IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/chnrpt/v58y2022i4p431-447.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Russian–Chinese Cooperation at the United Nations Security Council: Costly Signalling and Trust Building in the Strategic Partnership

Author

Listed:
  • James P. Machaffie

    (School of History, Politics and International Relations, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.)

Abstract

China and Russia have a demonstrable record of coordinating their votes at the United Nations Security Council over the past 12 years. China, in particular, has coordinated its vetoes to align with Russia, while Russia still uses its veto in isolation of other states, except for Chinese abstentions. It is widely acknowledged in the literature on Chinese–Russian foreign relations that the two states are in a strategic partnership; however, there is open debate as to how long this partnership can be sustained.  Both China and Russia seem to value the partnership, but trust-building is needed to sustain it due to the growing power imbalance between them. One way that trust can be built is through costly signalling, which provides reassurances to the receiving state that the signaller has benign intentions.  This article argues that China is engaged in costly signalling to Russia by aligning its votes with Moscow at the expense of angering the other permanent members of the Security Council—the United States, France and the United Kingdom—which in turn sours the relations between them. China is attempting to reassure Russia, the weaker partner, that it still values their friendship, and Russia has reciprocated by relying more on China.

Suggested Citation

  • James P. Machaffie, 2022. "Russian–Chinese Cooperation at the United Nations Security Council: Costly Signalling and Trust Building in the Strategic Partnership," China Report, , vol. 58(4), pages 431-447, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:chnrpt:v:58:y:2022:i:4:p:431-447
    DOI: 10.1177/00094455221128349
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00094455221128349
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00094455221128349?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
    ---><---

    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:chnrpt:v:58:y:2022:i:4:p:431-447. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.