Monday, 6 May 2019

Realism and English School International Relationship Theory

Realism and English School International Relationship Theory Currently, the English school theorizing approach has attracted attention due to the emergence of constructivism in the research of international relations. The English School of International relations remains the most ancient and important competitor to the US mainstream. The theory purports to provide an account for global relations that mix history and theory, agency and structure, and powers and morality. The transformations to interstate relations and the emerging issue being experienced in the globe currently require new strategies of approaching global relations, without eliminating the rational preferences entirely. The English School is an overlooked theory that can permit theorizing the new relations that need embracing a more accurate assessment of international relations. Realism shares an emphasize on the global system with the English school international relations theory and concentrates on the nation-state roles and ensures a wide presumption that every nation-state gets motivated by the national interests such as expanding economic systems, political systems, military and resources as explored by (Burchill, Linklater and Devetak, 89-90). The essay will focus on Realism and English School theory to evaluate and analyze the major arguments in “A Tripolar Century: the USA, China, and India” by Arvind Virmani. Background Information Burchill, Linklater, and Devetak, (90) claim that some of the theorists in the English school include Vincent, R., Adam Watson, Hedley Bull, Hebert Butterfield, and Charles Manning among others. The English school international relations theory originated from the post Second World War 2 era where most writers in Britain started to search for options to the liberalist and realist perspective of global relations. The early scholars desired to enhance a new method of thinking that viewed the global society as a central way between revolutionist and systemic logics realist accounts that oversaw the state system downfall as a whole. The theory developed due to the discomforts theorists possessed with the presumption that associated with liberalism and realism thought of international relations. The English School of global relations theory emphasizes on the state categorization issue within the international structure. The theorists concentrate on international society development and the implications of the community as well as the establishment of the society. According to (Buzan, 365), the English school has concentrated in sovereignty and it claims that sovereignty is something developed and can exist due to the acknowledgment of sovereignty by the actors. Recognition remains the 1st phase in the construction of the global society and the English school scholars highlights various illustrations from history where individuals failed to get granted the recognition as a sovereign state system member. Some states may aim towards developing recognition of their sovereignty; however, the actors in the global system may reject the recognition. For instance, in 1942, China's sovereignty statehood wad rejected when the western nations renounced the equivalent treaties because, in the 19th century, the states were defined by the by a standard civilization that established conditions for the internal authorities that aligned with the European beliefs and values. Although China worked with America before the statehood was recognized, there existed disagreement on the beliefs and norms advocated by their leadership (Little, 398). The English school claim that the mutual recognition factors remain highly important for the English School international society understanding, however, it's not an adequate condition for its implementation. The actors are required to possess limited common interests, including the need for stability, freedom for travel and trade among others. The independence of sovereign nations remains a significant limiting element in the achievement of common objectives and states with a higher degree of economic interdependence have a higher likelihood of creating institutions that will lead to common purposes and interests. Liberalism and realism remain the 2 dominant international relations theories, however, other theories with more centered international relations positions have emerged as discussed by (Burchill, Linklater and Devetak, 70). Realism and English School Buzan, (366) claim that the English School has been viewed as a new option to realism, but there exists some overlap between the English school and realism. Realism in international relations uses the Westphalia system as a global law that existed in the initial phases of history but was viewed and implemented by most developed European authorities from the 18th century. The approach relies on the nation-state sovereignty absolutization and the foreground significance of national interest. The realism perceives any attempt to develop global legal institutions that regulate the internal relations processes depending on the values and norms of the international character with doubt and limiting the nations-states sovereignty is viewed as romanticism and idealism. Hans Morgenthau concentrated on 5 postulates and principles of the English school including the society is governed by