Strategic hedgers? Australia and Canada's defence adapation to the global power transition

IF 3.1 4区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS International Journal Pub Date : 2023-08-21 DOI:10.1177/00207020231195633
Maxandre Fortier, Justin Massie
{"title":"Strategic hedgers? Australia and Canada's defence adapation to the global power transition","authors":"Maxandre Fortier, Justin Massie","doi":"10.1177/00207020231195633","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The intensification of rivalries between the US and China, and, in recent years, between the US and Russia, has deeply affected how middle powers relate to these great powers. Scholars have argued that middle powers are increasingly adopting “hedging” strategies to maximize their benefits and limit the consequences of the great power competition for their security and status. This paper revisits the concept of hedging and assesses whether two prominent US allies—Australia and Canada—have resorted to hedging in place of conventional alternatives like bandwagoning and balancing. The paper systematically compares Australia's and Canada's threat perceptions and defence policies to ascertain whether they have shifted their policies in the wake of the US's relative decline. Since our study began, in 2008, we have found instances where the two allies resorted to hedging. However, evidence shows that when pressured to make a choice, Australia and Canada have closed ranks with the US against revisionist powers. Our paper suggests that threat perceptions play a fundamental role in this. Going forward, it would suggest that the US is in a stronger position than commonly assumed. As the competition between Washington and revisionist great powers increases, the former's ability to build credible coalitions is expected to improve as it will rely on more dependable allies.","PeriodicalId":46226,"journal":{"name":"International Journal","volume":"78 1","pages":"463 - 478"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00207020231195633","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The intensification of rivalries between the US and China, and, in recent years, between the US and Russia, has deeply affected how middle powers relate to these great powers. Scholars have argued that middle powers are increasingly adopting “hedging” strategies to maximize their benefits and limit the consequences of the great power competition for their security and status. This paper revisits the concept of hedging and assesses whether two prominent US allies—Australia and Canada—have resorted to hedging in place of conventional alternatives like bandwagoning and balancing. The paper systematically compares Australia's and Canada's threat perceptions and defence policies to ascertain whether they have shifted their policies in the wake of the US's relative decline. Since our study began, in 2008, we have found instances where the two allies resorted to hedging. However, evidence shows that when pressured to make a choice, Australia and Canada have closed ranks with the US against revisionist powers. Our paper suggests that threat perceptions play a fundamental role in this. Going forward, it would suggest that the US is in a stronger position than commonly assumed. As the competition between Washington and revisionist great powers increases, the former's ability to build credible coalitions is expected to improve as it will rely on more dependable allies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
战略对冲?澳大利亚和加拿大对全球权力过渡的国防适应
美国和中国之间,以及近年来美国和俄罗斯之间的对抗加剧,深刻影响了中间大国与这些大国的关系。学者们认为,中间大国越来越多地采取“对冲”策略,以最大限度地提高其利益,并限制大国竞争对其安全和地位的影响。本文重新审视了套期保值的概念,并评估了美国的两个重要盟友——澳大利亚和加拿大——是否采用了套期保值来代替传统的替代方案,如带宽和平衡。该论文系统地比较了澳大利亚和加拿大的威胁认知和国防政策,以确定它们是否在美国相对衰落后改变了政策。自2008年我们的研究开始以来,我们发现了两个盟友诉诸对冲的例子。然而,有证据表明,当迫于压力做出选择时,澳大利亚和加拿大与美国结成了反对修正主义势力的联盟。我们的论文表明,威胁感知在这方面发挥着根本作用。展望未来,这将表明美国的地位比通常认为的要强大。随着华盛顿与修正主义大国之间的竞争加剧,前者建立可信联盟的能力有望提高,因为它将依赖更可靠的盟友。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal
International Journal INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
期刊最新文献
Foreign Policy in a Time of Turbulence US global leadership beyond 2024: A UK and European perspective Securitization versus sovereignty? Multi-level governance, scientific objectivation, and the discourses of the Canadian and American heads of state during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Editors' introduction Crafting a New Canadian Foreign Policy: Strategic Sovereignty for a “Leaderless World”
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1