自 1958 年 Organski 提出權力轉移理論（Power transition theory）以來，其有效地解釋了大國間的戰爭，並成功地挑戰權力平衡理論（Balance of power theory），成為解釋國際戰爭之主流理論。其主要論述為：當一國之權力與另一國相近時，若該國對另一國或
現狀不滿意，則該國極有可能發動戰爭。Lemke（2002）進一步將權力轉移理論應用至區域戰爭，主張權力轉移理論不僅適用於霸權戰爭，亦能有效解釋區域戰爭的發生。然而，當本文檢視個別東北亞國家的衝突行為時，卻發現東北亞國家，尤其中國大陸與日本，有著與權力轉移理論假設不同的行為模式。具體而言，本文以量化統計和質化分析比較方式分別檢視 1918 年至 2007 年間東北亞爭霸
Power transition theory (PTT) has effectively explained the concept of war among great-power states and has successfully competed with the balance of power theory since Organski proposed it in 1958. PTT's main argument is as follows: when one state's power approaches that of another state and it is dissatisfied, it is highly likely that the state will initiate war. Lemke (2002) further applies PTT to regional wars and argues that PTT is powerful in explaining both hegemonic wars and regional wars. This paper follows Lemke's definition of regional dyads and focuses on Northeast Asia. However, both the statistical and qualitative analyses in this paper reveal results that are distinctly different from PTT's arguments, in particular on the dyad of China and Japan. To be specific, this paper examines the power ratio and state dissatisfaction of Northeast Asian dyads from 1918-2007 and further induces the conflict behavior of Japan and China by means of Boolean algebra. The results show that the shrinking power gap is not as influential on China's and Japan's behavior as PTT argues. Instead, China will initiate war when it has greater power than another state. China will also initiate war when it is highly dissatisfied. As for Japan, although dissatisfaction will lead it to war, the superiority of its military and economic power has more of an influence on its conflictual behavior. A case study on the first Sino-Japanese war in 1894 concurs with the arguments of this paper. Finally, the results of this paper also correspond with the story that China still follows the principle of ＂tao guang yang hui＂ proposed by Deng Xiao-ping.