Introduction

Let me introduce you all to the definition of law, in other words, what is law?

It is, by definition, the system of rules that a particular country or a community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.

Or, in the words of eminent Jurist Salmond, law is the body of principles recognised and applied by the state in the administration of justice.

Now why am I stating the facts you may think. Well, I am not giving weight to my part of the writings here, I am giving weight to the situation of the country. How conveniently we twist and turn mere facts in the grab of amendments. Some sure are in our favour but what about the others that are not?

I shall begin with the necessity of amending provisions in the constitution. Provision for amendment in the constitution is made with a view to overcome the difficulties which may encounter in the future in working of the constitution. No generation has the monopoly of wisdom nor has it any right to place fetters on future generations to mould the machinery of government according to their requirements. If no provisions were made for the amendment of the constitution, the people would have recourse to extra constitutional method like revolution to change the constitution, as held in Keshavananda v/s the state of Kerala All India Report 1973 Supreme Court page number 1461. The power of amending the law is exercised by the parliament under Article 368 of the Indian Constitution.

The framers of the Indian Constitution were keen to avoid excessive rigidity. They were anxious to have a document which could grow with a growing nation, adapt itself to the changing need and circumstances of growing people. the nature of the ‘amending process’ envisaged by the framers of the constitution can be best understood by referring the following observation of the late Prime Minister Pandit Nehru – “When we want this constitution to be solid and permanent as we can make it, there is no permanence in the constitution. There should be a certain flexibility. If you make anything rigid and permanent, you stop the nation’s growth.”

In any event, we could not make this constitution so rigid that it cannot be adopted to changing conditions. When the world is in a period of transition, what we may do today may not be wholly applicable tomorrow.

The First World War broke out with the declaration of war by Austria-Hungary upon Serbia on 28 July 1914. Many other countries joined the war within the next few days on one side or the other. The war was fought between the Allied and Associated powers (Allies) on one side and the Central Powers on the other. The principal allies were France, the British Empire and Russia. Italy joined them in 1915. There were many other smaller Allies also. The United States remained neutral for three years but was compelled to enter the war on the side of the Allies in April 1917.

Japan had joined earlier. Russia withdrew from the war after the Bolshevik Revolution in November 1917 (October, according to the old calendar followed in Russia). The Central Powers were Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Turkish Empire. The war ended in November 1918 with the unconditional surrender of Germany. Formal peace treaties were signed after several months.

Events Leading To The First World War

The war between France and Prussia (the future German Empire) that lasted from 1870 to 1871 ended with a humiliating defeat for France. It lost the regions of Alsace and Lorraine, and was forced to pay a huge indemnity to Prussia. The Franco-Prussian War led to creation of a powerful German Empire with a military and industrial potential to further disrupt the European balance of power on the one hand and widespread resentment and desire for revenge among the French (revanchism) on the other.

With the accession of Wilhelm II to the German throne in 1888, the German foreign policy became more bellicose. The new German Emperor dismissed the skillful Otto von Bismarck as Chancellor. He also refused to renew the Reinsurance Treaty with Russia that maintained the fragile peace between Russia and Austria-Hungary as well as kept France isolated. That way Wilhelm II helped create an alliance between France and Russia (formed in 1892) that became the basis for the future Triple Entente.

Russo-Japanese rivalry over Manchuria and Korea reached its height with the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905). The outcome of the war against the Japanese was a major blow for the Russians who lost almost entire Baltic and Pacific fleet. The defeat also provoked a serious political crisis that led to the Russian Revolution of 1905. But the Russo-Japanese War also made an end to the Russian ambitions in the Far East and as a result, the Tsarist government focused its attention to Europe, in the first place to the Balkans. This intensified the old rivalry with Austria-Hungary that also had a great interest in the Balkans.

German militarism and especially the build up of naval power convinced Great Britain that Germany may soon establish itself as a dominant power on the Continent. In order to create a counterweight to the German Empire, the British decided to enter into an alliance with France that came to be known as Entente Cordiale. In 1907, Britain also entered into an alliance with Russia that was already in alliance with France. This formed the Triple Entente which in turn became the core of the Allies during World War I.

The Moroccan Crises – the Tangler Crisis (1905-1906) and Agadir Crisis (1911) – brought the European powers on the brink of war. Both crises were provoked by the Germans with an aim to cause tensions between France and Britain that just concluded an alliance. The result, however, was right the opposite. Instead of ‘softening’ Britain and bring it closer to the Central Powers, the Moroccan Crises further reinforced the Entente Cordiale and increased the British hostility towards Germany.