objective regulations and legislation, the key thing in global affairs includes interest, described in relation to power and strength d state interests change. More so, morality rejection is needed in politics and the major issue in global relations is how specific policy impacts the power and interests of the nation. International relations and liberalism Burchill, Linklater, and Devetak, (65) highlight that the liberals include the major opponents of the realism and they believe that the human nature and the nature of the society, as well as its political expression in the states, remain subject to a qualitative transformation. The political societies can evolve and go beyond the state boundaries, individualism and national egoism. Therefore, under specific conditions, the liberalism theory presumes the possibility of integration, collaboration, and cooperation between various states on the basis of common values and moral ideals. John Locke’s human nature neutrality inspired the liberals and they base their ideas on the Hobbes concept that individuals remain evil, aggressive and selfish. Liberalist believes democratic regimes connect with each other in a similar manner that their residents connect with their country and the relations depend on peaceful rivalry rationalization of procedures and interactions and acknowledging what is appropriate. For the English school theory, history remains a critical factor in gaining insight on every state and how they engaged with each other as well as the means for their relations in the future. Review using Realism and English School International Relations Theory Burchill, Linklater, and Devetak, (93) state that since the end of the 20th-century economic resources were viewed as less significant for the sovereignty and security of a nation compared to the military abilities. The international relations thinkers recognized the impact of economic elements and in history, the character and meaning of economic power remain distinct. Realism states that states try to amass resources and the connections between nations are identified by their power levels, which in turn identifies their political, economic and military capabilities of states. Economic development will drive the twenty-first century globalized universe and the power of states will rely on the national economies of the states Fioramonti (110-112) claims that the GDP or the gross domestic product includes the market value of the final services/products from a country in a specific year and nations are grouped by nominal Gross Domestic Product estimates firm statistical and financial institutions calculated by government formal exchange rates. However, the GDP fails to consider the differences in the cost of living in various nations and the outcome remain different from year to year due to the fluctuation rates of the nation's currency. The fluctuations may modify the rankings of every state, but they don’t affect the population’s standard of living. The national wealth comparisons depend on the purchasing power parity and eliminate the exchange rate flaw in the GDP. However, it fails to reflect the economic output value in global trade, does not consider the distinction of quality of services/products among states, and it needs additional estimation compared to the nominal GDP. According to Fioramonti, (27), internal relations has used globalization to attain its objectives by eliminating various constraints providing the middle and low income economies with an opportunity to develop faster compared to the more advanced economies because their income remains below that of the advanced nations, but the growth rate remains different with some states developing slower than others. For instance, the Asian states have experienced faster growth and they remain the fastest developing economies internationally in relation to their GDP. They include South Korea, China, Hong Kong, and Singapore and their economy will attain the income/technology frontier. More so, the most populous states, including India and China remain the fastest developing economies internationally because the economic size depends on the population size as discussed by (Virmani, 4). Power Potential Smith (par. 1) states that America remains the globe’s largest economy and possesses a GDP of 20.512 trillion US dollars which is attributed to the large population in the nation, high incomes, moderate joblessness, capital investment, technological innovations, and a young population. The national economies rankings have transformed with time and the US has maintained its position. China implemented a market-based economy through deregulation and privatization which has seen its ranking rise from the 9th position in the year 1978 to 2nd after the US in the year 2016. Its GDP increased from two percent in the year 1980 to fifteen percent in the year 2016. However, the European Union remains the 2nd largest economy internationally when supranational entities are involved. More so, India has also experienced an increasing economy since it adopted economic liberalization in the 1990s and the economy has been growing rapidly. States with the smallest economic growth include Tuvalu, Montserrat, Kiribati and Nauru due to their small populations, foreign aid dependency, low incomes, demographic issues, inadequate natural resources. Goddard and Nexon (8) states that realism shares an