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.
AllisonG (2017) Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
3.
BrooksSGWohlforthWC (2008) World Out of Balance: International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4.
ChanS (2004) Can’t get no satisfaction? The recognition of revisionist states. International Relations of the Asia Pacific4(2): 207–238.
5.
ChanS (2016) On states’ status-quo and revisionist dispositions: Discerning power, popularity and satisfaction from Security Council vetoes. Issues & Studies51(3): 1–28.
6.
ChayesAChayesAH (1993) On compliance. International Organization47(2): 175–205.
7.
CopelandDC (2000) The Origins of Major War. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
8.
DavidsonJW (2006) The Origins of Revisionist and Status-Quo States. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
9.
De SoysaIOnealJRParkYH (1997) Testing power-transition theory using alternative measures of national capabilities. Journal of Conflict Resolution41(4): 509–528.
10.
DownsGWRockeDMBarsoomPN (1996) Is the good news about compliance good news about cooperation?International Organization50(3): 379–406.
11.
FearonJD (1995) Rationalist explanations of war. International Organization49(3): 379–414.
12.
FerdinandP (2014) Foreign policy convergence in Pacific Asia: The evidence from voting in the UN General Assembly. British Journal of Politics and International Relations16(4): 662–679.
13.
FootRWalterA (2011) China, the United States, and Global Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.
FravelMT (2008) Strong Border, Secure Nation: Cooperation and Order in China’s Territorial Disputes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
15.
GilpinR (1981) War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
GramsciA (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York, NY: International Publishers.
17.
HeKFengHY (2018) Rethinking China and international order: A conceptual analysis. Conference on “Debating China and World Order,” Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia, January 17–18.
18.
IkenberryGJ (2008) The rise of China and the future of the West: Can the liberal system survive?Foreign Affairs8(1): 23–37.
19.
JohnstonAI (2003) Is China a status quo power?International Security7(4): 5–56.
20.
JohnstonAI (2008) Social States: China in International Institutions, 1980–2000. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
21.
KastnerSLSaundersPC (2011) Is China a status-quo or revisionist state? Leadership travel as an empirical indicator of foreign policy priorities. International Studies Quarterly56(1): 163–177.
22.
KegleyCWJrRaymondG (1994) A Multipolar Peace? Great-Power Politics in the Twenty-first Century. New York, NY: St. Martin’s.
23.
KelleyJ (2007) Who keeps international commitments and why? The International Criminal Court and bilateral nonsurrender agreements. American Political Science Review101(3): 573–589.
24.
KeohaneROMartinLL (1995) The promise of institutionalist theory. International Security20(1): 39–51.
25.
KimWS (1991) Alliance transitions and great power war. American Journal of Political Science35(4): 833–850.
26.
KimWS (1992) Power transitions and great power war from Westphalia to Waterloo. World Politics45(1): 153–172.
27.
KimWS (1996) Power parity, alliance, and war from 1648 to 1975. In: KuglerJLemkeD (eds) Power and Parity: Evaluations and Extensions of the War Ledger. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp. 93–106.
28.
KimWSMorrowDJ (1992) When do power shifts lead to war?American Journal of Political Science36(4): 896–922.
29.
KissingerH (2014) World Order. New York: Penguin.
30.
KrickovicA (2018) Russia’s reactionary revisionism. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, San Francisco, USA.
31.
LayneC (2002) The “Poster child for offensive realism”: America as a global hegemon. Security Studies12(2): 120–164.
32.
LemkeDReedW (1996) Regime type and status quo evaluations: Power transition theory and democratic peace. International Interactions22(2): 143–164.
33.
LemkeDReedW (1998) Power is not satisfaction: A comment on De Soysa, Oneal, and Park. Journal of Conflict Resolution42(4): 511–516.
34.
LemkeDWernerS (1996) Power parity, commitment to change, and war. International Studies Quarterly40(2): 235–260.
35.
LevyJS (1987) Declining power and the preventive motivation for war. World Politics60(1): 82–107.
36.
LevyJS (2008) Preventive war and democratic politics. International Studies Quarterly52(1): 1–24.
37.
MaierC (2015) Thucydides, alliance politics, and great power conflict. In: RosecranceRNMillerSE (eds) The Next Great War? The Roots of World War I and the Risk of U.S.–China Conflict. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 91–99.
MearsheimerJJ (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York, NY: Norton.
40.
ModelskiG (1987) Long Cycles in World Politics. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
41.
MulliganSP (2017) Withdrawal from international agreements: Legal framework, the Paris Agreement, and the Iran Nuclear Agreement. Congressional Research Service Report R44761, February9. Available at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R44761.pdf
42.
OnealJRDe SoysaIParkYH (1988) But power and wealth are satisfying: A reply to Lemke and Reed. Journal of Conflict Resolution42(4): 517–520.
43.
OrganskiAFK (1958) World Politics. New York, NY: Knopf.
44.
OrganskiAFKKuglerJ (1980) The War Ledger. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
45.
PrimianoCXiangJ (2016) Voting in the UN: A second image of China’s human rights. Journal of Chinese Political Science21(3): 301–319.
46.
PutnamRD (1988) Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization42(3): 427–460.
47.
SchwellerRL (1992) Domestic politics and preventive war: Are democracies more pacific?World Politics44(2): 235–269.
48.
SchwellerRL (1994) Bandwagoning for profit: Bringing the revisionist state back in. International Security19(1): 72–107.
49.
SchwellerRL (1996) Neorealism’s status-quo bias: What security dilemma?Security Studies5(3): 90–121.
50.
SchwellerRL (2015) Rising powers and revisionism in emerging international orders. Valdai Papers 16. Available at: http://valdaiclub.com/files/11391/
51.
SchwellerRLPuXY (2011) After unipolarity: China’s visions of international order in an era of U.S. decline. International Security36(1): 41–72.
52.
SnyderJ (1993) Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
53.
TammenRLKuglerJLemkeD, et al. (2000) Power Transitions: Strategies for the 21st Century. New York, NY: Chatham House.
54.
ThiesCNiemanM (2017) Rising Powers and Foreign Policy Revisionism: Understanding BRICS Identity and Behaviour through Time. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
55.
VoetenE (2004) Resisting the lonely superpower: Responses of states in the United Nations to U.S. dominance. Journal of Politics66(3): 729–754.
56.
VoetenE (2013) Data and analyses of voting in the UN General Assembly. In: ReinaldaG (ed.) Routledge Handbook of International Organization. London: Routledge, pp. 54–66.
57.
VoetenEStrezhnevABaileyM (2017 [2009]) United Nations General Assembly Voting Data, hdl:1902.1/12379, Harvard Dataverse, V17, UNF:6:o5OiqHLeXMiv9Q8w8+3sVw==.
58.
Von SteinJ (2005) Do treaties constrain or screen? Selection bias and treaty compliance. American Political Science Review99(4): 611–622.
59.
WardS (2017) Status and the Challenge of Rising Powers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
60.
WelchD (2018) China, the United States, and the “Thucydides Trap.”Conference on “Debating China and World Order,” Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia, January 17–18.
61.
WernerSKuglerJ (1996) Power transitions and military buildups: Resolving the relationship between arms buildups and war. In: KuglerJLemkeD (eds) Parity and War: Evaluations and Extensions of the War Ledger. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp. 187–207.