In 1908, Austria-Hungary decided to annex Bosnia and Herzegovina that was formally an integral part of the Ottoman Empire. The annexation of the provinces that were occupied by the Dual Monarchy since 1878 was bitterly opposed by Serbia that was closely related to the provinces both ethically and geographically. Serbia was supported by the Tsarist government and the crisis persisted into 1909. Russia failed to win as firm support from France or Britain as Vienna enjoyed from Germany and accepted the annexation of the provinces. Serbia was forced to back down and the crisis ended. But it permanently damaged the relationship between Russia and Serbia on the one hand and Austria-Hungary on the other. The annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina caused embitteredness in Serbia, while the way it was carried out humiliated the Russian government that could not afford a similar humiliation during the 1914 July Crisis.

The Italo-Turkish War that took place between 1911 and 1912 did not pose any major threat to peace in Europe. But the Turkish defeat revealed the weakness of the Ottoman army and disagreement between the European powers about the so-called Eastern Questions – the fate of the decaying Ottoman Empire. The war between the Kingdom of Italy and the Ottoman Empire was also a strong incentive for the Balkan League which would capture the Balkan peninsula from the Turks independently from the great powers.

In 1912, Serbia, Greece, Montenegro and Bulgaria formed the Balkan League, a military alliance against the Ottoman Empire. Within a few months, the Balkan allies stripped the Ottoman Empire of its possessions in the Balkans and divided the conquered territory among themselves. In June, Bulgaria turned against its allies of Serbia and Greece due to a dispute over partition of Macedonia. But the Bulgarians were defeated within a month and forced to give up their claims in Macedonia. The success of the Balkan League shocked most European powers including the Russian allies of France and Great Britain. But it especially disturbed Austria-Hungary that strongly opposed a strong Serbian state. Vienna saw Serbia both as a rival in the Balkans and as a direct threat because it feared that its small Balkan neighbor may become the core of a future South-Slavic state. The Balkan Wars made Austro-Hungarian statesmen even more determined to take concrete action to prevent further strengthening of Serbia.

On June 28, 1914, a group of conspirators from the revolutionary movement called Mlada Bosna (‘Young Bosnia’) carried out the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian heir presumptive, Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife while they were visiting Sarajevo. Since the assassin, Gavrilo Princip and his 5 accomplices were Bosnian Serbs, the Dual Monarchy accused Serbia to stand behind the assassination. The event triggered the course of events that directly led to the outbreak of World War I but it did not cause it. Austria-Hungary was determined to eliminate the ‘Serbian threat’ before the assassination of its heir presumptive and it only needed an excuse to declare war on its Balkan neighbour.

On July 23, Austria-Hungary presented an ultimatum to Serbia. Vienna, however, intentionally imposed impossible demands to Serbia in order to be able to declare war on its neighbour for ‘orchestrating’ the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. A few days later, the Austro-Hungarian troops invaded Serbia and started the devastating World War I.

Introduction

China has undergone a massive transformation in the last four decades. It has emerged as a major world power within a short span of time and is set to challenge the hegemony of the United States in the coming years. China’s spectacular rise is predominantly due to its unprecedented economic growth which averages nearly 10 per cent for the last forty years. It has to be noted that this achievement has no precedence in recorded human history and even critics of China have acknowledged this grand success. Even the World Bank has noted that China has ‘experienced the fastest sustained expansion by a major economy in history – and has lifted more than 800 million people out of poverty.’

This transformation began in 1979 with the introduction of economic reforms and today China ranks first in the world in terms of economic size on Purchasing Power Poverty (PPP) basis. Many economists are predicting that China is set to emerge as the world’s largest economy in a couple of decades or even sooner. It is notable that when this happens, it will be for the first time in more than a hundred years a non- European country will hold the mantle of being the foremost economic power. This will be a seismic shift in international politics.

History Of China’s Economic Growth

Economist Angus Maddison’s work which studies Chinese economy through centuries notes that China had the world’s largest economy as late as 1820. It is often forgotten that China was one of world’s foremost economic powers before the negative impact of colonialism. By the beginning of the 19th century, the Qing dynasty which was ruling China has serious internal weakness which left the country vulnerable to Western and later Japanese imperialist ambitions. China lost the First Opium War with Britain in 1839 and subsequently signed the Treaty of Nanking in 1842 which was the first of many humiliating unequal treaties which the country would sign. It was a part of this treaty that Hong Kong was ceded o Britain and ports like Shanghai and Guangzhou were opened for British trade.

