U.S. - China: “Power Transition” and the Outlines of “Conflict Bipolarity”

This article focuses on the phenomenon of global rivalry between China and the United States in terms of power transition theory, which is scientifically new and relevant due to the increased attention to the so-called Thucydides trap, in which, as some experts claim, both states have fallen. This paper presents a different vision of the global rivalry for leadership in the shaping of a new world order, which has already taken the form of overt non-violent confrontation and manifests itself in technological and trade wars as well as scientific and cultural rivalries. Nevertheless, despite the non-violent nature of the rivalry, this process is followed by an increase in the military capabilities of states, mainly projected in the basins of the Pacific and Indian Oceans (Indo-Pacific region). The methodological basis of the paper is power transition theory, which has been developed over the past 60 years by A.F. Organsky, J. Kugler, D. Lemke, R. Tammen and other researchers, united in the TransResearch Consortium. The authors argue that the analytical prism of this theory is more relevant to the analysis of current global rivalry than the classical neorealist balance of power approach. Through the prism of the theory the issues of rebalancing the global system of economic governance are analyzed. Also, a comparative analysis of the US-Japanese and US-Chinese trade and technological wars is carried out. Both the military and aggregate capabilities of two countries on a global scale and in the Indo-Pacific region are examined. The conclusion contains findings and comments on the impact of U.S. - China rivalry on the system of international relations.

Testing the Power Transition Theory with Relative Military Power

This article tests the power transition theory using relative military power within a dyad pair. The author hypothesizes that when a dyad pair achieves relative military power parity, the two states are likely to initiate war. Furthermore, when a dyad pair no longer maintains relative military power parity, the probability of war between the two states decreases. Although the sample population used to test this hypothesis is small (n=3), the mixed-method analysis indicates support to the power transition theory. Furthermore, results are more substantial when using military expenditure and surplus domestic when compared to results using military personnel and surplus domestic product. No statistically significant difference exists (p=.99) when comparing military expenditure and surplus domestic product with a combination of military expenditure, military personnel, and surplus domestic product. These results indicate that relative military power possesses the potential to provide researchers an additional quantitative measure to test the power transition theory. Although these initial results are promising, further research is required to test a larger sample population of dyads.

THE RISE OF CHINA A THREAT TO US HEGEMONY

In this article, there is a brief discussion on how the rising of China's state created a major threat for the United States Hegemony. According to Power Transition Theory (PTT), power is central in understanding the international system as a relative power to demonstrate the prerequisite for peace and war in the international system. So, power is basically an ability to impose on or convince a revolutionary act to comply with demands. The study is a qualitative analysis of the grounded facts and previously produced documents and researches. With the document analysis it is evident that both the countries work on the mutual interests, there is a low possibility of actual war like situation on any of the political or economic grounds between China and the US. China can be considered as an economic superpower if it peruse all its economic expansion plans, on the other hand US will remain on top on the political or military fronts.

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

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.

Contesting Revisionism

What motivates states to act the way they do? This book focuses on a particular kind of motivation inclining a state to challenge the existing norms, rules, and institutions of international order. Specifically, it addresses the concept of revisionism, which has loomed large in international relations narratives but has remained largely understudied until recently. The authors offer a critique of the existing discourse on revisionism and investigate the historical origin and evolution of the foreign policy orientations of revisionist states in the past. They moreover introduce an ensemble of indicators to discern and compare the extent of revisionist tendencies on the part of contemporary China and the United States. Questioning the facile assumption that past episodes will repeat in the future, they argue that “hard” revisionism relying on war and conquest is less viable and likely in today’s world. Instead, “soft” revisionism seeking to promote institutional change is more relevant and likely. They attend especially to contemporary Sino-American relations and conclude that much of the current discourse based on power-transition theory is problematic. Contrary to this theory, a dominant power is not inevitably committed to the defense of international order, nor does a rising power usually have a revisionist agenda to challenge this order. The transformation of international order does not necessarily require a power transition between China and the United States, nor does a possible power transition between these two countries necessarily augur war.

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

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.

The Brandt Line after forty years: The more North–South relations change, the more they stay the same?

The Brandt Line is a way of visualising the world that highlights the disparities and inequalities between the wealthy North and the poorer Global South. Forty years after its popularisation as part of a call for global reform, is the Brandt Line now a misleading way of representing world politics? This article assesses whether the Global South has lost its distinctiveness and coherence relative to the North since 1980. Existing assessments of global inequality do not settle the question of whether the North–South divide remains relevant for international relations because they overlook the most politically significant measures of inequality. Drawing on power transition theory, this article provides a systematic assessment of the North–South divide in terms of levels of economic development, relative inequality, economic power, and political satisfaction. The evidence suggests that the Brandt Line is largely intact. Although the economic diversity of the South has increased and its collective economic power has risen, relative income rankings remain unaltered and the states of the Global South are as dissatisfied as they were four decades ago. Differential growth rates are reshaping world politics without eroding the North–South divide traced by the Brandt Line.

Contest for Dominance: US–China Rivalry in Asia

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.

China as an Alternative Power in Middle East: Its Outcomes for the Region's Future

This research considers China's Middle East policies and commitments, including international alliances, regional disputes, and trade ties. It compiles information on arms transfers to the Middle East, as well as Chinese imports and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the region. Moreover, the study applies the power transition theory to justify the choice of Middle Eastern states that how external circumstances forced them to look beyond the American umbrella to protect the sovereignty and economic interest. Besides, the primary data has mostly been incorporated from the official files, speeches and statements of the Chinese president and Middle East diplomats and policymakers. Overall, this paper examines China's overall military, economic, and foreign footprint, shedding light on the state's current and potential involvement in the Middle East.