Abstract
It has been widely noted that China and Russia have grown progressively closer over the last two decades. Although the scholarly literature has offered detailed descriptions and various ad hoc explanations of this trend, the Sino-Russian bilateral relationship has been the subject of very little scrutiny using rigorous theory, which has obstructed hypothesis formation and evaluation. Moreover, the cooperative post-Cold War trend in the bilateral relationship seems puzzling for baseline versions of each of the major paradigms of international relations theory: realism, constructivism and liberalism. For realists, China’s rising power, coupled with its geographic proximity and longstanding border disputes with Russia, made it a present and growing threat to Russian security at the end of the Cold War. Why did China’s rise not incur balancing from Russia and increasing bilateral hostility, rather than reconciliation? For constructivists, the stark differences in political ideologies and national cultures, as well as a long history of antagonism, presaged continued post-Cold War animosity. How have these historical animosities and ideological rifts been mitigated or overcome? Finally, both countries were increasingly integrated into the US-led international order immediately following the Cold War, with relatively low interdependence in their bilateral relationship. From a liberal perspective, why did this not prompt the two countries to improve political relations with the West while holding each other at arm’s length? The papers in this special issue develop and apply nuanced theoretical arguments to derive testable hypotheses for the cooperative trend in China–Russia relations. In contrast to existing scholarship, these papers offer generalizable insights that both improve our understanding of a crucially important contemporary case, while also advancing IR theory in substantial ways.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The two countries’ official characterization of their relationship in treaties and joint declarations has progressed from one of “good-neighborliness” in the early-1990s, to “constructive cooperation” in the late-1990s, to “comprehensive strategic partnership” in 2001, to “comprehensive strategic partnership and coordination” in 2012, to “comprehensive strategic partnership of equality, mutual trust, mutual support, common prosperity and long-lasting friendship” in 2016.
Two theoretically informed works on China–Russia relations are not discussed below because they attempt to explain a different outcome than do the papers in the current volume. First, Andrej Krickovic (2017) applies the theoretical logic of power shifts developed by Dale Copeland (2000) to explain why Russia is challenging the status quo order and China is not, despite their bilateral cooperation, but does not attempt to explain that cooperation itself. Second, Chaka Ferguson (2012) argues that China and Russia are engaging in “soft balancing” against the USA through the institutional norms of the SCO, but his argument does not attempt to explain the increase in China–Russia cooperation over time and is limited to Central Asia in its scope.
Merely referring to theory explicitly is obviously no panacea—it must be done in a way that carefully specifies causal mechanisms and observable implications of competing theories, so that their hypotheses can be appraised against the empirical record. Although there have been a handful of works that advance explanations of post-Cold War China–Russia cooperation that draw explicitly on IR theory (Kerr 2005; Ferdinand 2007; Li 2007; Odgaard 2017; Wishnick 2017), these attempts share the shortcomings of the atheoretical literature, as discussed in detail below.
An explanation accounts for a specific outcome in a particular case, and includes a complete causal mechanism that explicates how the independent (causal) variable(s) produce the outcome. In contrast, inference means establishing that a causal relationship between independent and dependent variables exists in general terms, but it need not account for the outcome in any particular case, nor identify the mechanism the underpins the causal relationship.
As Paul Krugman (1994) writes, “there is no alternative to models [theories]. We all think in simplified models, all the time. The sophisticated thing to do is not to pretend to stop, but to be self-conscious.” Of scholars who convince themselves that they can transcend theorization, he writes, “Invariably they are fooling themselves…anyone who claims to be able to write about social issues without stooping to [theorizing]” derives insights “based essentially on the use of metaphor. And metaphor is, of course, a kind of heuristic modeling technique. In fact, we are all builders and purveyors of unrealistic simplifications. Some of us are self-aware: we use our models as metaphors. Others, including [some] people who are [otherwise] brilliant and sophisticated, are sleepwalkers: they unconsciously use metaphors as models.”
