WESTERN DOMINANCE AND ECONOMIC MONOPOLY: HOW GLOBAL CONFLICTS AND CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER UNDERMINE GLOBAL JUSTICE BY: NISHIMONI SAIKIA

WESTERN DOMINANCE AND ECONOMIC MONOPOLY: HOW GLOBAL CONFLICTS AND CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER UNDERMINE GLOBAL JUSTICE
 
AUTHORED BY: NISHIMONI SAIKIA
PG Student (LLM), Gujarat National Law University
 
 
"The history of global politics has been shaped by the pursuit of dominance, where powerful nations impose their will on weaker states, often under the guise of promoting democracy or humanitarian values. Yet, this pursuit has rarely aligned with the principles of justice and equality, perpetuating a world order that benefits the few at the expense of the many."
-Noam Chomsky
 
 
1.     INTRODUCTION
Global politics and economics have been dominated by the West for several centuries, and this dominance was first forged through colonial expansion which later morphed into imperialism and most recently economic monopolies. The domination of other nations thus affects more than just the world system, as a consequence it creates an international hierarchy which co-exists with economic & political disparity that enriches and strengthens the weak states on global level. While economic power is very concentrated in the top few nations of the west as well as large global corporations, they have been able to wield undue influence on institutions of global governance trade into places they should not be and force unwanted resolutions on war adjudications. Again, this has led to many developing nations stuck in the vicious cycle of poverty with no political stability and limited prospects for development, essentially the most common situation faced by a large chunk of Global South.
 
Hence the more inextricably linked Western dominion and global conflicts are, the slower it becomes to pursue global justice and therefore it provides even more deviation from the supposedly rule about universal condition for global justice. In every case of interference in regional or national conflict, the results are instability (rarely short-term), economic and resource transactional exploitation of one sort yet always to perverted degrees with human suffering the stampede into foreign lands by self-righteous capitalists calling themselves humanitarian crises — that is usually a projection of their skewed variant definition of democracies or stability floats over other narratives. Military interventions have significant economic drivers, particularly in resource-rich areas that explicitly illustrate the symbiotic relationship between military and economic power.
 
Of course a concentration of economic power in Western countries, accomplished all too facilely via monopolistic practices, has only exacerbated global inequality and made it that much more difficult for the developing nations to play on anything resembling a level field or have any semblance of sovereignty.
 
In light of the conditions outlined in this paper, it is clear that Western global hegemony and economic exploitation is sustained through superpower conflicts and threats to a more just planetary society. The study answers this by the historical and contemporary indications of Western intervention, role of global institutions that hold inequality in place and the consequences of economic monopolies alongside a bird-eye view analysis for the challenges existing in global justice today.
 
2.     GLOBAL JUSTICE: THEORIES AND POWER STRUCTURE
Understanding Global Justice
Global justice — principles of morality and political justice that exert those moral claims on a transnational scale with the ultimate goal to achieve greater global equality in the name of international peace. Scholars like John Rawls have written extensively on this topic in their influential theory of justice where he argues in favor of a conception of what just is that are the institutions which generate endowments and opportunities.
 
Rawls' Law of Peoples extends his domestic principles of justice to the global sphere, emphasizing the need for international cooperation and respect for human rights in achieving global justice.[1] In contrast, cosmopolitan theorists argue for a more integrated global society, where individuals, rather than states, are the primary focus of justice. Cosmopolitanism emphasizes the global redistribution of resources and responsibilities, challenging the existing state-centric system, which often serves the interests of more powerful nations.[2]
 
Radical re-distributive global income equality such as that depicted by Marxian theory (leading to vast improved inequality all over the world) and post-colonial forms of capital, both claimed would bring an new form of global justice, cannot be realized with the present situations of globalization since this type is grounded in a strong divide-and-conquer principle and benefits some interests at cost of others globally. Critics of this view argue that the lack of sustainable opportunities for elites to exploit is a production due to his argument that institutionalized arrangements in international institutions maintain Western economic and political dominion. This is often said to be perpetuated by the Western economic monopoly monopolized by global conglomerates and institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and The World Bank.
 
