Search

Abstract: Asian balance of power is changing rapidly due to rapid and simultaneous rise of the two Asian powers, China and India. Both countries have great power ambition and potentiality. They have more than one billion people, huge and rising economy, and growing military, industrial, and scientific capabilities. Their large geographical size and geo-strategic location also make them key actors in Asian politics. Future Asian security, stability and peace will absolutely depend on the relationship between these two countries. The question is: how these two countries have been engaging with one another since the end of the Cold War? What factors influencing their relations? This paper discusses these two questions. The paper is divided into the following sections: section one looks at the brief history of the relationship; section two discusses positive aspects of their relationship; section three examines negative aspects of their future relationship; and last section synthesizes the paper and makes a conclusion.Key Words: China, India, Sino-Indian relations, Asian balance of power, peace, and stability. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why do some leaders choose foreign policies that flout the constraints posed by international structures? This paper argues that leaders possess varying beliefs about their state's proficiency in different areas of foreign policy, or "national efficacy beliefs." When sufficiently strong, these beliefs inspire leaders to act boldly, even when international structures offer incentives for restraint. Strong martial efficacy beliefs inspire leaders to challenge more powerful opponents on the battlefield, while strong moral efficacy beliefs prompt leaders to engage in costly forms of cooperation even when the relevant international institutions are weak. In constrast, weaker senses of martial and moral efficacy produce policies that are much more sensitive to structural constraints. The paper outlines how this framework can explain why the foreign policies of both China and India have become more conservative over the past six decades. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

American hegemony has passed its peak. The twenty-first century will see a more multi-polar international system. Yet Western European countries may not be the United States' main foils in decades to come. Four new poles of the international system are now widely known in the business and financial press as the "BRICs economies" (Brazil, Russia, India, and China). Does the concept of "the BRICs" have meaning within a rigorous political science framing? From the perspective of an economic liberal employing neoclassical assumptions to understand the world economy, the category's justification is surprisingly weak. In contrast, a political or economic realist's framing instructs us to focus on states that are increasing their relative material capabilities—as each of the four is. Finally, within a liberal institutionalist's mental model, the BRICs countries are a compelling set, yet one with a deep cleavage between two sub-groups: large emerging powers likely to remain authoritarian or revert to that state, and those that are securely democratic. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]