近年來，美國與中國之間的戰略競爭達到了前所未有的高度，涵蓋了經濟，貿易，科技，政治，意識形態和安全等多個領域。在這些領域中，南海已成為美中戰略競爭中最具爭議的戰場之一。越南位於此爭議地區的核心，並與中國存在著領土爭端，因此深陷了美中之间的競爭中。在此背景下，瞭解越南如何應對與中國和美國的關係，對於分析其在這一高度敏感地區的更廣泛外交政策至關重要。因此，本文深入地探討了越南在南海緊張的局勢下對中國和美國所採取的戰略。本文有兩個主要的目標：第一，探索越南對中國和美國的看法；第二，研究越南對這兩個全球大國所採取的戰略。
關於第一個目標，本文認為越南對中國和美國的看法既包含積極方面，也包含消極方面。然而，越南對中國的積極看法正在降低，而消極看法則在上升。相比之下，越南對美國的消極看法顯著減少，而積極看法則在增加。關於第二個目標，本文認為越南採取了一種避免選邊站的戰略，巧妙地推行雙重對衝戰略。然而，在此雙重對衝戰略中，越南對中國採取了較強的對沖策略，體現在「強對衝戰略」上，而對美國則採取了較溫和的對衝策略，體現在「溫和對衝戰略」上。

In recent years, the strategic rivalry between the United States and China has reached unprecedented levels, spanning various domains such as economy, trade, technology, politics, ideology and security. Among these, the South China Sea has emerged as one of the most contentious battlegrounds for US-China strategic competition. Vietnam, located at the heart of this contested region and engaged in territorial disputes with China, finds itself deeply entangled in the rivalry between these two global powers. Against this backdrop, understanding how Vietnam navigates its relationships with China and the United States is crucial for analyzing its broader foreign policy in this highly sensitive region. This dissertation, therefore, delves into Vietnam’s strategies toward China and the United States amidst escalating tensions in the South China Sea. It has two main objectives: first, to explore Vietnam’s perceptions of China and the United States; and second, to examine Vietnam’s strategies toward these two global powers. Regarding the first objective, the dissertation argues that Vietnam’s perceptions of China and the United States encompass both positive and negative aspects. However, Vietnam’s positive perceptions of China are diminishing, while negative perceptions are on the rise. In contrast, negative perceptions of the United States are significantly decreasing, while positive perceptions are increasing. For the second objective, the dissertation argues that Vietnam has adopted a strategy that avoids taking sides by skillfully pursuing a dual hedging strategy. However, within this dual hedging strategy, Vietnam conducts a strong hedging strategy toward China while pursuing a mild hedging strategy toward the United States.

1. Alison, G. (2017). Destined for war: Can America and China escape Thucydides’s trap? Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
2. Aramaki, K. (2018). Japan’s long stagnation, deflation, and Abenomics. Springer Singapore.
3. Berkofsky, A. (2018). US freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs) in the South China Sea—Able to keep Chinese territorial expansionism in check? In M. Clementi, M. Dian, & B. Pisciotta (Eds.), US foreign policy in a challenging world (pp. xx-xx). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54118-1_17
4. Bich, T. (2019). From “Rebalance to Asia” to “Free and Open Indo-Pacific”: The development of the U.S.-Vietnam comprehensive partnership. Asia Pacific Issues.
5. Blazevic, J. J. (2012). Navigating the security dilemma: China, Vietnam, and the South China Sea. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 31(4), 79–108.
6. Brown, M. E., Lynn-Jones, S. M., & Miller, S. E. (1996). Debating the democratic peace. MIT Press.
7. Buzan, B., & Segal, G. (1994). Rethinking East Asian security. Survival, 36(2), 3–21.
8. Ciorciari, J. D. (2019). The variable effectiveness of hedging strategies. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 19(3), 523–555. https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcz007
9. Co, T. Q. (2002). Hồi ức và suy ngẫm.
10. Cuong, N. A. (2023). The South China Sea for China, the United States, and what choice for Vietnam. Cogent Social Sciences, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2204570
11. Cuong, N. M., Chelabi, K., Anjum, S., Sateeshchandra, N. G., Samoylenko, S., Silwizya, K., & Nghiem, T. (2024). US-China global competition and dilemma for Vietnam's strategic choices in the South China Sea conflict. Heritage and Sustainable Development, 6(1), 349–364.