Hegemony and Power Structures
The concept of hegemony, particularly as articulated by Antonio Gramsci, is crucial to understanding the power dynamics at play in global justice. Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony explains how the dominant class maintains control not just through force but through ideological dominance, shaping the norms and values of society.[3] The global economic order that is facilitated by international institutions and overarching global systems has always been established in such a way to serve the Western power — hegemonically so. In other words, this is achieved not simply through coercion but in a much more circuitous manner by forging norms and neutral-sounding systems that also happen to be very kind of the Western way. As in judging is controlled by the forces from the West, ensuring that their interests are first and foremost when decisions on economy are made.
 
Global Conflicts and Economic Control
Many global conflicts also intertwine with economic factors, particularly in areas having rich resources. The military-industrial complex, a term popularized by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, refers to the close relationship between a nation's military and the defense industry, which benefits from military conflict and defense spending.[4] The demands of the Western powers, particularly the United States, have got all mixed up in a host of different conflicts that represent very tangible economic interests — such as opening up oil regions to Western investment (in the Middle East) and nonetheless ensuring control over strategic geopolitical areas. This is usually justified under the guise of stability or democracy, but has more often than not seen increased instability, the exploitation of resources and maintained economic domination by Western powers. This varies with the interface between violent global conflict and economic dominance: it challenges the pursuit of global justice by sidelining national priorities in terms of a power imbalance that caters for the needs and wants of the economically strategic nations prior to public health.
 
3.     WESTERN DOMINANCE AND GLOBAL CONFLICTS
Historical Perspective on Western Intervention in Conflicts
In the past, Western nations have been major players in global conflicts often behind them supporting stability, democracy or humanitarian values. However, it is important to note that these interventions have largely been motivated by economic and political agendas. In the 19th century, the global south through colonization is how this brewing took place other places in the Middle East, and Africa and Latin America recent moves by Western powers have been about gaining resources they would like to keep them protected. For example, both the English and the French empires concentrated on establishing sphere of control in areas rich in unprocessed resources that were essential to their industrialised economies.
 
After World War II, the United States emerged as the global hegemon, utilizing military power and economic influence to shape international affairs. The Cold War era saw U.S. intervention in countries such as Vietnam and Korea, framed as battles against communism but serving broader geopolitical and economic interests.[5] These conflicts destabilized regions and entrenched Western control over key markets and resources, perpetuating global inequality.[6]
 
Economic Motives Behind Western Intervention
While moral justifications often form the basis of Western interventions, for example, to spread democracy or protect human rights, economic motives are also a crucial aspect. Control over oil is long overdue for the interests of Western powers in the Middle East. The U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, framed as a mission to remove a dictatorial regime, also secured access to one of the world’s largest oil reserves.[7]Such interventions prioritize economic gains over the well-being of local populations, undermining global justice efforts.
 
Post-Cold War Military Interventions
Since the end of the Cold War, western interventions have focused on regions of strategic economic interest. Engagements in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria have determined global power. For instance, the NATO-led intervention in Libya destabilized the country while allowing Western corporations to exploit its oil sector under the guise of humanitarian intervention.[8]

Global Impact of These Wars for Third World Countries
In these interventions, developing nations experience political instability, mass displacement, and economic ruin. The destabilization of the resources-rich areas creates room for Western companies to exploit resources with low costs, creating increased power over their economies while poverty in the South remains. This has the effect of deepening economic inequalities, eroding sovereignty, and preventing the goals of the Global Justice Movement from happening.
 
4.     ECONOMIC MONOPOLY AND GLOBAL INEQUALITY
Concentration of Economic Power in the Western Countries
A primary characteristic of global inequality is that power in matters of the economy hinges on a few Western blocs, first and foremost the United States and members of the European Union. In addition to holding staggering amounts of wealth, these states control international markets in trade, finance, and technology. Economic power extends outward through multinationals, which significantly influences international market operations. The WTO and IMF and the World Bank are often criticized for promoting policies that favour these economically powerful nations at the expense of developing countries.[9] In creating such policies, they make poorer nations more dependent on loans and aid, often even under terms that worsen their financial instability more than otherwise.
 
