Øystein Tunsjø - The Return of Bipolarity in World Politics: China, the United States, and Geostructural Realism

Among the debts that I am happy to acknowledge, the greatest is to the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies and the Norwegian Defence University College. These institutions have entirely sponsored this research, and I would like to add that the Norwegian Research Council has several times declined to support my research. Every time the Research Council has rejected my applications, I have been fortunate to have the support of the Institute for Defence Studies and the Defence University College. I am also very grateful that Columbia University Press was willing to support this contrarian and original book project. A special thanks to my editor, Stephen Wesley, and my former editor, Anne Routon, who shepherded this manuscript through a long and thorough peer-review process.

My students, mostly officers, were introduced to the bipolarity thesis at an early stage in my research. Many were skeptical, and some were even frustrated that they had to rely on my assessments and assumptions, since there existed no other publications on the topic. They have provided valuable criticism and ideas that pushed my research forward. It is with great satisfaction that I now can point to this publication, and I sincerely hope that my former and current students will appreciate this book.

In 2013, a leading journal in the field of international relations rejected an article I wrote based on the first part of this book. The decision was a borderline revise and resubmit and based on three comprehensive peer reviews. This was a turning point. While all the reviewers criticized my examination of the distribution of capabilities and the bipolarity thesis, the most important takeaway from this review process was the so what question posed by one of the reviewers. I understood that I needed to develop what now is the second part of the book: Why does a return to bipolarity matter, and what are the effects and outcome of such a polarity shift? This pushed me to develop chapters and focus on balancing, stability, and global effects, and I thank the three anonymous reviewers for their comprehensive comments.

The manuscript also benefited enormously from two rounds of comments by two peer reviewers at Columbia University Press. I sharpened my definition of a superpower and emphasized that, from a structural-realist perspective, the definition of a superpower relies on the distribution of capabilities in the international system rather than the power attributes of states. I further had to develop and nuance my empirical assessment of the contemporary distribution of capabilities. I am extremely grateful to the two reviewers that twice read and commented on my entire manuscript.

I have presented various drafts of this book at numerous conferences and workshops where I have received comments from many. Stephen Walt visited the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies in 2013 and summed up his criticism of my bipolarity thesis by pointing out that it was too early. I hope this book might push him to reconsider. I am grateful to Ian Bowers, Daniel W. Drezner, Bjrn Grnning, Taylor Fravel, Chung-in Moon, James Reilly, Robert S. Ross, and Wang Dong, who participated in two workshops in Beijing, November 2013, and in Oslo, May 2014, and especially to Randall L. Schweller for his comments as a discussant on my paper. Again, the comments were not that favorable at the time, but Schweller now recognizes that the argument for the return of bipolarity is more convincing. I thank the participants in the international politics group for their comments on a chapter draft I presented at the annual Norwegian Political Science meeting in 2014.

I have presented my bipolarity thesis to several institutions and researchers in China. Wu Zhengyu has welcomed me several times at Renmin University. Zhou Qi hosted a meeting at Tsinghua University. Wang Yizhou, Yu Tiejun, Zhang Qingming, and Wang Dong at Peking Universitys School of International Studies have always been forthcoming and have commented and shared their knowledge. Discussions and collaboration with Zhang Tuosheng were most helpful. In the United States, I owe a special thanks to Peter Dutton, Andrew S. Erickson, Lyle Goldstein, and Bernard D. Cole.

My biggest intellectual debt is to Robert S.