of revisionism. Second, the challengers do not constitute a coherent group in international politics. There are very few indications of a systemic challenge with similar positions and coalitions in all cases, as power transition theory suggests. Third, the demands for change are issue-area specific and are mostly directed against either unequal representation in the decision-making bodies or strong forms of neo-liberal or human rights-based intrusiveness.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document