The Origin and Evolution of Revisionism

As its title suggests, this chapter discusses the sources of revisionism and the various conditions that influence its development. It introduces historical cases such as Wilhelmine and Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union during the Cold War and contemporary Russia, imperial Japan between the 1880s and 1940s, the United States during its years of ascendance and today, and China during the Maoist years and since its reform under Deng Xiaoping. Whether a state becomes revisionist is not in its genes but is in part dependent on how it perceives its treatment in the hands of other established countries. States’ domestic and foreign circumstances interact to shape their foreign policy orientation.

Meaning of International Order and Evidence on Revisionism

“Revisionism” is supposed to mean a rejection of the existing international order. Yet the meaning of international order has been underdeveloped in current research. This chapter delineates this idea, relying on the English school’s writings. It distinguishes the primary and secondary institutions of international order and introduces a collection of indicators to track and measure Chinese and US commitment to two aspects of international order: one that is norm-based and the other that is rule- or institution-based. These indicators encompass these countries’ official pronouncements, their involvement in wars and militarized disputes, their engagement in international political economy, and their participation in international organizations and multilateral treaties. The evidence shows that, contrary to customary depiction, the United States has become more revisionist over time and according to some measures, more so than China.

Revisionist States’ Strategies and Encounters with Their Counterparts

This chapter argues that the current literature’s emphasis on revisionist attempts to challenge the existing international order by means of war and conquest is misplaced due to the changed nature of international relations. In contrast to “hard” revisionism, “soft” revisionism, intended to promote institutional change, has become more relevant to today’s world. Four “soft” revisionist strategies are introduced to show how a revisionist state is likely to pursue its agenda. They are institutional reform, institutional competition, institutional obstruction, and institutional exit, with illustrations from Chinese and US conduct toward different multilateral organizations. The choice among these strategies is hypothesized to depend on a state’s comparative advantage and the benefits it receives from a specific institution.

A Peaceful Transition of International Order?

This concluding chapter reviews and summarizes, reiterating the problematic aspects of current practice in applying the concept of revisionism. It introduces prospect theory to provide insights about prospective Chinese and US policies, and it offers caveats about the possible direction of these countries’ relations. Despite the recent escalation of tension between Beijing and Washington, the authors view the future with cautious optimism. They argue that to stabilize this important bilateral relationship, both sides should maintain mutual nuclear deterrence, avoid various forms of power politics (especially displays of military escalation), and dial back nationalist rhetoric contributing to tension and undermining trust. A transition of international order does not necessarily require a power transition between these countries, and it can come about peacefully.

Basic Rationale and Arguments

Despite realists’ emphasis on the role of national power in interstate relations, foreign policy analysis is fundamentally concerned with states’ intentions rather than their capabilities. Arguably, revisionism occupies a central place in the discourse on states’ intentions. Yet despite its analytic importance, existing discourse on this concept is fraught with serious problems. This chapter identifies various issues in the ways that it has been applied theoretically and substantively. It draws a distinction between international order and the interstate distribution of power and argues that revisionism pertains to the former but not the latter. It also presents a preview of the chapters to follow.