Moreover, most of the world's lead corporations come from the West, especially in the realms of technology, energy, and pharmaceutical companies. It allows them to dictate global markets as well as fixed trade rules that enforce a vicious cycle of dependency better suited for the Western economies. Patent laws, technological monopolies, and the control of supply chains by Western corporations prevent developing nations from accessing the tools necessary for economic growth.[10]
 
Growth of Inequality-Global Perspectives: Household Wealth
The concentration of wealth among Western nations and their multinational corporations created disparate differences between the Global North and the Global South. Today, the richest 1% in the world controls more wealth than the remaining 99%, with much of this wealth concentrated in North America and Europe.[11] The economic gap between the developed and developing nations continues to grow as inequity perpetuates an imbalance in resource, technological, and market access. Wealth inequality is particularly stark in regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin America, where colonial legacies and modern neoliberal policies have left economies deeply vulnerable.[12]
 
While international organizations such as the United Nations encourage more balanced utilization of resources, structural inequalities and the characteristics innate in the world's economic system make this process hard to carry out. The developing countries remain stuck in debt cycles, and unhealthy trade treaties and costly borrowings from financial institutions controlled by the West.
 
Economic Sanctions and Trade Policies
Other economic control that the Western nations impose is through sanctions and trade policies. Economic sanctions are one of the major modes of imposing isolation from countries economically and politically, especially those by the United States and the European Union.
 
However, the nature of sanctions is actually against the civilian population of developing countries, who suffer while the ruling elites are saved. The trade policies are also designed in a way structured around western interest through tariffs and prohibitions that make it impossible to develop industries in the Global South. Thus, developing countries continue to be exporters of raw material rather than developing industrial capabilities.[13]
 
Technological and Intellectual Property Monopolies
Information technologies, biotechnologies, and pharmaceutical monopolies are some of the worst drivers of global inequality. Western corporations, through stringent intellectual property laws, maintain exclusive control over key technologies, making it difficult for developing countries to access life-saving medicines, advanced technologies, and essential agricultural innovations.[14] Such control on innovation in developing nations makes them dependent on Western technology for good, further rooting it within global inequality.
 
5.     IMPACTS ON GLOBAL JUSTICE
Exploitation of Natural Resources in Developing Countries
One of the most apparent examples by which Western economic supremacy upholds global injustice is through the exploitation of natural resources in developing nations. Many of these developing countries, especially in Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia, are abundant in natural resources—oil, minerals, timber, and agricultural products—that power the global economy. Under the guise of unfair trade agreements or foreign direct investment, they tend to capture all the resources without local citizens having any substantive gain. This is usually done in collusion with corrupt elites so that all the wealth goes to the multinational corporations without showing accountability toward environmental degradations, human rights abuses, and generation of poverty within the regions where they do their operations.[15]
 
Significantly, in the case of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Western multinationals have earned profits for decades from the country's wealth in mineral resources, most notably coltan, cobalt, and diamonds, used in high-tech products. Despite these resources’ value, the local population has seen minimal economic benefits, while enduring civil conflict, environmental degradation, and forced labor practices.[16]  This extractive cycle of resource enrichment benefits Western nations and corporation while resource-rich developing countries are left to ruin, destabilizing this region and perpetuating global injustice.
Marginalization of the Global South
The concentration of economic and political power in the Western nations has resulted in the systemic marginalization of the Global South. Countries in Africa, Latin America, and Asia are usually excluded from decision-making in international institutions such as the World Bank, IMF, and WTO where policies on their economic and social stability are decided.[17] This is at the advantage of the western nations whose neoliberal economic policies based on institutional paternalism, imposed by the dominance of western nations on these international institutions, emphasize privatization, deregulation, and opening markets. However, they have a negative impact on public services and local industries in developing countries, thus causing higher poverty and inequality levels.
 
The Structural adjustments programs (SAPs,) that have been preconditions for loans from the IMF and the World Bank, have brought disastrous results to the economies of most countries in the Global South. The SAPs force the developing countries to slash their public health expenditure, education, and social welfare, as a result of which massive social movements begin to weaken state capacity. The prioritization of debt repayment to Western creditors over investment in local development highlights how the current global economic system reinforces the marginalization of these nations.[18]
 
Barriers to Equitable Development
The age-long entrenched global economic system that favours Western interests is another reason why equitable growth in the Global South is further hindered. Trade agreements, patents, and financial regulations often serve the interests of developed countries, thereby hindering the progress of developing countries. For example, intellectual property laws enforced by international agreements, such as the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), prevent developing countries from accessing affordable medicines and technologies, impeding their ability to advance economically and address public health crises.[19]
 
Moreover, agricultural policies of most countries in the West, especially those in the European Union and the United States, have since become a major impediment to level progress in the Global South. The approach of subsidizing domestic farmers and imposing tariffs on imports of agricultural produce to their market has prevented poor farmers from developing countries from being able to compete fairly on the global market, thus miring them in poverty traps.
 
