現有國際關係研究對於霸權主導國際制度已有一定之發現，不過對崛起強權參與建構國際制度的行為傾向，則附屬於霸權的相關討論，而未獲得一定之重視。霸權論一般認為，崛起強權在未發生霸權戰爭前，只能被迫遵循霸權主導 下的國際制度，唯有在崛起強權取得霸權地位之後，方能展示是創建國際制度的領導能力。霸權論由相對物質權力層面探索的崛起強權描述，僅能凸顯霸權戰爭的爆發，未必能勾勒出崛起強權的全面行為，亦未能解釋霸權繼承者的條件。 發生霸權更迭之前，並非沒有發生崛起強權參與建構國際制度的案例，例如德意..

The exploration of the rising power has been subordinated to the arguments of hegemony and revisionist states. The Hegemonic Stability Theory and Power Transfer Theory have argued that the rising power has to follow international instructions set according to the hegemonic interests before the break out of hegemony war through which the rising power revolts the status quo hegemon. This approach might describe the reasons of hegemonic war; however, it might not be able to explain the overall behavior patterns of rising power in the construct..

近年來國際關係理論面臨可能終結的危機，國際關係理論的三大典範：現實主義、自由主義與建構主義的發展呈現停滯的狀態，理論與政策應用之間的鴻溝也逐漸加深，以中程理論為導向的經驗研究逐漸取代了傳統國際關係理論強調通則化與系統性的分析架構。儘管國際關係理論仍有其重要性，但不論現實主義、自由主義與建構主義皆沒有預測到中國的崛起對國際政治所造成的變化，美國學界也開始反思過去對華交往政策的國際關係理論基礎。就臺灣的研究者而言，隨著從事中國大陸研究的限制增加，研究中國外交是否還能像過去那樣地依賴國際關係理..

In recent years, international relations theory has faced a potential crisis of obsolescence. The development of the three major paradigms—realism, liberalism, and constructivism—has stagnated, and the gap between theory and policy implications has widened. Empirical research guided by middle-range theories are replacing traditional international relations theory that emphasize generalization and systematic frameworks. Although international relations theory remains important, neither realism, liberalism, nor constructivism have..