Trust helps to address uncertainties in the international community. Photo: TUCHONG

Today, an increasing number of international relations scholars are focusing on inter-state trust. However, research on this topic diverges notably in three notable ways: first, there is a lack of consensus on fundamental issues; second, scholars reject one another’s interpretations of trust; and third, there is little overlap in the research approaches adopted. 

Multidimensionality of trust 

The conceptual multidimensionality of trust gives rise to diverse interpretations, forming the basis of significant scholarly debate. Most people view trust as a purely “psychological activity,” while in fact, it is also a “cognitive activity” that relies on logical reasoning and data analysis. 

In the field of international studies, there is little consensus on whether trust exists between states. Skeptics argue against the existence of inter-state trust for three reasons. First, states, political parties, and governments are impersonal organizations. Second, international politics is a battleground for interests, power struggles, and security rivalries. Third, placing trust in other states is tantamount to exposing one’s vulnerabilities at the mercy of others.

However, the personification of states often constitutes the prerequisite for studying international issues, as international relations begin with interpersonal relations. The issue of trust exists wherever humans exist. Trust and suspicion are not mutually exclusive; rather, they form a proportional relationship in which complete trust or distrust is virtually nonexistent. Trust helps to address uncertainties in the international community. Without basic trust in the external world, states tend to find themselves in an ontological insecurity dilemma, potentially driving them into isolationism and even militarism or extremism. Distrust serves to prevent external threats and prudently safeguard national interests. States consistently weigh trust against distrust in their thought and behavior. 

Even if interstate-trust does exist, its role remains a point of contention among scholars. Many regard trust as a by-product of core variables such as interests, power, institutions, and beliefs. In reality, trust is both a dependent and an independent variable. For instance, while international institutions foster trust, their establishment and functioning also rely on trust. 

A common view asserts that international cooperation does not necessitate trust as long as it can yield sufficient benefits, or is backed by strong institutional guarantees or credible threats. However, this “benefit substitution” theory has two flaws. First, trust precedes cooperation on the temporal sequence of “trust formation-cooperation-benefit realization.” Second, while the benefits of international cooperation can be quantified by means of advanced technologies such as big data, risks persist, requiring states to maintain a subjective belief in the realization of those benefits. 

The “institution substitution” theory fails to consider that trust does not disappear in institutionally guaranteed cooperation; instead, it shifts or transforms. For example, trust between Country A and Country B is redirected toward or reshaped into mutual trust in International Institution C. If C fails, trust issues between A and B will likely resurface. Similarly, cooperation among strangers is possible because interpersonal trust is transferred into or embodied within broader social institutions. 

The “threat substitution” theory similarly neglects the fact that there remains room for trust to play a role even in coerced cooperation scenarios. For example, under threat of force, Japan signed the Treaty of Peace and Amity with the US in 1854, which reflects its assessment that cooperation with the US was preferable to resistance, as well as its reluctance to face the consequences of confrontation. 

Directions for theoretical construction 

Given the conceptual complexity and multidimensionality of trust, understanding a particular dimension of trust in a reductive fashion and developing theories accordingly leads to static, fragmented research approaches. In light of this, three directions for the theoretical construction of inter-state trust should be prioritized. 

Dynamic trust studies: Trust is continuously undergoing adjustment, influenced by multiple potential “input” factors that ultimately shape the dynamic nature of the “output” of trust-based actions. Therefore, trust should not be defined as a fixed, static concept. 

Integrated trust studies: The multiple dimensions of trust are not interchangeable, although their respective roles vary across contexts. Various research approaches are complementary rather than mutually exclusive. International relations scholars should explore more interdisciplinary, integrative approaches, breaking down the barriers between macro, meso, and micro level research, as well as between rationalist, psychological, and sociological perspectives. 

Quantifiable trust studies: Considering that trust is both rational and irrational, objective and subjective, it is challenging to create indicators for this variable. Combining qualitative and quantitative methods allows for identifying specific indicators of trust formation and loss, thereby building multi-indicator systems to complement qualitative research. 

Bao Guangjiang is an associate professor from the School of International Relations at Xiamen University. 

Edited by WANG YOURAN