The DOI matches its Crossref record; 80 of the 80 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Future of U.S.-China Relations: Is Conflict Inevitable?
Abstract
What is likely to be the future character of the relationship between the United States and the People's Republic of China? Will it be marked by convergence toward deepening cooperation, stability, and peace or by deterioration that leads to increasingly open competition and perhaps even war? The answers to these questions are of enormous importance. They are also, at this point, unknown. Most analysts who write on U.S.-China relations deploy arguments derived from the three main camps in contemporary international relations theorizing: realism, liberalism, and constructivism. Those whose basic analytical premises place them in one of these three schools, however, do not necessarily have similar views regarding the speciac question of the future of U.S.-China relations. It is possible to identify realists who believe that the relationship will basically be stable and peaceful, liberals who expect confrontation and confict, and constructivists who think that things could go either way. The six basic positions in this debate all rest on claims about the importance of particular causal mechanisms or sets of similarly aligned causal forces. In reality, one set of forces may turn out to be so powerful as to overwhelm the rest. But it is also conceivable that the future will be shaped by a confuence of different forces, some mutually reinforcing and others opposed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Social Theory of International Politics
Wendt, A. (1999) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511612183 · Cited by 7,664
Theory of International Politics, by Kenneth N. Waltz
Randle, R. F. (1980) · Political Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2149594 · Cited by 6,358
Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics
Wendt, A. (1992) · International Organization · doi:10.1017/s0020818300027764 · Cited by 5,885
The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order
Evans, P., & Huntington, S. P. (1997) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2654621 · Cited by 4,865
After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy
Diebold, W., & Keohane, R. O. (1984) · Foreign Affairs · doi:10.2307/20042201 · Cited by 3,944
The tragedy of Great Power politics
(2002) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.39-5464 · Cited by 3,594
(2000) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511563836 · Cited by 3,562
Perception and Misperception in International Politics
Jervis, R. (2017) · doi:10.1515/9781400885114 · Cited by 3,199
Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics
Moravcsik, A. (1997) · International Organization · doi:10.1162/002081897550447 · Cited by 2,814
Cooperation under the security dilemma
Jervis, R. (1978) · World Politics · doi:10.2307/2009958 · Cited by 2,305
Cited by
The Impact of China on Cybersecurity: Fiction and Friction
Lindsay, J. R. (2015) · International Security · doi:10.1162/isec_a_00189 · Cited by 183
Balancing deterrence: Iran-Israel relations in a turbulent Middle East
Maher, N. (2023) · Review of Economics and Political Science · doi:10.1108/reps-06-2019-0085 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- Friedberg, A. L.
- Venue
- International Security
- Publisher
- MIT Press - Journals
- Published
- 2005-10
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 7-45
- ISSN
- 0162-2889 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-4804
- OpenAlex
- W2021652768
- Cited by
- 438
- References
- 80
- FWCI
- 75.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Future of U.S.-China Relations: Is Conflict Inevitable? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1162/016228805775124589
- The paper
- Friedberg, A. L. (2005). The Future of U.S.-China Relations: Is Conflict Inevitable? International Security. https://doi.org/10.1162/016228805775124589
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.