emphasize on the global system with the English school international relations theory and concentrates on the nation-state roles and ensures a wide presumption that every nation-state gets motivated by the national interests such as expanding economic systems, political systems, military, and resources. It states that nations must depend on their resources to enforce agreements with other nations, secure their interests, as well as sustain international and domestic order. Military power result from coherent security structure, including virtual, environment, political, economic and military security. Realism associates some significant to military power and claims that anarchy in the globe develops a competitive setting and the pursuit of power remains significant in sustaining self-security. Goddard and Nexon (9) highlight that defensive realism claim that states must obtain enough power to ensure security while offensive realism argues that nations must obtain optimal power. America undertakes the offensive realism because its expenditure on military accounts for almost half of the entire globe spending and it portrays hegemony in the global political arena. Economic and military securities remain connected because a weak economy possesses a weak military and vice versa. The economic power can enhance military power as well as act as a weapon against rivals. In contrast, the liberal theory considers cooperation between 2 nations and claims that the regimes can develop economic stability and benefits to every party. For instant, the European Union contains liberty, democracy, juridical and free market and every state benefits (Eriksson, 123). There exist various reasons for the rise in the economic power versus military power role including enhanced economic interdependence indicates that war disruptions possess a negative impact on the economy, increasing the military action costs and minimizing the probability. More so, conventional battle against states with nuclear abilities remains very risky, minimizing the usefulness as well as the probability. Additionally, the capacity of non-state actors to result in adverse damages with limited military power minimizes the power if threats of the conventional military. As a result, the European Union would possess a greater role and India’s relative power would be improved over China. Therefore, the importance of military power in the past may reduce as soft power becomes more significant than the military power as discussed by (Virmani, 4). Eriksson (80) claims that homogeny depends on a set of norms and rules, which govern the regimes regulating the internal economy. The global regimes play the role of identifying the wealth distribution processes on the global economy. However, realists observe that relative gains remain major obstacles for global cooperation and the main states aim at influencing the regime design in their favor such as economic growth, foreign direct investment, and profit distribution. Therefore, the international hegemon develops regimes that enhance its leadership and ensure that they suit other nations and their economic interests to ensure that they sustain the order. Some of the aggressive states may utilize their economic abilities to meet their imperialistic desires and enhance their power. For instance, the currency battles between the US and China have impacted the international trade system. The international economy is utilized by hegemonic power to maintain the status quo and defend its position politically. For example, actions by Russia in the 2013-2015 crises in Ukraine experienced a strong reaction from the western powers through economic sanction. However, the politicization of economic connections remains inevitable in the globe when the military method is unsuccessful as they can result in more instability. Polarity Monteiro states that realists attribute the global system as anarchic and claim that no authority is available above the nation, resulting in sovereignty and every country must search for its interests. Polarity entails the various methods by which a certain nation that exerts power/authority in the global system and they include hegemony, bipolar, unipolar and multipolar. The system type remains dependent on the power distribution and influence of a country globally or domestically. Unipolarity in universal politics entails power distribution where one country exercises most of the military, economic and cultural influence. Unipolarity includes an interstate structure and not an empire and it remains anarchical resulting firm the unfinished unipole power preponderance. A strong power cannot demonstrate positive management globally; hence weaker nations have the freedom to obtain their policy preferences independently (9-10). Additionally, Jervis (190) highlights that unipolar structures have a single great power and do not experience any rivalry. Therefore, a unipolar state excels in military power, economic abilities, resource endowment, and the population size in addition to the foreign policy acts such as participating actively in binding the domestic institutions. It also participates in developing ad hoc coalitions with the aim of addressing economic and security challenges, respecting the 2nd tier state sovereignty and gaining legitimacy with limited coercion. For instance, the post-cold battle global systems remain unipolar