Violations of Human Rights and Global Injustice
Economic exploitation merged with political marginalization has caused mass human rights violations across the Global South. Labor exploitation, environmental degradation, and violation of fundamental human rights often increased as an aftermath of activities by Western corporations and as a result of austerity measures imposed on the subordinated communities. For example, in most regions of Africa mining companies operate under dangerous conditions with meagre pay, yet miners are subjected to great fear from region militias which indirectly receive funding from the Western corporate interests.[20] These violations are not limited to economic exploitation but extend to political repression, as governments, supported by Western economic interests, suppress dissent to maintain control over valuable resources.[21]
 
Further, since a systemic inequality environment is nurtured by the policies of global economics and the interests of Western corporations, it underlines significant challenges to achieving global justice. In this regard, because wealth and power are dominated by Western elites, the Global South continues to suffer from conditions that foster injustice, inequality, and underdevelopment.
 
6.     CASE STUDIES
Case Study 1: Iraq War and Western Economic Interests
The invasion of Iraq by the United States in 2003 is a vivid example of Western hegemony and economic monopoly manifested globally. Officially justified on the pretext of ridding the world of weapons of mass destruction (which were never discovered) and promoting democracy in the region, the occupation was also moved by huge economic interests linked to Iraq's massive oil supplies. Before the occupation, Iraq was one of the world's biggest producers of oil, and control over its oil industry was of strategic importance for both U.S. corporations and Western governments.[22]
 
After the invasion, Western oil companies received contracts to develop Iraq's oil fields, which ended several decades of the nationalization of Iraqi foreign firms participating in the oil sector.[23] It not only promised the perpetuation of dominance under Western economics but also furthered global inequalities since Iraq was still to find its way to rebuild after the destruction of war. The privatization of Iraq’s resources, accompanied by the dismantling of local industries, ensured that the benefits of reconstruction largely flowed to foreign corporations, while Iraqis faced widespread poverty and instability.
 
Case Study 2: Economic Exploitation in Sub-Saharan Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa has served as an economic playground for the West and multinational companies. Countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, and Nigeria are blessed with all the valuable resource minerals, crude oil, and precious metals. But Western multinationals, using collaborating local elites, systematically exploit these resources, and the social, economic, and environmental outcomes for local populations are devastatingly brutal.[24]
Indeed, events in Congo have amply demonstrated how, for long periods, Western corporations have enriched themselves from that country's mineral resources, not least of which is its coltan supply, from whence large and small electronics are made. All this wealth generated from coltan mines and yet, Congo remains one of the most impoverished and conflict-affected countries on the planet.[25] Workers in the mines continue to work in hazardous conditions for very low wages as armed groups continue to destabilise the region funded through the profits from mining extraction.[26] That's neocolonial politics at play, where Western powers have economic control over so many resource-rich developing countries, leaving local populations impoverished and marginalized
 
Case study 3: Global financial crisis and its effects on developing countries
The 2008 global financial meltdown further proved how economic decisions in the Western financial centers can end up disastrous for rest of the world's economy, mostly the developing countries. The crisis, triggered by the collapse of the majority of the western financial houses and resultant bailout of Western Banks led to significant economic shocks globally. Developing countries, especially those reliant on foreign investment and export markets, experienced sharp economic downturns as capital fled to safer Western markets.[27]
 
Countries such as Mexico, India, and Brazil saw declines in exports and significant reductions in foreign direct investment, leading to increased unemployment and poverty.[28] The fiscal austerity measures implemented afterwards, frequently as conditions for IMF and World Bank loans, have devastated developing countries. These nations had to slash public expenditures in education, health, and social welfare, thus increasing inequality and development ground to a halt. Once again, the crisis illustrates the interdependence of the world economy and how the economic policies of the West have such devastating effects for those developing nations, further undermining global justice.
 
7.     CHALLENGES AND CRITICISMS
Challenges in Addressing Western Dominance
One of the key challenges in addressing Western Dominance is that it finds its roots within the entrenched power structure existing within the international institutions. The major influence or dominance in global financial institutions is enjoyed by the Western countries, especially America and all the European Union member countries, in the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO). These were instituted in the post-World War II setting with the explicit mandate of a stable global economy, yet their own decision-making processes very much connive to favour Western countries more. The voting power to challenge the many policies and rules that apply more to Western advanced economic powers is usually out of reach for developing nations.[29] This structural imbalance makes it difficult to reform international financial systems in ways that would promote a more equitable distribution of wealth and opportunities, reinforcing Western dominance over the global economy.[30]
 
In addition to these institutions, western power also extends throughout international law, trading structures and alliances for military cooperation. The attempts to oppose such power are meanwhile continuously frustrated by the economic costs of debts and a lack of foreign capital. Thus, developing countries are restricted in their sovereignty or in their ability to counter western hegemony.
 
