Dynamics of Political Relationships Among States

Keywords: balance of power, geoeconomics, alliances, multilateralism, strategic rivalry, Indo-Pacific

---

Abstract

This paper examines the dynamics of political relationships among states by integrating major International Relations (IR) theories—realism, liberalism, and constructivism—with empirical evidence from three contemporary case studies: (1) U.S.–China strategic rivalry, (2) the Russia–Ukraine war and its effects on European security, and (3) the Indo-Pacific institutional response (QUAD, AUKUS, regional strategies). The study asks: How do power shifts, economic interdependence, institutions, and identity interact to shape state behaviour in the twenty-first century? Using a comparative case-study method and mixed qualitative techniques (secondary-source document analysis, policy papers, timelines, and expert commentary), I trace the mechanisms—military capability, geoeconomic instruments, alliance politics, and normative contestation—that mediate cooperation and conflict. The findings show that contemporary dynamics are best explained by a hybrid model: material power and geoeconomic statecraft determine the basic contours of rivalry, while institutions and transnational interdependence modulate escalation and create zones of managed competition. Policy recommendations emphasise strengthening multilateral crisis channels, shielding critical supply chains through diversification, and preserving functional issue-specific cooperation even amid systemic rivalry. The paper concludes with suggestions for further research on cyber-deterrence, normative competition, and non-state actor influence.

 

1. Introduction

International politics in the early twenty-first century is characterised by intersecting trends: renewed great-power competition, regionalisation of security architectures, and the commodification of economic interdependence (i.e., geoeconomics). While classical IR debates framed the field around competing theoretical paradigms—realism’s focus on power and security, liberalism’s emphasis on institutions and interdependence, and constructivism’s attention to ideas and norms—current empirical realities suggest a more synthetic approach is necessary. This research examines how these forces combine to produce specific state behaviours, focusing on three high-salience contemporary cases that illuminate different mechanisms of interaction.

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

2.1 Key theoretical perspectives

• Realism: Emphasises anarchy, the security dilemma, balance of power, and the centrality of military capability (Waltz, 1979; Morgenthau, 2006). Realism explains alliance formation, arms races, and territorial competition.

• Liberalism: Highlights the pacifying effects of trade, democratic norms, and international institutions (Keohane & Nye, 2012; Ikenberry, 2011). Institutions reduce transaction costs and create platforms for cooperation.

• Constructivism: Shows how identities, norms, and social structures shape state interests (Wendt, 1999). Norm entrepreneurs and institutional cultures influence whether states perceive others as threats or partners.

2.2 Integrative approach

This study adopts a hybrid explanatory model: structural power (material capabilities) sets the possibility space for state behaviour; economic interdependence and institutions alter incentives and opportunity structures; identity and norms shape interpretation and legitimisation of actions. The model predicts three outcomes depending on variable configurations:

1. Arms/Alliance escalation — when power shifts are rapid, and institutions are weak.

2. Managed competition — when interdependence and institutions lower the probability of conflict despite rivalry.

3. Normative reordering — when identity shifts lead to institutional transformation or fragmentation.

3. Research Questions and Objectives

Primary question: How do power dynamics, economic interdependence, and institutions interact to determine whether states compete, cooperate, or manage conflict?

Objectives:

• To identify mechanisms linking material capabilities to diplomatic and economic behaviour.

• To test the hybrid model across three contemporary case studies.

• To derive policy implications for crisis management and cooperation under rivalry.

4. Methodology

4.1 Research design

This is a comparative qualitative study using multiple case studies (Yin, 2014). The cases were selected for most-different sampling: they differ in region, actors, and immediate drivers but are all central to current global dynamics.

4.2 Data and sources

Primary data sources are public policy documents, official strategy papers, international organisation reports, major think-tank analyses, and peer-reviewed scholarship. I relied on authoritative secondary sources to construct event timelines and to understand policy shifts (e.g., government white papers, NATO statements, think-tank analyses). Key contemporaneous sources used include policy briefs from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), NATO, and official government materials for QUAD/AUKUS and Indo-Pacific strategies. MEA India+3CSIS+3Council on Foreign Relations+3

4.3 Analytical method

I use process-tracing within each case to identify causal mechanisms and cross-case comparison to test the generalizability of the hybrid model. Each case includes the following components: background, drivers of change, observable mechanisms (military posture, economic measures, and institutional responses), and outcomes.

