000			03271nam a2200361 i 4500
003			TH-BaBU
005			20240704162314.0
008			210114t20212021nyu ob 001 0 eng
040			_aDLC _beng _erda _cTH-BaBU
020			_a9780197580332 (electronic bk.)
020			_a9780197580318
050	0	0	_aJZ1242 _b.C444 2021
100	1		_aChan, Steve, _eauthor.
245	1	0	_aContesting revisionism : _bChina, the United States, and the transformation of international order / _cSteve Chan, Huiyun Feng, Kai He, and Weixing Hu.
246	3	0	_aChina, the United States, and the transformation of international order
264		1	_aNew York, N.Y. : _bOxford University Press, _c©2021
300			_a1 online resource.
336			_atext _2rdacontent
337			_acomputer _2rdamedia
338			_aonline resource _2rdacarrier
504			_aIncludes bibliographical references and index.
505	0		_aBasic Rationale and Arguments -- The Origin and Evolution of Revisionism -- Meaning of International Order and Evidence on Revisionism -- Revisionist States' Strategies and Encounters with their Counterparts -- A Peaceful Transition of International Order?
520			_a"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 U.S. 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 U.S., nor does a possible power transition between these two countries necessarily augur war"-- _cProvided by publisher.
650		0	_aInternational relations.
651		0	_aUnited States _xForeign relations _zChina.
651		0	_aChina _xForeign relations _zUnited States.
650		0	_aUnipolarity (International relations)
700	1		_aFeng, Huiyun, _d1971- _eauthor.
700	1		_aHe, Kai, _eauthor.
700	1		_aHu, Weixing _c(Researcher on world politics), _eauthor.
856	4	0	_uhttps://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=2942274 _zElectronic Resources
942			_2lcc _cEB
999			_c256419 _d256419