and the US spending on defense constitutes half of the military expenditure globally. More so, Monteiro (12) claims that Russia’s eighty percent of its total defense expenditures in the development and defense research budget is directed towards its future rivals including China as well as unmatched international power projection abilities. The unipolar system remains beneficial because it promotes peace and eliminates wars among strong powers and limited competition for security among key nations. It eliminates the hegemonic competition issue from international politics and minimizes the salient of the balance of power politics among the major nations. Dall'Agnol (502) claims that bipolar entail power distribution in 2 nations with the majority of cultural, military and economic influences regionally and universally. For instance, during the cold war, the communists' nations were influenced by USSR while the capitalists and western nations were influenced by the US. The alliances in bipolar remain long term and the interests don't change and the international agencies remain ineffective but can be effective in weaker alliances with the aim of mediating the actors. Monteiro (15) claims that the multi-polarity entails the power distribution of economic, cultural and military influence in more than 2 nations resulting in a balance of power. In the balance of power systems, the important regulations and norms of the structure remain clear to every state actor and it results in peace. However, if they fail to follow the norms, the balance of power system remains unstable. The states create alliances for a certain reason, with a short period and change depending on the advantage instead of ideology. Hegemony stipulates that the stronger nations foster global orders that remain stable until the differential development in power results in a dissatisfied nation with the ability to challenge the dominant country leadership. The clearer the focus on the power concentration on the leading country, the more peaceful the global order connected with it as stated by Dall'Agnol (512). Tri-polarity Virmani and Tellis, (par. 1-3) highlight that the potential of power in China is expected to be equivalent to that of the US in the year 2027 and India’s power is expected to equal the US power by the year 2040. The transition from a unipolar system in the relative potential power will impact the political structure. The transition from the US unipolar system as the only superpower to multipolar structures with several actors and bipolar system with China and the US and a tripolar structure with India, China, and the US as the leading international powers will impact the global political system. America has reacted to the rise of China with realism and participating in in alliances and open seas in Asia. More so, a close connection between the US and India remain critical in facing a growing India because America is constrained by fiscal and political concerns including mounting debts. The partnership will remain critical for both countries by permitting them to share in development and research such as addressing the strategic concerns. According to Virmani, (8-10), India's population will grow 3.5 times more than America while in China, it will decrease from 4.6 to 3.5 time that of America, hence population size will not remain a factor in the tripolar transition. The major element of tripolar transition includes income convergence between America, India, and China as well as other wealthy nations. In the next fifty years, India and China will be considered as high-income states. China's GDP and PPP will grow from eleven percent to forty-seven percent of the US's. More so, India's GDP will rise from seven percent to thirty-six percent of the US GDP. Therefore, the polity and the international economy will change due to the income convergence because the two most populous states will bridge the income gap that was introduced by the industrial revolution. The polarity translation will enhance the relationship between the US, China, and India resulting in stability and peace in Asia as well as economic prosperity. Virmani, (10) states that China and India must establish cooperative and inclusive systems in Asia that will lead to the peaceful growth of the states. For instance, India, China and other oil importers in Asia could bargain jointly with the cartels that supply oil to eliminate unjust charges. Asia could also create an Economic Community in partnership with the European Economic Community in Indonesia, China, and India as well as other ASEAN states. The Indian and the US economy when combined can be stronger than China's alone and it may have significant implications for technological and economic cooperation between India and America. US must ensure that it bridges the technological and the economic gap between China and India immediately to ensure that India serves as a more powerful pole in Asia with the aim of extending the action freedom of other nations in Central and West Asia as well as other ASEAN nations since India and the US share important democratic, institutional, social and human values. The World’s Largest Economies 2019 to 2020 (FocusEconomics, par, 1) Country Rate of GDP Growth in percentage Nominal GDP in USD Trillion 2019 2020 2019 2020 USA 2.5% 1.7% 21.506 21.338 China 6.3% 6.1% 14.242 15.678 Japan 1.1% 0.6% 5.231 5.424 