| This dissertation examines the sources and effects of perceptions of state intentions in international politics. I ask two questions. First, how do states attempt to discern the intentions of other states? Second, what effect do the beliefs that governments form about other states' intentions have on their policies?; In response to the first question, I argue that states rely on a combination of domestic characteristics and behavioral signals to form probabilistic beliefs about how other states are likely to behave. Rarely, however, are states able to reach completely confident conclusions about the intentions of others. Intentions are inherently difficult to discern and may be easy to change. The critical question then becomes how states incorporate probabilistic, but not certain, beliefs into their strategies. To answer this question, I argue that uncertainty about intentions leads governments to pursue hedging strategies that combine elements of balancing and cooperation. Hedging allows states to protect themselves should a state prove to have malign intentions, but also allows states to benefit from opportunities for cooperation. This argument directly challenges a prominent alternative "worst-case" realist argument that maintains that uncertainty about intentions compels states simply to assume the worst about others' intentions and balance against their capabilities. In addition, I refute alternative psychological and constructivist arguments.; I empirically evaluate the argument against alternative arguments using a series of case studies of rising great powers in the international system. I examine how states viewed the intentions of four different rising great powers: imperial Germany (1871--1894), the United States (1895--1901), interwar Germany (1925--1936), and the Soviet Union (1941--1946). In general, I find evidence that states did not simply assume the worst about these rising powers' intentions; instead, they formed probabilistic beliefs based on domestic characteristics and behavioral signals and employed a variety of strategies in response including hedging.; The dissertation has critical implications for both international relations theory and contemporary policy issues. For international relations theory, the argument suggests an interactive relationship between assessments of material capabilities and beliefs about intentions. For policy, the dissertation offers suggestions for judging and responding to the intentions of potential adversaries. |
