Hegemonic Stability theorists such as Robert Gilpin (cited in Friedberg, P.1) note that rapid changes are dangerous. Periods of accelerated economic and technological development typically result in dramatic shifts in the international distribution of military power, and these can raise the risks of misperception, mutual fears, miscalculation and confrontation.

Are Chinese aid, trade and investment considering regional and local political, economical and social situations? Or they are simply doing business in all areas in a similar fashion without considering varying local differences? Are they easily adaptive to existing environments? How about their life with he community they live? How about their aid to Africa – Ethiopia? Any conditions attached to their loans and aid?

Yes it is conventional wisdom of corruption that the latter may be reduced with the expansion of rule based and more market oriented institutions. It is also widely accepted that the role of corruption, in part, has been contributive to economic growth in East Asia. Are these compatible? By way of explaining the role of corruption for distinctive economic accomplishment for a short period in East Asia; I will develop the essay showing that it is due to other factors/reasons and not because the East Asian states lacked the aforementioned institutions and rules to tackle corruption that it was widespread but, fortunately and unexpectedly (unintentionally – D. Kang, said it!), was to their economic growth.

This essay attempts to address the undue focus on the lessened role of institutions on security issues while ignoring their (institutions) achievements in many other issue-areas to let them be conceived as weak instruments of international relations.Thomson and Snidal (1999), in their article International Organization have cited a lot of authorities witnessing that the application of institution has been expanded to a wide variety of issue-areas, including international security, trade, finance, telecommunications, and the environment. International legal scholars have also increasingly used institutions to understand better issues such as international trade laws, arms control agreements, and the law of treaties.