國際關係理論是與現實的國際政治高度聯結的，此一現象在當今表現地極為明顯。美國與中國的戰略競爭召喚著能夠掌握與回應現況的國關理論，其中尤以「權力轉移」和「歷史與國關」兩類文獻最具有解釋力與發展性。本文從權力轉移理論的核心論點與適用的範圍條件切入，接著聚焦於此一理論的兩個關鍵變項：權力差距與挑戰者對現狀的滿意程度，並延伸到戰爭的爆發條件與對理論的挑戰，最後是討論崛起國與支配性強權的新興理論框架。在這一部份又分為三個部分：崛起國對支配性強權的策略選擇、支配型強權對於崛起國的策略選擇，和崛起國與支配性強權的策略組合。在處理完權力轉移的相關理論後，我們進入「歷史與國關」的討論，特別是著重於對於中國對外行為的歷史理解。我們首先討論了從歷史的角度來看今日中國「再起」的必要性，而後提出用「是否跨時」與「是否跨域」的兩個向度來把文獻分類，接下來進入歷史與國關的論辯焦點：文化是否又如何扮演影響中國對外行為的重要角色。我們提出兩種答案：普適論（包括文化無關與現實含攝文化的看法）與特殊論（包括權力與理念分配並列與階層滿足兩種型態）。最後，我們對於霸權與挑戰的國關理論詮釋做出總結，強調權力轉移理論可以捕捉美中爭霸的客觀因素，而歷史與國關可以深化對於爭霸的主觀理解，二者對於理解當代的霸權與挑戰都是不可或缺的。

International relations theories are always closely connected to real world international politics. This connection between theory and reality is particularly pronounced in today’s world. The strategic competition between the US and the PRC stimulates IR theories that can grasp and respond to the international reality. Among those the “Power Transition Theory” and “History and IR approach” are of the greatest explanatory potential. This paper begins with the core arguments and applications of the power transition theory, then focuses on its two critical variables: power gap between the hegemon and the challenger, and level of satisfaction with status quo by the challenger. The discussion then extends to the conditions of war and challenges to the theory. Finally, we discuss a nascent theoretical framework that stems from and critically dialogues with the original theory. Here we lay out policy options by the hegemon and the challenger, and examine the impact of their combinations. We then shift to the History and IR approach, with particular attention to the historical understanding of China’s external behaviors. We emphasize the need to take a historical perspective in analyzing the “resurgence of China.” Then we offer a typology for the history and IR literature, based on whether the work concerned transcends “time” and “space.” We focus on the major debate in the literature: “Does culture have a strong impact on China’s external behaviors?” The generalists argue that traditional IR theories can fully explain China without resorting to its unique culture, or that the cultural and institutional edifice that seemed to have strong impact on China’s behaviors were reflection of the underlying balance of power. The culturalists counter that ideas were indispensable to fully understand China, or that culture constitutes the higher echelon of China’s psychological hierarchy. We conclude that both power transition theory and history and IR approach are indispensable for understanding hegemonic rivalry in today’s world.