12. Chung, C. P. (2004). Southeast Asia-China relations: Dialectics of "hedging" and "counter-hedging." Southeast Asian Affairs, 2004(1), 35–53.
13. Dittmer, L. (1981). The strategic triangle: An elementary game-theoretical analysis. World Politics, 33(4), 485–515.
14. Dau, N. Đ. (2014, September 29). Nhận xét về “An Nam đại quốc họa đồ.” Tạp chí Nghiên cứu Lịch sử. https://nghiencuulichsu.com/2014/09/29/nhan-xet-ve-an-nam-dai-quoc-hoa-do
15. Don, L. Q. (1977). Phủ biên tạp lục. Nxb Khoa học Xã hội.
16. Foot, R. (2006). Chinese strategies in a US-hegemonic global order: Accommodating and hedging. International Affairs, 82(1), 77–94.
17. Friedberg, A. L. (1996). Warring states: Theoretical models of Asia-Pacific security. Harvard International Review, 18(Spring), 13.
18. Garlick, J., & Havlová, R. (2020). China’s “Belt and Road” Economic Diplomacy in the Persian Gulf: Strategic Hedging amidst Saudi–Iranian Regional Rivalry. Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, 49(1), 82-105. https://doi.org/10.1177/1868102619898706
19. Germain, R. (2009). Financial order and world politics: Crisis, change and continuity. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), 85(4), 669–687. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27695085
20. Gerstl, A. (2022). Hedging strategies in Southeast Asia: ASEAN, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam and their relations with China. Routledge.
21. Gerval, A., & Henderson, M. (2022). US policy in the South China Sea across three administrations. E-International Relations.
22. Goh, E. (2006). Understanding “hedging” in Asia-Pacific security. PacNet, 43.
23. Goldstein, J., & Keohane, R. O. (Eds.). (1993). Ideas and foreign policy: Beliefs, institutions, and political change. Cornell University Press.
24. Grieco, K. A. (2018). The 2018 national defense strategy: Continuity and competition. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 12(2), 3–8. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26430813
25. Guzansky, Y. (2015). The foreign-policy tools of small powers: Strategic hedging in the Persian Gulf. Middle East Policy, 22(1), xx-xx.
26. Ha, M. H. (2014). Chính sách Biển Đông của Mỹ hiện nay. Tạp chí Tài Chính. https://tapchitaichinh.vn/chinh-sach-bien-dong-cua-my-hien-nay.html
27. Haacke, J. (2019). The concept of hedging and its application to Southeast Asia: A critique and a proposal for a modified conceptual and methodological framework. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 19(3), 375–417.
28. Halperin, S., & Heath, O. (2020). Political research: Methods and practical skills (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
29. Hamada, K., Kashyap, A. K., & Weinstein, D. E. (Eds.). (2011). Japan's bubble, deflation, and long-term stagnation. MIT Press.
30. Han, Z., Jiang, K., Peng, F., & Li, S. (2023). The Philippines’ hedging strategy against China in the South China Sea dispute: Based on the human-ocean regional system. Marine Policy, 151, 105578.
31. Harding, B. (2017). U.S.–Southeast Asia relations: Raised stakes and renewed importance. Asia Policy, 23, 57–62. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24905145
32. Harding, B. (2019). The Trump administration’s free and open Indo-Pacific approach. Southeast Asian Affairs, 61–68.
33. He, K. (2008). Institutional balancing and international relations theory: Economic interdependence and balance of power strategies in Southeast Asia. European Journal of International Relations, 14(3), 489–518.
34. Hiep, L. H. (2013). Vietnam's hedging strategy against China since normalization. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 333-368.