Criticism of Global Justice Movements
Critics of global justice movements argue that such movements tend to focus more on idealized ends than the practical reality of the international politics. It is argued that the ideology of global justice does not go deep enough in accounting for the time-worn historical and structural inequalities, which even now form the core of the present international system. It is noted that, though redistributive justice and economic equality make a perfect focus point for it, however this has lacked power dynamics and state sovereignty at the international level. From this perspective, it is not only enough to reform the economy but also transform, from the roots up, the structure of international management in ways respectful of the agency and autonomy of the different states.[31]
 
Another criticism is that some global justice movements sometimes fail to offer solutions as to how to achieve their ends. Even within the calls for redistributive wealth, reform of global financial institutions, and environmental sustainability, how much of that is possible depends on unprecedented degrees of state cooperation across interests and power imbalances. But what critics say is even more salient: that proponents of global justice often miscalculate the level of opposition from entrenched powers and interests in both the North and South as they derive benefits from the current world order.¹³
 
Resistance from Emerging Powers
The emerging powers like China, India, Brazil, and South Africa recently began to challenge Western dominance by forming alternative political and economic blocks, like the BRICS - Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. It prefers a more multipolar world wherein global governance would better reflect diversity of voices and interests rather than being dominated by the West.[32] But this new resistance will face lots of challenges-the strong grip of Western financial systems and the global stranglehold of dominant Western corporations in key sectors like technology and energy.
 
China has sought to counterbalance Western hegemony through efforts such as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which invests in infrastructure and development projects across Asia, Africa, and Europe. Even though the BRI is being hailed as a means to present counter-developmental models to those being advanced by the West, that only transfers hegemony from the West to the East with China underpinned at the helm. Non-Western power is increasingly prominent, and it only makes it even more challenging to fulfil the vision of world justice as new economic and political inequalities proliferate to spotlight the challenge of ever establishing a justly equitable global system.
 
8.     RECOMMENDATIONS
Reforming International Institutions
The most important step towards global justice is the reforming of international institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO). The last two have come under heavy criticisms for their role in promoting undemocratic global governance and capitalistic neoliberalism. These institutions were established after the devastating experience of World War II to stabilize the world economy and promote international cooperation. Until now, these institutions have been unable to justly and proportionately address the need of developing countries because disproportionate powers are held in their hands by Western nations - especially by Americans and Europeans.[33]
The greater representation among the developing countries must appear in the decision-making processes to bring about a relatively more just global order in the reform of these institutions. This could take the form of reshaping voting systems in the IMF and World Bank to make more potent the voices of poorer countries, which are often marginalized, so as to secure greater influence over rules governing global finance and trade.
 
Another key component of institutional reform is increased transparency and accountability regarding the manner in which international financial institutions engage with developing countries.
 
Promote Fair Trade and Economic Cooperation
Institutional reforms in this regard have to be complemented by fair trade practices that would permit developing countries to compete in the world economy under fair conditions. Free trade agreements are primarily negotiated with protectionist terms that favour Western corporations and their economies, imposing tariffs and trade barriers, thereby limiting the development of industries for Global South nations. Encouraging fair trade means renegotiating these agreements, removing protectionist policies in rich nations, especially in agriculture, so developing countries may compete well in international markets.
 
Economic cooperation programs focused on building the capacity of developing countries, such as economic initiatives building local capacity, can also promote equitable trade. Instead of creating dependency on foreign-based corporations, rich countries could support development of the physical, human and technological infrastructure of sustainable economies in the Global South, thus reducing the need for exploitative resource extraction part of an economic system imbalanced toward the North. Developing countries must have independent agency to define their needs and determine their development strategies, unencumbered by the bureaucratic decrees of financial institutions serving interests of the West or transnational capital.
 