China also lost the Second Opium War in 1856 which was jointly fought by British and the French with the support of the United States. China was forced to sign the Treaty of Tientsin in 1858. This opened more ports for foreign trade and also granted more rights for foreigners to travel and trade within Chinese territory. By this time, China had already signed the Treaty of Wanghia with the United States in 1844 granting certain privileges to the country. During this phase of Chinese weakness, several European countries including France and Russia signed unequal treaties with China to gain trade privileges.

Implications Of The Rise Of China

With a rising economy, increasing military strength and growing ambitions, there is no doubt that China is set to dominate international politics in the century. This will however have major ramifications on the international system which needs to be discussed.

China’s rise has already caused concerns about whether the post Second World War liberal international political order will be threatened by the emergence of an authoritarian country as a systemic power. Since the end of the Second World War, the United States and its Western allies have set up international institutions like the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, World Bank and the WTO to construct a rule based international order.

Strategically, interdependence amidst economic globalization has eroded the foundation for a “new Cold War”, which would require four conditions.  First, policymaking in both countries would have to be ideologically driven so that, second, the world can be politically divided into two camps against each other. Third, their economies would be independent of each other upon which, fourth, both sides could form alliances to sanction against each other.

However, like most countries today, policymaking in both the US and China are essentially interest oriented, not ideologically determined. Hence it is virtually impossible that the world could retreat to Cold War dynamics, where nations are divided into two camps politically hostile and economically independent of each other. Moreover, although a US-led security system has survived the end of the Cold War, the US allies would be reluctant to join the fight should confrontation take place between the two superpowers. As for China, Xi Jinping made it clear in his speech at the Belt and Road Initiative summit in May 2017 that China would not pursue any alliance but strives to foster partnerships with other countries.

Thus, despite Trump’s high-profile measures against China, it is hard to imagine that either the US or China would go to war against each other. This is not necessarily because they would give up the competition and even rivalry, but because it will be extremely difficult for both Beijing and Washington to achieve a policy consensus at home and form alliance abroad, which are necessary for a confrontation between the two global powers.

However, the US “tough approach” against China will have a far-reaching negative impact on world order and stability, not only because Trump’s anti-China measures are an essential part of his “America first” unilateralism and his anti-establishment impulse in international affairs, but also because China has already become a deep-rooted stakeholder in all the three layers of today’s international order, i.e., the political order centered on the United Nations and its affiliated organizations, the economic and trade order based on WTO and other multilateral trade agreements, and the financial order maintained by the World Bank, IMF and other institutions like the ADB and AIIB.  Thus, it is not surprising that even America’s closest allies in Europe and Asia – despite their substantial differences with China in terms of value and political systems – are reluctant to join the US in its effort to roll back on China.  This does not mean they support China at all.  But like China, they are also deep-rooted stakeholders of the existing international order that based on multilateral arrangements. After all, the essential purpose of reckless unilateralist behavior by the Trump Administration (e.g., withdrawals from the Paris Agreement, the Iranian Nuclear Deal, the UN Human Right Council, levying heavy tariff taxes on almost all important trade partners, and demanding allies to pay more for the US security commitments) is to rewrite the rules of game in America’s term at the expense of the entire international order. It is in this regard that Trump’s “America first” has turned into “America isolated” because such an approach hurts all the stakeholders of the existing international order, including the US allies.

By contrast, China’s response to the US pressure sounds rational and positive.  Xi Jinping made it clear in his speeches at the Bo’ao Forum for Asia in April 2018 that China will resolutely continue its reform and openness policy.  Meanwhile, Beijing will firmly defend the free trade system based on multilateral arrangements on the one hand, and carry on its “peaceful development” strategy on the other hand.  While it remains to be seen whether, and to what extent, China can turn the rhetoric into credible actions, how, and by what means, China can manage the volatile relationship with the US under a highly self-centered and unpredictable Trump Administration will indeed have a far reaching impact on peace and development of the world.  The good news is that Trump’s ego-driven and unilateral behaviour can actually strengthen China’s hand, only if Beijing can handle it appropriately.  The bad news is that the US still is the strongest power on earth.

REFERENCE : Russia in Global Affairs, International Relations by V.N. KHANNA