Rational Choices in Sino-Indian Border Dispute in Aksai

Angel Damayanti, Bryan Libertho Karyoprawiro
{"title":"Rational Choices in Sino-Indian Border Dispute in Aksai","authors":"Angel Damayanti, Bryan Libertho Karyoprawiro","doi":"10.24198/intermestic.v6n2.11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aims to explain the strategies taken by two major countries in the region, China and India, in overcoming border disputes in the Aksai Chin region. By using rational choice theory to explain the behavior of India and China and the reasons why they choose to use non-confrontational strategies. The research methodology used is qualitative with a case study model to analyze the policies of the two countries. The results of the study found that despite different views regarding Aksai Chin, the two countries both built trust and were committed that the border dispute would not affect their bilateral relationship as a whole. India and China have opted for a strategy of optimizing mutual benefits over purely national interests. It can be concluded that the two countries chose to take a non-confrontational policy in the border dispute in Aksai Chin as a rational choice in times of crisis based on the optimal benefits that can be obtained by both countries. Keywords: Aksai Chin, border dispute, India-China, non-confrontational policy, rational choice","PeriodicalId":111531,"journal":{"name":"Intermestic: Journal of International Studies","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intermestic: Journal of International Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24198/intermestic.v6n2.11","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aims to explain the strategies taken by two major countries in the region, China and India, in overcoming border disputes in the Aksai Chin region. By using rational choice theory to explain the behavior of India and China and the reasons why they choose to use non-confrontational strategies. The research methodology used is qualitative with a case study model to analyze the policies of the two countries. The results of the study found that despite different views regarding Aksai Chin, the two countries both built trust and were committed that the border dispute would not affect their bilateral relationship as a whole. India and China have opted for a strategy of optimizing mutual benefits over purely national interests. It can be concluded that the two countries chose to take a non-confrontational policy in the border dispute in Aksai Chin as a rational choice in times of crisis based on the optimal benefits that can be obtained by both countries. Keywords: Aksai Chin, border dispute, India-China, non-confrontational policy, rational choice
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
中印阿克赛边界争端的理性选择
本研究旨在解释该地区的两个主要国家,中国和印度,在克服阿克赛钦地区的边界争端所采取的战略。通过运用理性选择理论来解释印度和中国的行为以及他们选择使用非对抗性战略的原因。本文的研究方法是定性的,采用案例研究模型来分析两国的政策。研究结果发现,尽管对阿克赛钦有不同的看法,但两国都建立了信任,并承诺边界争端不会影响两国的整体双边关系。印度和中国选择了一种互利共赢的战略,而不是纯粹的国家利益。可以得出结论,两国在阿克赛钦边界争端中选择不对抗政策是在危机时刻基于两国可以获得的最优利益的理性选择。关键词:阿克赛钦,边界争端,印中,非对抗政策,理性选择
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
EUROPEAN UNION'S FOREST FIRE POLICIES: STRENGTHENING POST-PANDEMIC AGE RESILIENCE. A CASE OF SOUTHERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES Finland's Strategic Shift: A New Chapter with NATO Membership The Moonshine Policy: The Idiosyncrasy Factors of President Moon Jae-In in Improving Inter-Korean Relations Diplomasi Geoekonomi Cina di Kawasan Amerika Latin Studi Kasus: Hubungan Perdagangan Bebas Cina-Peru The Geopolitical Implications of Post-Diplomatic Normalization in the Middle East on Saudi-Iran Relations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1