The Origins Of Revisionist And Status Quo States

Explaining why some states seek the status quo and others seek revision in international relations, Davidson argues that governments pursuing revisionist policies are responding to powerful domestic groups, such as nationalists and those in the military, that believe they can defeat their rivals. He draws on examples of France, Italy and Great Britain to enhance understanding of a fundamental source of instability in international affairs.

"As Bush I took the United States into the Gulf War he proclaimed it an "historic moment" that would afford the United States "the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order." This unipolar moment for the US was anchored in a dense web of economic, political, and military institutions that allowed it to assert its power worldwide. Two decades later the United States still holds this power position but, as history demonstrates, its moment will inevitably come to an end as new great powers, like China, rise and challenge the prevailing international order. Leaders in the United States have emphasized that a strong and prosperous China has the potential to be a stabilizing force in the world. Even so, many analysts worry that as China's power continues to grow, so too will the assertiveness of its foreign policy and territorial ambitions, leading to an inevitable clash with the United States over the terms of the international order. Thus, the challenge facing policymakers-and the subject of this book-is the question of what happens when an established power and a rising power meet? Or, rather, how can an established power manage the peaceful rise of a new major power? This book provides a framework, grounded in the struggle of rising powers for recognition, for understanding the social factors that shape the outcome of a power transition"--

How can we know a country, such as the United States or China, is revisionist, that is, whether it intends to upset the international order? What motivates states to act the way they do? Contesting Revisionism focuses on a particular kind of motivation inclining a state to challenge the existing norms, rules, and institutions of international order: revisionism. The authors offer a critique of the existing discourse on revisionism and investigate the origin and evolution of the foreign policy orientations of revisionist states in the past. Furthermore, they 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. Focusing on contemporary Sino-American relations, they conclude that much of the current discourse based on power transition theory is problematic. A dominant power is not inevitably committed to the defense of international order, nor does a rising power always have a revisionist agenda to challenge this order. The transformation of international order does not necessarily require a power transition between China and the US., nor does a possible power transition necessarily augur war. After developing the concept of revisionism both theoretically and empirically, they conclude with a series of policy recommendations for enhancing international stability and diminishing tension in Sino-American relations.

Predicting India's future global influence

Argues that rising powers challenge international order when their status ambitions seem to be unjustly and permanently blocked.

What drives a state's choice to assimilate, accommodate or exclude ethnic groups within its territory? In this innovative work on the international politics of nation-building, Harris Mylonas argues that a state's nation-building policies toward non-core groups - individuals perceived as an ethnic group by the ruling elite of a state - are influenced by both its foreign policy goals and its relations with the external patrons of these groups. Through a detailed study of the Balkans, Mylonas shows that how a state treats a non-core group within its own borders is determined largely by whether the state's foreign policy is revisionist or cleaves to the international status quo, and whether it is allied or in rivalry with that group's external patrons. Mylonas injects international politics into the study of nation-building, building a bridge between international relations and the comparative politics of ethnicity and nationalism.

This second volume, focusing on 1945-1991, unpacks the reasons for the Cold War and takes the reader through its ebbs, flows and unexpected end. How did the allies of World War II become enemies? The authors argue that the Cold War controversy could have been avoided, or at least mitigated, had the sides been guided by healthy pragmatism instead of ideology and megalomania. Contradictory relations between the superpowers, regional wars and conflicts, and the scramble to escape a nuclear Holocaust—all of this reads sometimes as a good detective story. Perestroika and Glasnost, useful as they might be, came too late to radically improve the poisonous atmosphere of enmity in East-West relations. The end of the Cold War did not mean the end of rivalry. Good will in this case did not guarantee good outcomes. As civilizational, cultural, personal and religious contradictions begin to replace economic and social divides, we need to be fully aware of our past if we are to do our best to resolve these issues.

Neoclassical realism is an important approach to international relations. Focusing on the interaction of the international system and the internal dynamics of states, neoclassical realism seeks to explain the grand strategies of individual states as opposed to recurrent patterns of international outcomes. This book offers the first systematic survey of the neoclassical realist approach. The editors lead a group of senior and emerging scholars in presenting a variety of neoclassical realist approaches to states' grand strategies. They examine the central role of the 'state' and seek to explain why, how, and under what conditions the internal characteristics of states intervene between their leaders' assessments of international threats and opportunities, and the actual diplomatic, military, and foreign economic policies those leaders are likely to pursue.