35. Hiep, L. H. (2016). Vietnam’s pursuit of alliance politics in the South China Sea.
36. Ho, S. Q. (2014). Xung đột Biển Đông qua nhìn nhận của một số học giả và chính khách Mỹ và phương Tây. Viện Thông tin Khoa học Xã hội. Retrieved November 23, 2024, from https://vanhoahoc.edu.vn/nghien-cuu/van-hoa-viet-nam/van-hoa-ung-xu-voi-moi-truong-xa-hoi/2629-ho-si-quy-xung-dot-bien-dong-qua-nhin-nhan-cua-mot-so-hoc-gia-va-chinh-khach-my-va-phuong-tay.html
37. Hu, W., & Meng, W. (2020). The US Indo-Pacific strategy and China’s response. China Review, 20(3), 143–176. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26928115
38. Ikenberry, G. J. (2016). Between the eagle and the dragon: America, China, and middle state strategies in East Asia. Political Science Quarterly, 131(1), 9–43.
39. Jackson, V. (2014). Power, trust, and network complexity: three logics of hedging in Asian security. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 14(3), 331-356.
40. Javed, H. (2024). Sino-American competition since 2017: Is there a US foreign policy consensus and continuity on China? International Politics, 1–26.
41. Jessen, M. H. (2017, January 26). Should civil society be political? The political role of civil society in light of the refugee crisis. DBP's Blog. The Department of Business and Politics, CBS. https://blog.cbs.dk
42. Johnson, J. (2018). Introduction: Obama’s ‘Pivot’ to Asia and Air–Sea Battle. In The US-China military and defense relationship during the Obama presidency (pp. xx-xx). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75838-1_1
43. Jones, D. M., & Jenne, N. (2022). Hedging and grand strategy in Southeast Asian foreign policy. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 22(2), 205-235.
44. Johnston, A. I. (1995). Thinking about strategic culture. International Security, 19(4), 35–64.
45. Kang, D. (2003). Hierarchy, balancing, and empirical puzzles in Asian international relations. International Security, 28(3), 165–180.
46. Kelly, R. E. (2014). The ‘pivot’ and its problems: American foreign policy in Northeast Asia. The Pacific Review, 27(3), 479–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2014.909526
47. Kim, S.-H., & Kim, S. (2022). China’s contestation of the liberal international order. The Pacific Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2022.2063367
48. Koda, Y. (2016). Japan’s perceptions of and interests in the South China Sea. Asia Policy, 21, 29–35. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24905086
49. Koga, K. (2018). The concept of ‘hedging’ revisited: The case of Japan’s foreign policy strategy in East Asia’s power shift. International Studies Review, 20(4), 633–660.
50. Krauthammer, C. (1990/1991). The unipolar moment. Foreign Affairs, 70(1), 23–33.
51. Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
52. Kuik, C. C. (2008). The essence of hedging: Malaysia and Singapore’s response to a rising China. Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs, 30(2), 159–185.
53. Kuik, C. C. (2021). Getting hedging right: A small-state perspective. China International Strategy Review, 3(2), 300–315.
54. Kuik, C. C. (2024). Explaining hedging. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 46(1), 43–76.
55. Kupchan, C. A. (2012). No one's world: The West, the rising rest, and the coming global turn. Oxford University Press.
56. Lake, D. A. (1996). Anarchy, hierarchy, and the variety of international relations. International Organization, 50(1), 1–33.
57. Lee, J. (2012). Hedging against uncertain future: The response of East Asian secondary powers to rising China. In International Political Science Association XXII World Congress of Political Science (pp. 1–25). Madrid: International Political Science Association.
58. Levy, J. S. (1989). Domestic politics and war. In R. I. Rotberg & T. K. Rabb (Eds.), The origin and prevention of major wars (pp. 79–101). Cambridge University Press.
59. Li, C. (2016). The South China Sea peace initiative in a transitional security environment. American Journal of Chinese Studies, 23, 119–134. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44289143
60. Lieber, K. A., & Alexander, G. (2005). Waiting for balancing: Why the world is not pushing back. International Security, 30(1), 109–139.
61. Liff, A. P. (2019). Unambivalent alignment: Japan’s China strategy, the US alliance, and the ‘hedging’ fallacy. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 19(3), 453–491.
62. Lim, D., & Cooper, Z. (2015). Reassessing hedging: The logic of alignment in East Asia. Security Studies, 24(4), 696–727.
63. López i Vidal, L., & Pelegrín, À. (2018). Hedging against China: Japanese strategy towards a rising power. Asian Security, 14(2), 193–211.