Germany 1.8% 1.6% 4.210 4.487 UK 1.4% 1.5% 2.982 3.198 India 7.4% 7.4% 2.935 3.304 France 1.7% 1.6% 2.934 3.125 Italy 1.1% 1.0% 2.161 2.279 Brazil 2.3% 2.5% 2.095 2.201 Canada 2.0% 1.6% 1.822 1.888 FocusEconomics highlights that from the table, the USA still remains the largest economy internationally, and the economic growth in America is projected to stand at 2.5 percent in 2019 and 1.7 percent in 2020. More so, China is the 2nd largest economy globally and is expected to increase by 6.3 percent in 2018 and 6.1 percent in 2020. India is the 6th largest economy internationally with a projected growth rate of 7.4 percent in 2018 and 7.4 percent in 2020. Japan is t 3rd largest economy, followed by Germany and the UK. However, their growth rate seems low and limited standing at 1.1 percent in 2019 and 0.6 percent in 2020 in Japan, 1.8 percent in 2019 and 1.6 percent in 2020 in Germany and 1.4 percent in 2019 and 1.5 percent in 2020 in the UK. India overtook the economic growth of France in 2018 and is expected to overtake the UK economy in 2020. Therefore, the US, China, and India will become the superpowers and are expected to become tripolar (par. 2-5). Regional Power Fioramonti (100) states that in international relations, regional powers defines the power within geographic areas and shaped the polarity of a region. Since the twentieth century, military power, economic progress, and alliances have transformed the Asian regional power balance. Recently, economic power and military power re-balancing among nations such as India and China has led to a significant modification in the Asia geopolitics. Japan and China have gained more influence outside the region and the regions possess closer military and economic ties with Japan, South Korea, and the United States as major powers in the regions with communist reigns of North Korea and China. Virmani, (15-16 ) claim that the economy of China will remain similar size as Australia, South Korea, Indonesia, Russia, Japan, and India aggregate economy while its power potential will be equal to Asia's 6 largest economies combined power potential in the mid-century. Therefore, the 6 democratic states must consider enhancing their technological and economic cooperations in the next 2 decades. More so, the ASEAN and India nation must develop cooperation agreement depending on the ASEAN FTA agreement framework signed in the year 2004. More so, by mid-century, Russia power potential will develop to exceed the power potential of Germany, but less than Japan's power potential making Russia and Japan regional powers. To ensure a consistent balance of power in Asia, Shina and India must bridge the technology and economic gap. Goddard and Nexon (10) states that the US GDP continues to lead internationally and remains higher compared to Germany, Japan, and China and Germany, and Japan as well as India, Italy, UK and France remain US allies while China, Russia, and Brazil are not committed as the US allies indicating power imbalance. The Brazil, India, Russia, China, and South Africa or the BRICS surpass the US and the Europe GDP combined by the year 2020 and China's GDP might equal US GDP by the year 2020. However, the BRICS nations are not a consistent alliance that can support China development. The balance of power states that meaningful development of power is any actor globally might result and interrupt the recent configuration of power. The balance of power realism theory states that the most effective strategy to react to the development of China and India as rising powers includes establishing powerful alliances with the aim of creating consistent counterbalances and India can be used to assist in balancing China. Virmani, (17-18) claims that in the 1st quarter of the 21st century, China will be able to challenge the American power in Asia and will remain the 2nd pole in the 2nd quarter of the century depending on the strategic technology levels and the Balance of Power in Asia. More so, India will become the 3rd pole in the tripolar globe because its power potential will be more than that of Japan by the tear 2035 and fifty percent of the US power potential. In the last twenty-four years, the per capita GDP has increased 3.7 percent annually and the GDP has grown by 5.8 percent annually. The elements that have made the growth sustainable and feasible include the demographic transition, FDI and modern services. The state has experienced a growth in the IT-enabled services and Information Technology by double digits. Despite the non-traditional products/services exports possessing a considerable share of the total exports in India, they have a limited section of the total economy. Virmani and Tellis, (par. 3-4) claim that the nation may become the largest suppliers of the services/products globally in the next decades including social, educational medical, financial, and research and development services. The state's foreign direct investment potential remains unexploited compared to other nations such as Vietnam, Indonesia, China, Thailand, Malaysia, and Singapore. The state must double its FDI to enhance its growth and productivity. The state continues to experience demographic transition and it remains at the positive phase resulting in an increased economy in the country. More so, the age profile changes have increased the rates of savings leading to adequate investment funds. The intrinsic