Suchergebnisse

How should one understand the construction of a state's identity in the international system—its international identity? In this article, I attempt to provide richer answers. Drawing insights from social psychology, specifically Social Identity Theory and Identity Theory, I provide a micro-account of identity construction to better specify the mechanisms and logics through which international identity is constructed. This framework proposes the following general arguments about international identity formation. First, the construction of international identity is interpreted as a process of role negotiation between the state Self and relevant Other, animated by the mechanisms of self-categorization, alter's casting, and role appraisal. Second, the collective motivations of self-esteem, self-efficacy, and self-consistency drive state identity change or continuity. As a plausibility probe, I apply the framework to a current analysis of China's construction of an international identity as a "responsible" power in recent years, with a corresponding focus on the United States as the primary Other.

The notion of strategic ambiguity has long guided the United States' engagement in cross-strait relations, requiring that Washington is intentionally unclear about whether and how it would intervene in a China–Taiwan conflict in order to preserve a balance of assurance and deterrence for both sides. This article unpacks the US approach to strategic ambiguity under Trump. Adopting a neo-classical realist perspective, it argues that domestic and individual level drivers—in particular, US populism, Congress and the foreign policy establishment, and Trump's transactional and personalized approach to foreign policy—have interacted with the shifting US–China balance of power to produce a different mode of American strategic ambiguity in the Taiwan Strait. A common view is that as a function of the growing US–China power competition, the US has largely leaned towards Taiwan in recent years. Our analysis revises this assessment by revealing a form of strategic ambiguity under Trump that, despite appearing to upset the balance of ambiguity in favour of Taiwan—paradoxically and probably unintentionally—maintains assurances and warnings for both China and Taiwan. Yet, while Trump has arguably preserved the overall balance of strategic ambiguity, he has introduced greater volatility into cross-strait relations.