Global Mechanisms for Redistribution of Wealth
Achieving global justice also requires that global redistribution mechanisms for wealth occur. Globalization of capital for both Western states and the multinational corporations also extends these inequalities in the way global wealth is distributed. It has been estimated that the richest 1% on this planet controls a wealth amount equal to the remainder of the world.[34] Possibly, one of the actions toward a more equitable future is the adoption of a global wealth tax levied upon the richest individuals and corporations on earth towards the redistribution of wealth for financing of development projects and reduction of poverty in the South. This could be operated through international institutions with surplus monies channelled toward areas like health care, education, or infrastructure developments in poorer countries.
 
In this regard, global humanitarian efforts and international aid programs should be enhanced. Aid must not be an end in itself and a tool to address the systemic inequalities inherent in the global economic system but can work as short-term relief and as a foundation for long-term development.[35] However, the design of aid programs needs to change dramatically so that they facilitate empowerment and capacity building in the recipient countries without depending on the donor countries or other strategic interests.
 
Conflict Resolution by Diplomatic and Non-Military Means
Finally, global justice requires a fundamental shift away from military intervention and toward diplomacy and multilateralism in resolving conflict. Western nations have long used military force to secure their economic interests, as seen in Iraq and Libya.[36] An abidance by diplomacy, peace building, and multilateralism would end the exploitation of areas in conflict by economic gain as well as lead to more equitable and sustainable resolutions of international dispute.
 
While largely criticized as ineffective, the institution itself remains important in multilateral diplomacy and conflict resolution efforts. Reinventing the U.N. by increasing its peacekeeping and mediation capacities without allowing large power interests to dictate its actions is necessary for the cause of international justice.[37]
 
9.     CONCLUSION
The strongly asymmetric economic and political world order, therefore, constructed by the Western powers and their transnational corporations, has built a profound inequality of interest that reduces the principles of global justice. While exploited through various historical means, ranging from colonies and phases of imperialism up to modern-day monopolies of capitalism, the strong influence of the Western powers formed the international system as a tool to service Western-dominated interests. That economic disparity is a part of the concentration of power, and it fosters strife, ecological degradation, and the domination of the Global South. This dynamic makes global justice a bit more complicated to achieve in reality because the system is prone to playing favor to the most privileged nation, thereby digging deeper wells of inequality along all dimensions - social, political, and economic.
 
Through the paper, we explore how the West's dominance can be understood in terms of global conflicts, economic exploitation, and control over international institutions. Case studies on the Iraq War, resource extraction in Sub-Saharan Africa, and the global financial crisis would demonstrate the concrete manner in which the actions of the West give birth to global injustices. These are effects that are most pronounced in developing nations with populations being subjected to poverty, lack of stability, and gross violations of human rights due to external influence and economic dominance.
 
While the prospects are distressing, globalization does not mean global justice is impossible. The above suggestions to reform international institutions, trade for just value, level wealth through a global wealth tax, and settle disputes by non-military means offer the way forward. But both the West and developing nations need to accept responsibility for these reforms to become a shared burden. Western nations need to share their own responsibility in perpetuating this inequality and to be able to relinquish some part of the hegemony which they otherwise maintain in the name of progress for a balanced world system. And the developing nation should feel strong enough to assert its sovereignty for its economic and political futures.
 
The rise of non-Western powers, for example, China and India, will be both challenging and rewarding. However, as emerging powers balance the hegemony of the West, they can no longer maintain the exploitative practices characteristic of relations over the past few centuries. An important step toward a more just and sustainable order will be a world that is multipolar, wherein each country's interest is effectively represented by a developed or developing nation.
 
Global justice is, therefore not only a resource redistribution or international institutions' reform. Ultimately it calls for a new order for the betterment of all nations in any economic circumstance, so all must have a say about global governance's future. This vision requires a great rethink of how power is allotted and exercised on the world stage, with a sincere commitment to policies that would benefit people's overall welfare rather than just the benefit of the few most expensive people on earth. Only through such far-reaching reforms can we ever hope to move toward that level of justice and equality in this world.
 