Vidya Nadkarni (2010) attempts to lay out versions of systemic-level realist, liberal and constructivist hypotheses for increasing Sino-Russian cooperation, but dismisses each as incomplete and proceeds to advance an essentially atheoretical “kitchen sink” argument that does not weight or adjudicate between competing causal factors.
This enterprise is similar to the “analytic narratives” project (Bates et al. 1998), except that the papers in that volume each attempted to explain a different case. In contrast, this volume generates multiple alternative explanations for a single case, which can subsequently be refined, synthesized, and tested against each other.
The only work to explicitly advance this hypothesis (Li 2007) exemplifies non-rigorous application of theory. Li champions a naïve realist balance-of-power argument and dismisses all alternatives solely on the grounds that Waltz and other neorealists have argued that “it is only a systemic approach that focuses on…the changing distribution of power…that can provide a sound explanation for world affairs” (Li 2007, 490). In other words, Li does not test realism against alternatives; rather, his analysis proceeds tautologically from the assumption that realism is correct.
An alternative variant of realism is “balance of threat,” which adds perceived intentions to the baseline balance-of-power mechanism (Walt 1987). According to this theory, Russia and China are increasing their cooperation in order to balance the USA because American intentions have become more hostile. However, as John Owen points out in his contribution to this issue, even if perceived intentions can be considered a realist variable (which is heavily contested; see Legro and Moravcsik 1999; Ross, this volume), the sources of these perceptions clearly falls outside a realist framework. Non-realist theories are therefore necessary to identify when and how perceptions of intentions change, and to yield determinate hypotheses about the balance of threat in the US-China–Russia triangle.
This definition contrasts with the domestic-level liberalism introduced by Moravcsik (1997), which excludes international institutions while including elements of national identity that are categorized here under constructivism.
Liselotte Odgaard (2017) draws on the “English School” (a close cousin of systemic liberalism) to explain that China and Russia have created institutional structures in order to advance “their common interest in peace and security” (54), particularly in Central Asia. Yet since conflict is costly, such interests presumably apply to all states at all times, and cannot explain the change in the degree of bilateral institutionalization over time.
For example, Peter Ferdinand (2007, 850) argues that improvements in China–Russia relations are due to “new efforts to view their foreign policies through the lens of constructivism, rather than realism,” and correspondingly, to “construct a thicker relationship, one that rests on a broader understanding of national interests…and the way they can be pursued.” For Ferdinand, this change occurred due to contingent decisions made by individual leaders, decisions that he acknowledges his deductive framework would not have predicted ex ante. There was no popular support for closer ties, bilateral transnational organizations that could diffuse ideas were weak, the personalities of the leaders (Putin and Hu Jintao) were “cautions and enigmatic,” and they and their advisors “did not have the same shared experiences as their predecessors” (Ferdinand 2007, 848). Thus, Ferdinand’s assertion that Chinese and Russian leaders decided to reframe their relationship merely describes the outcome, it does not meaningfully explain it.
These goals mirror those of the “analytic narratives” in Bates et al. (1998, 14–18), in which the authors construct novel theoretical models that both explain empirical facts about a particular case for which alternative theories cannot account, and carry implications that generalize to a larger population of cases.
Synthesis refers to combining variables from different theoretical perspectives to show how disparate theoretical mechanisms can systematically complement each other to produce novel causal effects. Extension refers to the introduction of new “auxiliary” variables or reexamination of existing theoretical mechanisms to derive novel implications from an existing ontological framework. See Elman and Elman (2003).
References
Ambrosio, Thomas. 2017. The Architecture of Alignment: The Russia–China Relationship and International Agreements. Europe-Asia Studies 69(1): 110–156.
Bates, Robert H., Avner Greif, Margaret Levi, Jean-Laurent Rosenthal, and Barry R. Weingast. 1998. Analytic Narratives. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Brady, Henry E. 1995. Symposium on Designing Social Inquiry, Part 2: Doing Good and Doing Better. The Political Methodologist 6(2): 11–19.