64. Mastanduno, M. (1997). Preserving the unipolar moment: Realist theories and U.S. grand strategy after the Cold War. International Security, 21(4), 49–88.
65. Mastro, O. S. (2019). In the shadow of the Thucydides trap: International relations theory and the prospects for peace in U.S.-China relations. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 24, 25–45.
66. Mazuelos, J. (2022). The Chinese dream of national rejuvenation and foreign policy under Xi Jinping. Agenda Internacional, 29, 31–55. https://doi.org/10.18800/agenda.202201.002
67. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2010). The gathering storm: China’s challenge to U.S. power in Asia. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 3(4), 381–396.
68. Medeiros, E. S. (2005). Strategic hedging and the future of Asia-Pacific stability. The Washington Quarterly, 29(1), 145–167.
69. Medeiros, E. S. (2019). The changing fundamentals of U.S.-China relations. The Washington Quarterly, 42, 119–93.
70. Mingliang, Z. (2020). China’s development of public goods in the South China Sea Islands. In J. Berlie (Ed.), China’s globalization and the Belt and Road Initiative (pp. xx–xx). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22289-5_6
71. Murphy, A. M., & Turek, A. (2024). The United States and the South China Sea. In Security dynamics in the South China Sea (pp. 241–263). Routledge.
72. Nguyen, H. (2016). The Obama administration and Southeast Asia: Dynamics of a new engagement. Indian Journal of Asian Affairs, 29(1/2), 39–56. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44123128
73. Nguyen, H. Q. (2022). Việt Nam trước cạnh tranh chiến lược giữa hai nước lớn. Nhà xuất bản Chính trị quốc gia - Sự thật.
74. Nguyen, H. T. (2022). Vietnam’s position on the sovereignty over the Paracels and the Spratlys: Its maritime claims. In E. Y. J. Lee (Ed.), ASEAN international law (pp. xx–xx). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3195-5_14
75. Nguyen, T. P. H., & Pham, T. N. (2021). The reception and implementation of the Belt and Road Initiative in Vietnam. Strategic Analysis, 45(2), 128–143.
76. Nye, J. S. (2021, March 2). What could cause a US-China war? Project Syndicate. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/what-could-cause-us-china-war-by-joseph-s-nye-2021-03
77. Organski, A. F. K., & Kugler, J. (1980). The war ledger. University of Chicago Press.
78. Orhan, D. D. (2023). Strategic hedging or alignment? Qatar’s foreign policy toward Iran in the wake of the blockade crisis. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 1(1), 1–17.
79. Osius, T. (2021). Nothing is impossible: America's reconciliation with Vietnam. Rutgers University Press.
80. Papayoanou, P. A. (1996). Interdependence, institutions, and the balance of power: Britain, Germany, and World War I. International Security, 20(4), 42–76.
81. Parameswaran, P. (2013). “The power of balance:” Advancing U.S.-ASEAN relations under the second Obama administration. The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, 37(1), 123–134. http://www.jstor.org/stable/45289728
82. Peters, M. A. (2023). The emerging multipolar world order: A preliminary analysis. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 55(14), 1653–1663.
83. Prasad, D. (2008). Content analysis: A method in social science research. In D. K. Lal Das & V. Bhaskaran (Eds.), Research methods for social work (pp. 173–193). Rawat Publications.
84. Pham, T. T. B. (9 September 2013). Đầu tư trực tiếp của Mỹ vào Việt Nam sau khủng hoảng tài chính toàn cầu. Tạp chí Cộng sản. https://www.tapchicongsan.org.vn/web/guest/the-gioi-van-de-su-kien/-/2018/23480/dau-tu-truc-tiep-cua-my-vao-viet-nam-sau-khung-hoang-tai-chinh-toan-cau.aspx#
85. Pujol, I. G. (2024). Theorising the Hedging Strategy: National Interests, Objectives, and Mixed Foreign Policy Instruments. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 13(2), 193-214.
86. Ripsman, N. M., Taliaferro, J. W., & Lobell, S. E. (2016). Neoclassical realist theory of international politics. Oxford University Press.