4.4 Limitations

• Reliance on secondary sources limits access to classified or proprietary materials.

• Rapidly evolving events (e.g., ongoing conflicts) mean some empirical details may change; I emphasise structural interpretation rather than forecasting.

• Absence of primary interviews reduces depth on decision-making psychology.

5. Case Studies

Case 1 — U.S.–China Strategic Rivalry: Geoeconomics, Technology, and Managed Competition

Background

U.S.–China relations have evolved from engagement to managed strategic competition. The rivalry centres increasingly on technology dominance, supply-chain security, and regional influence. Policy instruments include trade restrictions, export controls (notably on semiconductors), investment screening, and diplomatic mobilisation of allies and partners. These practices reflect a shift from purely military rivalry to geoeconomic statecraft. ScienceDirect+1

Mechanisms at work

• Geoeconomic instruments: Export controls on high-end chips, investment screening, and targeted tariffs reshape global supply chains and attempt to restrict competitor access to key technologies.

• Alliances and partner networks: The U.S. seeks to build technology coalitions with allies (e.g., chip supply chain alliances), while China promotes alternative economic platforms (e.g., Belt and Road Initiative).

• Institutional differentiation: Rather than decoupling fully, the relationship shows selective decoupling—maintaining economic ties in some sectors while actively segregating in strategic sectors (e.g., semiconductors, AI).

Outcome and interpretation

This case supports the hybrid model: material competition in technology raises systemic risk, but economic interdependence and multilateral networks lower immediate military escalation risk — producing managed competition. Analysts characterise current U.S.–China dynamics as competition without war, contingent on crisis management and deterrence measures. CSIS+1

Case 2 — Russia–Ukraine War: Great-Power Coercion and European Security Reordering

Background

Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine reshaped European security architecture. The conflict has forced NATO and EU states to reorient defence planning, expand military aid to Ukraine, and coordinate sanctions and energy policy responses. It also showcased the interplay between military coercion and economic tools (sanctions, energy cutoffs). Encyclopedia Britannica+1

Mechanisms at work

• Military coercion and ground war: Direct territorial conquest attempts triggered alliance activation and rearmament dynamics in Europe.

• Sanctions and economic punishment: Coordinated Western sanctions aimed to degrade Russia’s economic capacity to sustain the war, demonstrating the potency of economic statecraft as a complement to military support.

• Institutional mobilisation: NATO’s posture changed from deterrence to reinforcement; EU provided political, financial, and humanitarian support.

Outcome and interpretation

The war illustrates how hard power (military) can open cascading institutional responses—aid, sanctions, and alliance reinforcement. The conflict also underscores the limits of institutions when faced with revisionist use of force: while institutions can coordinate support and punishments, they cannot forcibly end aggression without significant military engagement. The case underscores realism’s explanatory power for violent escalation while also showing liberal mechanisms (sanctions, coordination) shaping conflict duration and costs. NATO+1

Case 3 — Indo-Pacific Institutional Responses: QUAD, AUKUS, and Regional Balancing

Background

The Indo-Pacific has become a focal region for strategic contestation, with actors developing both formal and informal frameworks to manage shared concerns—maritime security, supply-chain resilience, critical technologies, and freedom of navigation. The QUAD (U.S., India, Japan, Australia) and AUKUS (Australia, UK, U.S.) exemplify coalitions mixing security, technology, and capacity-building aims. Governments frame these tools as supporting a “free and open Indo-Pacific.” Official strategy papers and government briefings underscore the institutionalisation of issue-specific cooperation. MEA India+1

Mechanisms at work

• Issue-specific institutionalisation: QUAD focuses on maritime domain awareness, infrastructure, health, and critical technologies; AUKUS emphasises defence and advanced tech transfer (e.g., submarines, potentially capabilities related to quantum and AI).

• Partner diversification: Regional states pursue hedging strategies—deepening ties with multiple great powers while maintaining strategic autonomy.

