Transition of power in international politics often leads to conflict and confrontation between the existing hegemon and the rising challenger. For secondary powers, this period of transition is marked by strategic flux. Uncertainty over the ultimate results of such transition motivates the tendency to hedge. Against the backdrop of the US “pivot” to Asia, Indian foreign policy also shows signs of a hedging strategy.


Foreign Policy Power Transition International Politics Hedging Strategy Strategic Partnership 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics, ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981 )CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Robert O. Keohane, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984 )Google Scholar
  3. W.R. Thompson, On Global War, (Columbia: University of South Carolina, 1988 ).Google Scholar
  4. 2.
    William Wohlforth, “The Stability of a Unipolar World,” International Security, Vol. 24, No. 1 (1999), p. 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 3.
    Aaron Friedberg, “The Geopolitics of Strategic Asia, 2010–2020,” in Ashley J. Tellis, Andrew Marble and Travis Tanner, (eds), Strategic Asia 2010–11:Asia’s Rising Power and America’s Continued Purpose, ( Washington D.C.: National Bureau of Asia Research, 2011 ), p. 33.Google Scholar
  6. 5.
    Ronald L. Tammen, Jacek Kugler, Douglas Lemke, Mark Abdollohian, Carole Alsharabati, Brian Efird, Allan C. Stam III and A.F.K Organski, Power Transitions: Strategies for the 21st Century, ( Chatham: Chatham House, 2000 ).Google Scholar
  7. AFK Organski and Jacek Kugler, The War Ledger, ( Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980 ).Google Scholar
  8. 6.
    Ronald Tammen and Jacek Kugler, “Power Transitions and China–US Conflict,” Chinese Journal of International Politics, Vol. 1, No. 1 (2006), p. 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 8.
    Nicholas Taylor, “China as a Status Quo Or Revisionist Power: Implications for Australia,” Security Challenges, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2007), p. 43.Google Scholar
  10. 17.
    Van Jackson, “The Rise and Persistence of Strategic Hedging Across Asia: A System-Level Analysis,” in Ashley J. Tellis, Abraham M. Denmark and Greg Collins (eds), Strategic Asia 2014–15: US Alliances and Partnerships at the Center of Global Politics, ( Washington D.C.: National Bureau of Asian Research, 2014 ), pp. 317–45.Google Scholar
  11. 19.
    Fareed Zakaria, The Post-American World and the Rise of the Rest, ( New York: Penguin, 2008 ).Google Scholar
  12. 21.
    J.M.E. Pennings, “What Drives Actual Hedging Behaviour? Developing Risk Management Instruments,” in Nigel Scott, (ed.), Agribusiness and Commodity Risk: Strategies and Management, ( London: Risk Books, 2003 ), pp. 63–74.Google Scholar
  13. 22.
    Van Jackson, “Power, Trust and Network Complexity: Three Logics of Hedging in Asian Security,” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, Vol. 14, No. 3 (2014), p. 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 23.
    Brock F. Tessman and Wojtek Wolfe, “Great Powers and Strategic Hedging: The Case of Chinese Energy Security,” International Studies Review, Vol. 13, No. 2 (2011), p. 220.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Harsh V. Pant and Yogesh Joshi 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harsh V. Pant
    • 1
  • Yogesh Joshi
    • 2
  1. 1.King’s College LondonUK
  2. 2.Jawaharlal Nehru UniversityIndia

Personalised recommendations