87. Rose, G. (1998). Review: Neoclassical realism and theories of foreign policy. World Politics, 51, 144–172.
88. Ross, R. S. (2020). China-Vietnamese Relations in the Era of Rising China: Power, Resistance, and Maritime Conflict. Journal of Contemporary China, 30(130), 613–629. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2020.1852737
89. Roy, D. (1994). Hegemon on the horizon? China’s threat to East Asian security. International Security, 19(1), 149–168.
90. Roy, D. (2005). Southeast Asia and China: Balancing or bandwagoning? Contemporary Southeast Asia, 27(2), 305–322.
91. Rozman, G. (2022). Strategic triangles reshaping international relations in East Asia. Routledge.
92. Saich, A. (2017). What does General Secretary Xi Jinping dream about? HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series RWP17-038. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/what-does-general-secretary-xi-jinping-dream-about
93. Salman, M. (2017). Strategic Hedging and Unipolarity's Demise: The Case of China's Strategic Hedging. Asian Politics & Policy, 9(3), 354-377.
94. Sangtam, A. (2021). Vietnam's strategic engagement in the South China Sea. Maritime Affairs: Journal of the National Maritime Foundation of India, 17, 41–57.
95. Satoru, M. (2021). The Biden administration’s first year in the Indo-Pacific: Balancing, order-building and managing competition with China. Asia-Pacific Review, 28(2), 77–106.
96. Schmidt, J. D. (2014). The Asia-Pacific strategic triangle: Unentangling the India, China, US relations on conflict and security in South Asia. Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, 1(2), 203–222.
97. Schweller, R. L. (1994). Bandwagoning for profit: Bringing the revisionist state back in. International security, 19(1), 72-107.
98. Schweller, R. (2004). Unanswered threats: A neoclassical realist theory of underbalancing. International Security, 29(2), 159–201. https://doi.org/10.1162/0162288042879913
99. Shoji, T. (2016). Vietnam’s omnidirectional military diplomacy: Focusing on the South China Sea. NIDS Journal of Defense and Security, 17, 41–62.
100. Shoji, T. (2018). Vietnam’s security cooperation with the United States: Historical background, present and future outlook. Boei Kenkyusho Kiyo [NIDS Security Studies], 20(2), March 2018.
101. Siracusa, J. M., & Nguyen, H. T. T. (2019). U.S.-Vietnam relations in the Trump era. Asian Affairs, 50(4), 602–618. https://doi.org/10.1080/03068374.2019.1672429
102. Soong, J. J. (2023). The political economy of Asian states and their development strategies under USA-China power rivalry: Conducting hedging strategy on triangular relation and operation. The Chinese Economy, 56(4), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/10971475.2022.2136689
103. Telci, İ. N., & Rakipoglu, M. (2021). Hedging as a survival strategy for small states: The case of Kuwait. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 10(2), 213–229.
104. Tessman, B. F. (2012). System structure and state strategy: Adding hedging to the menu. Security Studies, 21(2), 192–231.
105. Tessman, B., & Wolfe, W. (2011). Great powers and strategic hedging: The case of Chinese energy security strategy. International Studies Review, 13(2), 214–240.
106. Tu, D. C., & Nguyen, H. T. T. (2019). Understanding the US–Vietnam security relationship, 2011–2017. The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, 31(1), 121-144.
107. Tunç, H. (2009). Preemption in the Bush Doctrine: A reappraisal. Foreign Policy Analysis, 5(1), 1–16. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24909868
108. Tung, N. C. (2022). Uneasy embrace: Vietnam’s responses to the U.S. Free and Open Indo-Pacific strategy amid U.S.–China rivalry. The Pacific Review, 35(5), 884–914.
109. Tzeng, W. F. (2021). An evaluation of the US-China competition in the South China Sea under Trump and Xi. Tamkang Journal of International Affairs, 24(4).
110. Thach, N. C. (1989). Tất cả vì hòa bình, độc lập dân tộc và phát triển (All for peace, national independence, and development). Tạp chí Cộng sản, 8, 1–8.
111. Thayer, C. A. (2011). The tyranny of geography; Vietnamese strategies to constrain China in the South China Sea. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 33(3), 348–369.
