Description
There has been intense debate about whether China is a “status quo” or “revisionist” power. More recently, prompted by the Trump administration’s aggressive unilateralism and assault on international institutions, many have questioned whether it is in fact the US that is the revisionist power in the international system. In this paper, I argue that this debate rests on a false dichotomy that fails to recognize the changeable, multivalent and contested nature of international norms, rules and principles. The paper draws on analysis of the trade regime, a key pillar of global order and a site where US-China conflict has been particularly destabilizing. As I show, the US and China have each been able to present their conflicting positions as derived from established norms and principles, while portraying the other as a threat to the system. Existing debates about revisionist versus status-quo powers miss the fact that there are multiple, conflicting norms in existing governance regimes and the rules of many regimes are contested and evolving, rather than fixed and static. Understanding the impact of contemporary power shifts on the liberal international order requires a more nuanced and accurate understanding of how its constituent institutions actually operate.