Brenton, Tony. 2013. Russia and China: An axis of insecurity. Asian Affairs 44(2): 231–249.
Charap, Samuel, John Drennan, and Pierre Noël. 2017. Russia and China: A New Model of Great-Power Relations. Survival 59(1): 25–42.
Clark, Kevin A., and David M. Primo. 2012. A model discipline: Political science and the logic of representations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Copeland, Dale C. 2000. The Origins of Major War. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Cox, Michael. 2016. Not Just ‘Convenient’: China and Russia’s New Strategic Partnership in the Age of Geopolitics. Asian Journal of Comparative Politics 1(4): 317–334.
Deng, Yong. 2007. Remolding Great Power Politics: China’s Strategic Partnerships with Russia, the European Union, and India. Journal of Strategic Studies 30(4–5): 863–903.
Elman, Colin. 2005. Explanatory Typologies in Qualitative Studies of International Politics. International Organization 59(2): 293–326.
Elman, Colin, and Miriam F. Elman (eds.). 2003. Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field. London: MIT Press.
Ferdinand, Peter. 2007. Sunset, Sunrise: China and Russia Construct a New Relationship. International Affairs 83(5): 841–867.
Ferguson, Chaka. 2012. The Strategic Use of Soft Balancing: The Normative Dimensions of the Chinese–Russian ‘Strategic Partnership’. Journal of Strategic Studies 35(2): 197–222.
Fu, Ying. 2016. How China Sees Russia: Beijing and Moscow are Close, but Not Allies. Foreign Affairs 95(1): 96.
Gabuev, Alexander. 2016. Friends with Benefits? Russian–Chinese Relations after the Ukraine Crisis. Carnegie Moscow Center. http://carnegieendowment.org/files/CEIP_CP278_Gabuev_revised_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2018.
Geddes, Barbara. 2003. Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
George, Alexander L., and Andrew Bennett. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. London: MIT Press.
Gerring, John. 2006. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Glosny, Michael A. 2010. China and the BRICs: A Real (but Limited) Partnership in a Unipolar World. Polity 42(1): 100–129.
Hopf, Ted. 2002. Social construction of international politics: identities & foreign policies, Moscow, 1955 and 1999. Cornell University Press.
Hopf, Ted. 2012. Reconstructing the Cold War: The Early Years, 1945-1958. Oxford University Press.
Kaczmarski, Marcin. 2015. Russia–China Relations in the Post-crisis International Order. London: Routledge.
Katzenstein, Peter J. (ed.). 1996. The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics. New York City: Columbia University Press.
Katzenstein, Peter J., and Rudra Sil. 2008. Eclectic Theorizing in the Study and Practice of International Relations. In The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, ed. Christian Reus-Smit and Duncan Snidal, 109–130. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Keohane, Robert O. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kerr, David. 2005. The Sino-Russian Partnership and US Policy Toward North Korea: From Hegemony to Concert in Northeast Asia. International Studies Quarterly 49(3): 411–438.
Kotkin, Stephen. 2009. The Unbalanced Triangle: What Chinese–Russian Relations Mean for the United States. Foreign Affairs 88(5): 130–138.
Krickovic, Andrej. 2017. The Symbiotic China–Russia Partnership: Cautious Riser and Desperate Challenger. The Chinese Journal of International Politics 10(3): 299–329.
Krugman, Paul. 1994. The Fall and Rise of Development Economics. In Rethinking the Development Experience: Essays Provoked by the Work of Albert O. Hirschman, ed. Donald A. Schon and Lloyd Rodwin. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.
Kuchins, Andrew. 2007. Russia and China: The Ambivalent Embrace. Current History 106(702): 321–327.
Legro, Jeffrey W., and Andrew Moravcsik. 1999. Is Anybody Still a Realist? International Security 24(2): 5–55.
Li, Chenghong. 2007. Limited Defensive Strategic Partnership: Sino-Russian Rapprochement and the Driving Forces. Journal of Contemporary China 16(52): 477–497.