112. Thayer, C. (2013). Vietnam gradually warms up to US military. The diplomat, 6.
113. Thayer, C. A. (2016). Vietnam’s strategy of ‘cooperating and struggling’ with China over maritime disputes in the South China Sea. Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, 3(2), 200–220.
114. Thuy, T. T. (2016). Rebalancing: Vietnam’s South China Sea challenges and responses. National Asian Security Studies Program, 1–18.
115. Vagg, X. (2012, December 4). Resources in the South China Sea. American Security Project. https://www.americansecurityproject.org/resources-in-the-south-china-sea/
116. Quyet, V. L., & Nguyet, N. T. A. (2023). U.S.-Vietnam maritime security cooperation in the South China Sea: From the Obama administration to the current Biden administration. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2231697
117. Vuong, D. D. (2014, July 5). China still follows the "yuan jiao jin gong" policy. Cong Ly. https://congly.vn/trung-quoc-van-theo-chinh-sach-vien-giao-can-cong-1336.html
118. Vuving, A. L. (2022). Vietnam's Approach to China: Bamboo Diplomacy with Neotributary Characteristics. The Diplomat, 12.
119. Walt, S. M. (1985). Alliance formation and the balance of world power. International Security, 9(4), 3–43. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2538540
120. Walt, S. (1987). The origin of alliance. Cornell University Press.
121. Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. McGraw-Hill.
122. Waltz, K. N. (1993). The emerging structure of international politics. International security, 18(2), 44-79.
123. Wang, S. (2017). Xi Jinping's centralization of Chinese foreign policy decision-making power. East Asian Policy, 9, 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793930517000149
124. Wang, Y. (2021). Hedging strategy: Concept, behavior, and implications for China-ASEAN relations. East Asian Affairs, 1(02), 2150012.
125. Wang, T. Y., & Tan, A. C. (2021). Balancing, bandwagoning or hedging: Taiwan’s strategic choices in the era of a rising China. Political Science, 73(1), 66-84.
126. Weaver, J. M. (2018). The 2017 National Security Strategy of the United States. Journal of Strategic Security, 11(1), 62–71. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26466906
127. Wei, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2021). The Biden administration’s Indo-Pacific strategy and China-US strategic competition. China Quarterly of International Strategic Studies, 7(02), 157-178.
128. Wivel, A. (2008). Balancing against threats or bandwagoning with power? Europe and the transatlantic relationship after the Cold War. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 21(3), 289-305.
129. Wivel, A., Bailes, A. J., & Archer, C. (2014). Setting the scene: Small states and international security. In Small states and international security (pp. 3-25). Routledge.
130. Wohlforth, W. C. (1999). A certain idea of science: How international relations theory avoids the New Cold War history. Journal of Cold War Studies, 1(2), 39-60.
131. Wu, C. C.-H. (2019). Why do states hedge in East Asia? An empirical study on hedging. Asian Perspective, 43.
132. Xia, M., & Chen, D. (2021). China and the US: Who has more influence in Vietnam? The Diplomat. https://thediplomat.com/2021/05/china-and-the-us-who-has-more-influence-in-vietnam/
133. Xinbo, W. (2019). Sino-US strategic competition and Asia-Pacific security. Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific, 13.
134. Yoshino, N., & Taghizadeh-Hesary, F. (2017). Japan’s Lost Decade: Causes and Remedies. Japan’s Lost Decade: Lessons for Asian Economies, 1-33.
135. Zakaria, F. (1998). From wealth to power: The unusual origins of America's world role. Princeton University Press.
136. Zhao, S. (2018). A revisionist stakeholder: China and the post-World War II world order. Journal of Contemporary China, 27(113), xx-xx.
137. Zhao, S. (Ed.). (2021). China’s Big Power Ambition under XI Jinping: Narratives and Driving Forces. Routledge.
138. Zhang, X. W., Hu, T., Pang, X. Q., Hu, Y., Wang, T., Wang, E. Z., ... & Wu, Z. Y. (2022). Evaluation of natural gas hydrate resources in the South China Sea by combining volumetric and trend-analysis methods. Petroleum Science, 19(1), 37-47.
139. Zielinski, R. C. (2016). How states pay for wars. Cornell University Press.