timidity in the character of Indians creates a gap between the India and China actual power leading to global peace risks and France, Germany, Japan, and the US may be required to assist India in gaining international role. Buzan, (80-90) claims that China possesses a greater share of the national profits and the capacity to have lower tax rates as well as higher rates of investment resulting in economic development. Its major economic growth drivers include exports and the FDI and the state has implemented the FDI export-led development strategy which converted the nation from autarchy into an important connection in the international production chain. Asia may experience a unbalance power if the growth of Japan remains slower than anticipated and the and the development of India does not align with the predictions. It remains critical for the Asia democratic states to cooperate closely and offer mutual support to ensure power balance and peace during the tripolar transition. Eriksson (82-83) highlights that the US continues to be a leader in the powerhouse if technological, economic and military prowess and India and China bridging in the gaps. For instance, the US GDP is estimated to reach twenty-five trillion, China nineteen trillion and India five trillion. However, India must improve and invest more in its technology, innovations, health sectors, education, and infrastructure to push the figures further. America and China, as well as India, have been making various business deals and they desire to deepen the reforms developing an investment-friendly setting and in exchange, the US high tech firms continue to commit to investing in the states enhancing the tripolar transition. Fioramonti (120) claims that the transformation remains evident in the economic and geopolitical systems where Indian and China globalization procedure and American driven re-globalization remain in terms with each other. China boasts of uplifting more than six hundred million citizens from poverty over a short period indicating its effective adjustment to the globalization forces before 2008 to 2009 financial crisis. In contrast, India has overcome the financial crisis by lifting approximately one hundred citizens from poverty. However, the state can uplift more people by adjusting appropriately and developing strategies that can assist it to cope with the regional socio-political-economic drivers and internalization. According to Fioramonti (119-120) stipulates that there exists a various defining connection between the three nations because they have reached some bilateral relations consensus on how to deal and enhance their relationships. The consensus between China and the US include sovereignty as advocated by the realism and English school of international relations by preventing wars, confrontations, and conflicts and promote peace, prosperity, development and win-win integration. More so, India and China possess an economic cooperation consensus and do not permit the territory issues to hinder their detailed strategic cooperation. However, India must recognize the asymmetry connected to its military and economic power in the tripolarity. For instance, China and the US possess a trading volume of more than five hundred and fifty-five US dollars. However, India's combined trade volume with China and the US accounts for only one hundred and seventy US dollars. China and the US trade volume results from various dialogue mechanisms between them across security and economic systems. Therefore, India must aim at reaching higher trade levels with the states to occupy the 3rd pole in the tripolar. Its role would be defined by its regional political and economic drivers and must review various fields, including skill and capacity development, labor force reforms, governance, infrastructure, bureaucracy and taxation as explored by (Goddard and Nexon, 14-15). Recommendations Kurien (par. 2-3) claim that for a state to become a superior power internationally, it must command military superiority and economic power in addition to nuclear abilities and only India, China and America can achieve the stature. India must aim at exploiting its nuclear abilities, military superiority and economic power to remain a 3rd pole in the tripolar. America and India will become closer because the US has acknowledged that in economic and strategic issues, India offers provides an overdependence on China and the 2 nations remain natural allies due to the various values and beliefs they share. Therefore, India and America will have nuclear power and market-dominated economies will handle China. Some of the challenges that may hinder India in becoming the 3rd pole include the deterioration in governance and adverse impact on public services/products requiring the state to make various reforms. China continues to realize its economic potential and will challenge the US economic strength internationally. The policymakers in India have acknowledged that the US concerns concerning the nature of the rise of China remain responsible for the US interest in India. According to Virmani, (29), the economy of China will remain greater than America's economy and twice as great by mid-century in connection to GDP. Therefore, China's power potential will remain equal to that of America in the 2nd quarter of the 21st century making the globe bipolar. In the next 5 years, the economy of India