Lo, Bobo. 2008. Axis of Convenience: Moscow, Beijing, and the New Geopolitics. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Lo, Bobo. 2017. A Wary Embrace: What the China–Russia Relationship Means for the World. Sydney: Lowy Institute for International Policy.
Lotspeich, Richard. 2010. Economic Integration of China and Russia in the Post-Soviet Era. In The Future of China–Russia Relations, ed. James Bellacqua, 83–145. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
Lukin, Alexander. 2015. Consolidation of the Non-Western World During the Ukrainian Crisis: Russia and China, SCO and BRICS. International Affairs 61(2): 30–46.
Mahoney, James. 2015. Process Tracing and Historical Explanation. Security Studies 24(2): 200–218.
McKeown, Timothy J. 1999. Case Studies and the Statistical Worldview: Review of King, Keohane, and Verba’s Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. International Organization 53(1): 161–190.
Mearsheimer, John, and Stephen Walt. 2013. Leaving Theory Behind: Why Simplistic Hypothesis Testing Is Bad for International Relations. European Journal of International Relations 19(3): 427–457.
Menon, Rajan. 2009. The Limits of Chinese–Russian Partnership. Survival 51(3): 99–130.
Miller, Richard W. 1987. Fact and Method Explanation, Confirmation and Reality in the Natural and the Social Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Moravcsik, Andrew. 1997. Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics. International Organization 51(4): 513–553.
Nadkarni, Vidya. 2010. Strategic Partnerships in Asia; Balancing without Alliances. London: Routledge.
Odgaard, Liselotte. 2017. Beijing’s Quest for Stability in its Neighborhood: China’s Relations with Russia in Central Asia. Asian Security 13(1): 41–58.
Rosecrance, Richard. 1986. The Rise of the Trading State: Commerce and Conquest in the Modern World. New York City: Basic Books.
Rozman, Gilbert. 2014. The Sino-Russian Challenge to the World Order: National Identities, Bilateral Relations, and East versus West in the 2010s. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
Ryan, Kevin. 2010. Russo-Chinese Defense Relations: The View from Moscow. In The Future of China-Russia Relations, ed. James Bellacqua, 179–202. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
Swanström, Niklas. 2014. Sino-Russian Relations at the Start of the New Millennium in Central Asia and Beyond. Journal of Contemporary China 23(87): 480–497.
Trenin, Dmitri. 2012. “True Partners? How Russia and China See Each Other.” Centre for European Reform. http://carnegieendowment.org/files/Trenin_CER_Eng.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2018.
Van Evera, Stephen. 1997. Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Waldner, David. 2007. Transforming Inferences into Explanations: Lessons from the Study of Mass Extinctions. In Theory and Evidence in Comparative Politics and International Relations New Visions in Security, ed. Richard Ned Lebow and Mark Irving Lichbach, 145–175. London: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Waldner, David. 2015. Process Tracing and Qualitative Causal Inference. Security Studies 24(2): 239–250.
Walt, Stephen M. 1987. The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Walt, Stephen M. 2005. The Relationship between Theory and Policy in International Relations. Annual Review of Political Science 8(1): 23–48.
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
Weitz, Richard. 2012. Superpower Symbiosis: The Russia–China Axis. World Affairs 175(4): 71–78.
Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, Jeanne L. 2004. Strategic Partners: Russian–Chinese Relations in the Post-Soviet Era. Sharpe: M.E.
Wishnick, Elizabeth. 2017. In Search of the ‘Other’ in Asia: Russia–China Relations Revisited. The Pacific Review 30(1): 114–132.
Yuan, Jing-dong. 2010. Sino-Russian Defense Ties: The View from Beijing. In The Future of China–Russia Relations, ed. James Bellacqua, 203–232. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author is aware of no conflict of interest that would undermine the integrity of this manuscript.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yoder, B.K. Theoretical rigor and the study of contemporary cases: explaining post-cold war China–Russia relations. Int Polit 57, 741–759 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-019-00173-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-019-00173-z