• Norm shaping: Framing the region as “free and open” attempts to generate normative support for rules of the road that limit coercive behaviour.

Outcome and interpretation

The Indo-Pacific case shows how institutional networks and flexible coalitions can create footholds for cooperation without formal security guarantees. These arrangements reduce the probability of sudden confrontation by increasing cost and coordination among partners, but they also risk provoking counter-balancing if perceived as exclusionary. The case confirms the hybrid model: institutions and interdependence shape behavioural constraints even as material competition escalates in specific sectors.

6. Cross-Case Comparative Analysis

6.1 Common mechanisms

Across cases, three mechanisms recur:

1. Material capability competition (military or technological) establishes the underlying rivalry.

2. Geoeconomic tools (sanctions, export controls, investment screening) are powerful levers short of military force.

3. Institutional responses (alliances, coalitions, multilateral diplomacy) modulate escalation and enable burden-sharing.

6.2 Variation explained

• When institutions are weak or bypassed (e.g., assertive territorial conquest), material power often dominates outcomes (Russia–Ukraine).

• When interdependence is significant and institutions are active, rivalry tends toward managed competition rather than open war (U.S.–China technology competitions; QUAD/AUKUS coordination in Indo-Pacific).

6.3 Theoretical implications

• Pure realism or liberalism alone cannot fully explain modern practice. A synthesis that gives primacy to material capabilities but recognises institutional and normative constraints best fits the empirical patterns.

7. Policy Implications and Recommendations

1. Preserve issue-specific cooperation channels. Even amid rivalry, keep open cooperation in global public-good areas (health, climate, disaster relief) to reduce spillover risk.

2. Diversify critical supply chains. States should reduce strategic vulnerabilities (e.g., semiconductors, rare earths) through diversification and allied cooperation rather than unilateral protectionism.

3. Strengthen crisis communication mechanisms. Hotlines, regular military-to-military contacts, and third-party mediation reduce miscalculation.

4. Institutionalise resilient coalition frameworks. Flexible, problem-focused coalitions (like QUAD) should incorporate transparency measures to avoid exacerbating perceptions of containment.

5. Invest in deterrence and resilience simultaneously. Military preparedness should be coupled with robust economic measures and civil resilience to deter adversaries while avoiding arms races.

8. Conclusion

The dynamics of political relationships among states in the contemporary era are pluralistic and multi-dimensional. Material competition (military, technological) establishes the structural constraints, while economic interdependence and institutional frameworks shape incentives and lower the risk of direct armed conflict—although they do not eliminate it. The hybrid model presented here explains observed variation across cases: where institutions and interdependence are stronger, competition becomes managed; where they are weaker or bypassed, the likelihood of violent escalation rises. Policy should therefore aim to sustain and strengthen functional institutions, increase resilience in strategic sectors, and preserve channels for crisis management to prevent competition from sliding into open conflict.

References

Core IR theory and books

• Baylis, J., Smith, S., & Owens, P. (2020). The globalization of world politics: An introduction to international relations (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.

• Bull, H. (2012). The anarchical society: A study of order in world politics. Palgrave Macmillan.

• Ikenberry, G. J. (2011). Liberal leviathan: The origins, crisis, and transformation of the American world order. Princeton University Press.

• Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (2012). Power and interdependence (4th ed.). Pearson.

• Morgenthau, H. J. (2006). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

• Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Addison-Wesley.

• Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge University Press.

Empirical and policy sources (selected)

• Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). (2024). U.S.–China relations in 2024: Managing competition without conflict. CSIS

• Zhang, K. H. (2024). Geoeconomics of US–China tech rivalry and industrial policy. (Article summary). ScienceDirect. ScienceDirect

• Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). (2025). War in Ukraine — Global Conflict Tracker. Council on Foreign Relations

• Britannica. (n.d.). 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Encyclopedia Britannica

• NATO. (2024). Relations with Russia. NATO official materials. NATO

• Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs. (2025). Quad brief / documents. MEA India

• U.S. White House. (2022). U.S. Indo-Pacific Strategy (official strategy paper). The White House

• ORF / Observer Research Foundation. (analysis on QUAD maritime agenda). ORF Online

Author: T. Zamlunmang Zou