The Ideological Origins of Great Power Politics, 1789–1989

Haas, Mark L.

doi:10.7591/9781501732461

Cited by 26 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…14 Multiple authors find distinct roles for national ideology and distinct schools of thought in the strategy formation process. 15 However, while these perspectives show the existence of constraints on the making of grand strategy and policy formation, this article makes the case for previously unappreciated systemic factors that alter and complicate the very process of strategy formation. The systemic attributes at play in modern great power strategy formation are not just the distribution of capabilities under anarchy, but global dynamic densityhow the quantity, velocity, and diversity of interactions fragment the ability of any state to forge a coherent grand strategy and policy.…”

Section: The Strategist's Dilemmamentioning

confidence: 95%

The strategist’s dilemma: Global dynamic density and the making of US ‘China policy’

Meijer¹,

Jensen²

2017

Eur j.of int. secur.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Combining the English School of International Relations and the study of grand strategy decision-making processes, this article investigates how dynamic density – growing volume, velocity, and diversity of interactions within international society – alters states’ strategy formation processes. By contrasting the perspectives of structural realism and the English School on the role of dynamic density in world politics, the piece illustrates the strategist’s dilemma: as global dynamic density in the international society increases, the ability of great powers to formulate coherent grand strategies and policies potentially decreases. Specifically, it contends that growing global dynamic density generates processual and substantive fragmentation in strategy formation. Building on a large body of elite interviews, US policy toward China – and the so-called US ‘rebalance’ to Asia – is used as a probability probe of the central idea of the strategist’s dilemma. In conclusion, we contrast our findings with complex interdependence theory and examine their implications for ‘great power management’ (GPM) as a primary institution of international society. We argue that, by generating processual and substantive fragmentation in strategy formation, global dynamic density complicates GPM by hindering the capacity of great powers to manage and calibrate the competitive and cooperative dynamics at play in a bilateral relationship.

show abstract

Section: The Strategist's Dilemmamentioning

confidence: 95%

The strategist’s dilemma: Global dynamic density and the making of US ‘China policy’

Meijer¹,

Jensen²

2017

Eur j.of int. secur.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other scholars have put ideological variables at the center of security issues. In his book Ideological Origins of Great Power Politics, Haas (2005) shows the ideological distance among actors-the degree of ideological similarities and differences-plays a crucial role in leaders' perception of threat and shaping national interests.…”

Section: Constructivism and Security Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Evolution of Social Constructivism in Political Science: Past to Present

Jung

2019

Sage Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How constructivism has become one of the most compelling approaches in rivalry with dominant rationalist and materialist theories in the study of international relations (IR)? In this article, I suggest that constructivist approaches, since its emergence, have truly provided important and distinctive theoretical and empirical insights in explaining global politics. The principal aim of this study is in this context to explore the rise of constructivism within the field of IR in the midst of the interparadigm debate and to explain the overarching theoretical underpinnings of constructivismincluding its main ontological, epistemological, and methodological tenets. I also review a wide array of constructivist empirical works that have significantly contributed to the theoretical development and refinement for more than two decades. I finally evaluate some notable strengths and weaknesses of constructivist approaches.

show abstract

“…Initially, the Chinese official responses were mild and did not deviate from its established pattern of protest against similar provocations. 26 According to a senior Chinese diplomat Dai Bingguo, he and his colleagues thought that the US acts were not abnormal [72]. This perhaps had mislead the American officials into believing that the irritant polemics over Taiwan and Tibet in US-China relations would not escalate.…”

Section: The Status Dilemma At Play: the Bcore Interests^polemicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Destined for Misperception? Status Dilemma and the Early Origin of US-China Antagonism

Wang

2019

J OF CHIN POLIT SCI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why did the US-China relations take a turn for worse around 2010 despite the bilateral efforts to forge a cooperative framework? Concerned about the danger of conflicts in the course of power transition-namely, the BThucydides Trap^-in US-China relations, scholars tend to see either a security dilemma at play or an intensification of status competition between an emerging power and the established hegemon. While recognizing the explanatory leverage of the security-dilemma framework and the status-competition model with regard to the continued deterioration of the US-China relations up to Trump, this article asserts that both models fall short in addressing the early origin of the deterioration of US-China relations. The concept Bstatus dilemmap romises to fill the analytic gap thereby left. The status dilemma suggests an inability of two states to grasp the status claims signaled from the other side. Misperceptions associated with status dilemmas fall outside of the purview of the security-dilemma framework, and could lead to the emergence of zero-sum competitions for status. Such misperceptions are apt to occur in a situation of power transition whereby status recognition tends to have geostrategic implications for the great powers involved. This article illustrates this logic of status dilemma via the US-China diplomacy over the Bcore interests.^This investigation promises crucial insights into the analogy of the Thucydides Trap to US-China relations. Keywords Misperceptions. Status dilemma. US-China relations. Core interests With the Trump administration escalating trade conflict with Beijing, breaking the US-China consensus on Taiwan's political status, and labeling China as a chief competitor, antagonisms in the US-China relations are hard to gloss over nowadays.

show abstract

The Ideological Origins of Great Power Politics, 1789–1989

Cited by 26 publications

References 0 publications

The strategist’s dilemma: Global dynamic density and the making of US ‘China policy’

The strategist’s dilemma: Global dynamic density and the making of US ‘China policy’

The Evolution of Social Constructivism in Political Science: Past to Present

Destined for Misperception? Status Dilemma and the Early Origin of US-China Antagonism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About