Building a more robust framework on revisionism

A reply to Lawson and Legrenzi

Datos Bibliográficos

ID11610675
AutoresGabriele Natalizia (0000-0001-6372-7758, Sapienza University of Rome, autor de correspondencia), Lorenzo Termine (0000-0003-3565-5261, Sapienza University of Rome)
Año2023
Volumen53
Número2
Páginas260-264
Fecha de publicación2023-02-06
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaItalian Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0048-8402 • E-ISSN: 2057-4908
EditorialCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/ipo.2022.33
OpenAlexW4319316742
IdiomaEN
Referencias citadas24

The comments by Lawson and Legrenzi to our RISP/IPSR article ‘Tracing the modes of China's revisionism in the Indo-Pacific: a comparison with pre-1941 Shōwa Japan’ contribute to moving the debate on revisionism in international politics a step forward. Their notes on the several issues affecting the International Relations understanding of the phenomenon are on the same page as ours and we appear to share similar doubts and a like-minded curiosity on the subject. While grasping some key topics and shedding light on crucial shortcomings in the literature on international change, power transitions and international order, however, their observations do not come unproblematic. In this reply to their timely remarks, we highlight the perks of their argument but also stress how this falls through in providing a complete framework to understand revisionism in international politics

Argument (complex analysis · China · Computer security · Curiosity · Economics · Epistemology · International relations · Key (lock · Library science · Order (exchange · Phenomenon · Political science · Politics · Power (physics · Sociology · Subject (documents · Computer Science · International Development and Aid · International Relations and Foreign Policy · Law · Philosophy · Political Conflict and Governance · Psychology · Social Psychology