will remain larger than the economy of Japan and will become the 3rd largest internationally. In 2040, the GDP at purchasing power parity of India will be equal to that of America making the globe tripolar by mid-century. Within a decade, China's power will peak at 2.4 times relative to India power at 3.5 times, however, the gap will bridge making India the 3rd pole and China the 2nd pole. As a result, peace in Asia will remain vital and India and China must maintain mutual equality and respect to ensure peace in the region. America must empower the technological and economic abilities to ensure that it benefits from labor supply from the young people in India through a detailed economic cooperation consensus. India must further bridge the technology gap with China by reviewing its processes, rules, and laws and acknowledge the US role in maintaining peace in Asia and ensure appropriate cooperation as stipulated by (Virmani and Tellis, par. 3). In conclusion, the paper focused on realism and English School theory to evaluate and analyze the major arguments in "A Tripolar Century: the USA, China, and India" by Arvind Virmani. Since the end of the 20th-century economic resources were viewed as less significant for the sovereignty and security of a nation compared to the military abilities. The international relations thinkers recognized the impact of economic elements and in history, the character and meaning of economic power remain distinct. Realism states that states try to amass resources and the connections between nations are identified by their power levels, which in turn identifies their political, economic and military capabilities of states. that realism shares an emphasize on the global system with the English school international relations theory and concentrates on the nation-state roles and ensures a wide presumption that every nation-state gets motivated by the national interests such as expanding economic systems, political systems, military, and resources. It states that nations must depend on their resources to enforce agreements with other nations, secure their interests, as well as sustain international and domestic order. Economic development will drive the twenty-first century globalized universe and the power of states will rely on the national economies of the states. The economy of China will remain greater than America's economy and twice as great by mid-century in connection to GDP. Therefore, China's power potential will remain equal to that of America in the 2nd quarter of the 21st century making the globe bipolar. In the next 5 years, the economy of India will remain larger than the economy of Japan and will become the 3rd largest internationally. In 2040, the GDP at purchasing power parity of India will be equal to that of America making the globe tripolar by mid-century. Within a decade, China's power will peak at 2.4 times relative to India power at 3.5 times, however, the gap will bridge making India the 3rd pole and China the 2nd pole. As a result, peace in Asia will remain vital and India and China must maintain mutual equality and respect to ensure peace in the region. America must empower the technological and economic abilities to ensure that it benefits from labor supply from the young people in India through a detailed economic cooperation consensus. India must further bridge the technology gap with China by reviewing its processes, rules, and laws and acknowledge the US role in maintaining peace in Asia and ensure appropriate cooperation. Works Cited Burchill, S, et al. Theories of International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan. 2005 . 15 April 2019. Buzan, B. An English School Perspective on "What Kind of World Order?", Cooperation and Conflict, Vol. 41, pp 364-369. 2006. 15 April 2019. Dall'Agnol, A. C. Balancing in unipolarity: who is afraid of the balance of power?. Brazilian Journal of International Relations. Vol. 7, No. 3. 2018. 15 April 2019. Eriksson, J. International Relations and Security in the Digital Age. Abington, Routledge. 2007. 15 April 2019. Fioramonti, L. The World After GDP. Economics, Politics and International Relations in the Post-Growth Era. Cambridge. 2017. 15 April 2019. FocusEconomies. The World's Top 10 Largest Economies. FocusEconomies. 2019. 15 April 2019 Goddard, S and D Nexon. The Dynamics of Global Power Politics: A Framework for Analysis. Journal of Global Security Studies, Volume 1, Issue 1, February 2016, Pages 4–18, 2016. 15 April 2019. Jervis, AR. Unipolarity: A Structural Perspective. World Politics. 61 (1): 188–231. 2009. 15 April 2019. Kroeber, A. R. China's Economy: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York, United States: Oxford University Press. 2016. 15 April 2019. Monteiro, N. Polarity and Power: U.S. Hegemony and China's Challenge. International Security. 36 (3). 2012. 15 April 2019. Smith, R. The World’s Biggest Economies in 2018.World Economic Forum. 2018. 15 April 2019 < https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/04/the-worlds-biggest-economies-in-2018/>. Virmani, A. A Tripolar Century: USA, China and India. Indian Council For Research On International Economic Relations . 2005. 14 April 2019. Virmani, A and A Tellis. Tripolar World: India, China, and the United States in the 21st Century. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 2011. 15 April 2019.

No comments:

Post a Comment