10. BIBLIOGRAPHY
        i.            Anghie, Antony, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (Cambridge Univ. Press 2005).
      ii.            Bennis, Phyllis, Before & After: U.S. Foreign Policy and the War on Terror (2d ed., Olive Branch Press 2003).
    iii.            Boot, Max, The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power (2d ed., Basic Books 2003).
    iv.            Chomsky, Noam, Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance (Metropolitan Books 2003).
      v.            Cordesman, Anthony H., The Iraq War: Strategy, Tactics, and Military Lessons (Centre for Strategic & Int’l Stud. 2003).
    vi.            Cumings, Bruce, The Origins of the Korean War (2d ed., Princeton Univ. Press 1990).
  vii.            Piketty, Thomas, Capital in the Twenty-First Century (translated by Arthur Goldhammer, Harvard Univ. Press 2014).
viii.            Pogge, Thomas, Politics as Usual: What Lies Behind the Pro-Poor Rhetoric (Polity Press 2010).
    ix.            Pogge, Thomas, World Poverty and Human Rights (2d ed., Polity Press 2002).
      x.            Reybrouck, David Van, Congo: The Epic History of a People (Ecco 2014).
    xi.            Rodrik, Dani, The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy (W.W. Norton & Co. 2011).
  xii.            Sell, Susan K., Private Power, Public Law: The Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights (Cambridge Univ. Press 2003).
xiii.            Stiglitz, Joseph E., Globalization and Its Discontents (W.W. Norton & Co. 2002).
xiv.            Stiglitz, Joseph E., Making Globalization Work (W.W. Norton & Co. 2006).

[1] John Rawls, The Law of Peoples 23 (1st ed. 1999).
[2] Thomas W. Pogge, World Poverty and Human Rights 46 (2d ed. 2002).
[3] Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks 33 (Quintin Hoare & Geoffrey Nowell Smith eds., 1st ed. 1971)
[4] Dwight D. Eisenhower, Farewell Address, 19 (Jan. 17, 1961).
[5] Bruce Cumings, The Origins of the Korean War 56-59 (2d ed. 1990).
[6] Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance 128-30 (1st ed. 2003).
[7] Anthony H. Cordesman, The Iraq War: Strategy, Tactics, and Military Lessons 72 (1st ed. 2003).
[8] Max Boot, The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power 203-06 (2d ed. 2003).
[9] Joseph E. Stiglitz, Globalization and Its Discontents 59-60 (1st ed. 2002).
[10] Susan K. Sell, Private Power, Public Law: The Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights 47-49 (1st ed. 2003).
[11] Thomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century 321-23 (Arthur Goldhammer trans., 1st ed. 2014).
[12] Id. at 330-31.
[13] Dani Rodrik, The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy 77-79 (1st ed. 2011).
[14] Susan K. Sell, Private Power, Public Law: The Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights 47-49 (1st ed. 2003).
[15] Joseph E. Stiglitz, Making Globalization Work 96-98 (1st ed. 2006).
[16] David Van Reybrouck, Congo: The Epic History of a People 402-03 (1st ed. 2014).
[17] Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance 134-36 (1st ed. 2003).
[18] Thomas Pogge, Politics as Usual: What Lies Behind the Pro-Poor Rhetoric 94-96 (1st ed. 2010).
[19] Susan K. Sell, Private Power, Public Law: The Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights 50-52 (1st ed. 2003).
[20] David Van Reybrouck, Congo: The Epic History of a People 416-18 (1st ed. 2014).
[21] Thomas Pogge, Politics as Usual: What Lies Behind the Pro-Poor Rhetoric 103-04 (1st ed. 2010).
[22] Anthony H. Cordesman, The Iraq War: Strategy, Tactics, and Military Lessons 72-73 (1st ed. 2003).
[23] Joseph E. Stiglitz, Making Globalization Work 202-04 (1st ed. 2006).
[24] David Van Reybrouck, Congo: The Epic History of a People 402-03 (1st ed. 2014).
[25] Id. at 404.
[26] Id.
[27] Joseph E. Stiglitz, The Price of Inequality 178-80 (1st ed. 2012).
[28] Dani Rodrik, The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy 89-90 (1st ed. 2011).
[29] Thomas Pogge, Politics as Usual: What Lies Behind the Pro-Poor Rhetoric 94-96 (1st ed. 2010).
[30] Dani Rodrik, The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy 89-90 (1st ed. 2011).
[31] Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance 136-38 (1st ed. 2003).
[32] Dani Rodrik, The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy 79-81 (1st ed. 2011).
[33] Joseph E. Stiglitz, Globalization and Its Discontents 64-66 (1st ed. 2002).
[34] Thomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century 321-23 (Arthur Goldhammer trans., 1st ed. 2014).
[35] Joseph E. Stiglitz, Globalization and Its Discontents 144-46 (1st ed. 2002).
[36] Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance 136-38 (1st ed. 2003).
[37] Joseph E. Stiglitz, Making Globalization Work 164-66 (1st ed. 2006).