Abstract
A number of studies have examined and largely validated power transitions as necessary conditions for war, yet the second critical element of power transition (PT) theory - a challenger's dissatisfaction with the status quo - has been analyzed to a much lesser degree. This paper is intended to address this research gap. Global power transitions between major powers can indeed be destabilizing, potentially triggering major conflicts, but we also argue that violent conflict is unlikely unless there is a clash of interests between the global contenders in the critical regions of their vital interests. Our study thus provides a modification of the original PT theory by identifying its two essential elements - (1) relative power and (2) attitude toward the status quo - at two different structural levels. Power transitions between major powers are still seen as critical at the global level, as originally stated by Organski and Kugler, whereas dissatisfaction with the status quo concerns the regional context of their interests. The paper provides a theoretical link between these two levels and quantitatively tests the argument, with suggested implications for further refinements of PT theory.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 289-304 |
| Number of pages | 16 |
| Journal | International Interactions |
| Volume | 33 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Jul 2007 |
Keywords
- Deterrence
- Major powers
- Power transition theory
- Regional interests
- Status quo
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Global power transitions and regional interests'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver