IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/indqtr/v75y2019i2p172-189.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Status-seeking States Can Cooperate: Explaining India–China Rapprochement After the Doklam Standoff

Author

Listed:
  • Chao Xie

Abstract

Noticing the gap in the existing literature, this article attempts to argue that status-seeking motives do not necessarily result in zero-sum games and hence tries to summarise conditions for status-seekers to manage conflicts and realise cooperation with one another through creative use of social mobility and creativity strategies. As a case study, this article examines the evolving relations between India and China since 2013 and demonstrates how relations between these two status-seeking states can become confrontational with conflicting status-seeking incentives. For some time, the status competition seemingly dominated their interactions, when India was not willing to accept China’s power status second only to the USA, and China reluctant to recognise India as another rising power with nuclear capabilities. After the Donglang (Doklam) standoff, both governments are finding ways to manage an indirect path for cooperation through a newly discovered multilateral framework. The elements contributing to the stability of their relations lie in their choice of international identity and political calculations in which they can engage with the other based on their shared interests in fostering solidary among developing countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Chao Xie, 2019. "How Status-seeking States Can Cooperate: Explaining India–China Rapprochement After the Doklam Standoff," India Quarterly: A Journal of International Affairs, , vol. 75(2), pages 172-189, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:indqtr:v:75:y:2019:i:2:p:172-189
    DOI: 10.1177/0974928419841771
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0974928419841771
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0974928419841771?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Renshon, Jonathan, 2016. "Status Deficits and War," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 70(3), pages 513-550, July.
    2. Adler-Nissen, Rebecca, 2014. "Stigma Management in International Relations: Transgressive Identities, Norms, and Order in International Society," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 68(1), pages 143-176, January.
    3. Harsh V. Pant & Arka Biswas, 2018. "Rising powers and the global nuclear order: a structural study of India’s integration," Third World Quarterly, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(12), pages 2240-2254, December.
    4. James D. Fearon, 1997. "Signaling Foreign Policy Interests," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(1), pages 68-90, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Allison Carnegie & Lindsay R. Dolan, 2021. "The effects of rejecting aid on recipients’ reputations: Evidence from natural disaster responses," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 495-519, July.
    2. Clayton L. Thyne, 2006. "Cheap Signals with Costly Consequences," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(6), pages 937-961, December.
    3. Alejandro Quiroz Flores, 2011. "Alliances as Contiguity in Spatial Models of Military Expenditures," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 28(4), pages 402-418, September.
    4. Yuleng Zeng, 2020. "Bluff to peace: How economic dependence promotes peace despite increasing deception and uncertainty," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(6), pages 633-654, November.
    5. Matthew O. Jackson & Massimo Morelli, 2007. "Political Bias and War," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1353-1373, September.
      • Jackson, Matthew O. & Morelli, Massimo, "undated". "Political bias and war," Working Papers 1247, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
    6. Mehmet Ekmekci & Nenad Kos, 2020. "Signaling Covertly Acquired Information," Working Papers 658, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    7. Choong-Nam Kang, 2017. "Capability revisited: Ally’s capability and dispute initiation1," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(5), pages 546-571, September.
    8. Cullen S. Hendrix, 2014. "Oil Prices and Interstate Conflict Behavior," Working Paper Series WP14-3, Peterson Institute for International Economics.
    9. Melissa Martinez, 2023. "Does the Inter-American Court of Human Rights affect the development of human rights norms in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala?," International Studies, , vol. 60(1), pages 91-112, January.
    10. Zhiyuan Wang & Hyunjin Youn, 2018. "Locating the External Source of Enforceability: Alliances, Bilateral Investment Treaties, and Foreign Direct Investment," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 99(1), pages 80-96, March.
    11. Stacie E. Goddard, 2020. "Revolution from the Inside: Institutions, Legitimation Strategies, and Rhetorical Pathways of Institutional Change," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 11(S3), pages 83-92, October.
    12. Kerstin Radtke, 2014. "ASEAN Enlargement and Norm Change – A Window of Opportunity for Democracy and Human Rights Entrepreneurs?," Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, Institute of Asian Studies, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies, Hamburg, vol. 33(3), pages 79-105.
    13. Paul K. Huth, 1998. "Major Power Intervention in International Crises, 1918-1988," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 42(6), pages 744-770, December.
    14. Pitsoulis Athanassios & Schwuchow Soeren C., 2014. "Coercion, Credibility, and Mid-Air Interceptions of Military Planes," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 20(4), pages 697-707, December.
    15. Brett Ashley Leeds & Andrew G. Long & Sara McLaughlin Mitchell, 2000. "Reevaluating Alliance Reliability," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 44(5), pages 686-699, October.
    16. Thomas Jensen & Andreas Madum, 2014. "Partisan Optimism and Political Bargaining," Discussion Papers 14-05, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    17. Thomas Jensen & Andreas Madum, 2017. "Partisan optimism and political bargaining," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 29(2), pages 191-213, April.
    18. Jesse C. Johnson, 2016. "Alliance treaty obligations and war intervention," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 33(5), pages 451-468, November.
    19. Jesse C. Johnson & Brett Ashley Leeds & Ahra Wu, 2015. "Capability, Credibility, and Extended General Deterrence," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(2), pages 309-336, March.
    20. Seok Joon Kim, 2022. "Quick on the Draw: American Negativity Bias and Costly Signals in International Relations," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 66(2), pages 246-271, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:indqtr:v:75:y:2019:i:2:p:172-189. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.