Decentring Western IR Theories Unveiling Efforts from the Arab World

The proposition of establishing “global international relations” (Global IR) as an amalgamation of diverse national epistemologies in the field of international relations, potentially superseding the Western-centric paradigm, presents significant challenges. A critical inquiry emerges: Is it possible to form a discipline based on the polyphony of national approaches, despite the fact that the ontology of international relations has remained fundamentally unchanged since the mid-17th century? This study evaluates the thesis of extant national epistemologies in international relations by examining national traditions of diplomatic training. The primary research question is formulated as follows: What are the foundational approaches employed by leading states in the training of IR specialists, and can these approaches be considered reflective of national epistemologies regarding the nature of international relations? The research methodology involves a synthesis of findings from an examination of diplomatic training institutions across a diverse sample of countries. This sample encompasses Western nations (United Kingdom, Hungary, Poland, United States, Finland, France, and Germany), Asian countries (Vietnam, Indonesia, India, China, and the Republic of Korea), Middle Eastern states (Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey), African nations (Nigeria and South Africa), and Latin American countries (Brazil, Mexico, and Cuba). The article is structured in two principal sections. The theoretical section explores the hypothesis of “global international relations” within the context of existing literature and theoretical frameworks. The second section synthesizes the empirical findings from the study of national approaches to diplomatic training, testing the hypothesis of its correlation with national epistemologies in the field of international relations.

يتناول هذا البحث النقاش[1] بين الواقعية الجديدة وبين الليبرالية الجديدة في إطار حقل العلاقات الدولية ويسلط الضوء على أهم طروحات النظريتين، وخاصة فيما يتعلق بوجهات نظرهما حول هيكل العلاقات الدولية وهل يحكمه الفوضى والصراع أم التعاون. كانت، ولا زالت، دراسة الصراع والتعاون في العلاقات الدولية من المهام الرئيسية للبحث والتحليل بالنسبة لمنظري وباحثي العلاقات الدولية، وأصبح هذا الترابط بين الصراع والتعاون القضية الرئيسية في النقاش بين النظريتين السائدتين في العلاقات الدولية. تعتبر تظريتي الواقعية الجديدة والليبرالية الجديدة من أكثر النظريات تأثيرا على العلاقات الدولية، ويعتبر النقاش بين النظريتين من أكبر واهم النقاشات في حقل العلاقات الدولية. يسعى هذا البحث إلى بيان وشرح الاسهامات النظرية لكل من النظريتين فيما يتعلق بالصراع والتعاون في العلاقات الدولية، ومدى مساهمة طروحات الليبرالية الجديدة، خاصة فيما يتعلق بدور المؤسسات الدولية في زيادة التعاون الدولي، وفي التقليل من هيمنة الرؤية الواقعية في العلاقات الدولية وخاصة فيما يتعلق بسيادة الفوضى والصراع من أجل القوة. تناقش هذه الدراسة أن النقاش بين الواقعية الجديدة وبين الليبرالية الجديدة لم يساهم بشكل كبير في تطوير نظرية العلاقات الدولية، حيث لم يساهم هذا النقاش بشكل كبير في التقليل من هيمنة سياسات القوة في العلاقات الدولية وحل المشاكل الدولية الناتجة عنها.
 [1] المقصود ب (النقاش) هنا هو النقاش النظري بين الواقعية الجديدة وبين الليبرالية الجديدة. وهو أحد (النقاشات الكبرى) أو (الحوارات العظمى)، حسب استخدام الباحثين، في العلاقات الدولية والمؤخوذة من الاصل الانكليزي (Great debates)، والتي تركز على النقاشات النظرية في تطور حقل العلاقات الدولية منذ بداية القرن العشرين. وهي تشمل، في الغالب، ثلاثة نقاشات كبرى: النقاش بين الواقعية وبين المثالية-الليبرالية، والنقاش بين الواقعية وبين السلوكية، والنقاش بين الواقعية الجديدة وبين الليبرالية الجديدة. وهناك من يضيف نقاشا رابعا مهما وهو النقاش بين الوضعية وما بعد الوضعية (انظر مثلا، تيم دان وآخرون، ترجمة ديما الخضرا، 2016؛Lake, 2013; Lapid, 1989 ).

After the Soviet break-up and the Marxist regime collapsed, many of alternative notions emerged in the academic community in Russia, including alternative ideas in the field of International Relations (IR). A number of Russian IR scholars attempted to reconstruct the theories of IR, not just the IR theories that developed in Russia during the era of Marxism, but also against Western IR theories. Although the post-Cold War aspirations to create a distinct national school of International Relations in Russia, but these efforts are not free from the ideology and political goal that directing and guiding Russian foreign policy. Even, IR scholars in Russia have come to shared with the Russian government in terms of building the IR theories with the Russian characteristics, especially in challenging Western hegemony in the social sciences and international relations. This article tries to elaborate three intellectual traditions of international relations that developed in Russia, namely Westernism, Statism, and Civilizationism. Westernizer IR heavily influenced by Western liberalism, Statism more inspired by the realism, while Civilizationism is more of a hybrid between the constructivism and Russian essentialism.

This article contributes to two debates about international relations (IR) as a discipline: first, how global is IR, and how is it structured? Second, what is the state of theory in IR? We conducted (co-) citation analyses of both Web of Science (WoS) and—for the first time— non-WoS publications from Europe, North America, Latin America, Africa, and Asia. With regard to the first question, we find that global IR resembles a core–periphery structure as a “hub and spoke” system whereby transatlantic core nodes are interconnected to each other and to some periphery nodes, while the periphery nodes are connected to the core but not to each other. IR scholarship in the periphery quotes the transatlantic theory cluster but is not linked to each other, not even in the same region. Knowledge produced in the periphery has to go through the transatlantic core in order to be recognized globally. As to the transatlantic core, we identify two major (co-) citation clusters: one committed to IR theory-building across issue areas from a variety of perspectives and the other focused on security studies with a strong emphasis on quantitative methods. With regard to the second question, global IR hangs together through references to the IR theory cluster consisting of North American and European authors who appear to define what IR theory is. Scholars in the periphery refer to this transatlantic IR theory cluster when engaging in theory-building. IR theories have become rather diverse and pluralistic, even in the core. While scholars still refer to the big “isms,” they use them around the globe in a synthesizing manner.

The field of international relations (IR) is witnessing growing efforts to challenge Western centrism and give more space and voice to the Global South. These efforts are happening under a variety of labels, such as, but not limited to, non-Western IR, post-Western IR, Global IR, etc.To be sure, attempts to “bring the Global South in” by highlighting and generalizing from its contexts and challenges are not new. One could think of several examples, with Dependency theory and, somewhat later, Postcolonialism being two of the most prominent approaches. But recent efforts have been broader and targeted the entire discipline of IR, especially its major theories and concepts. And they have brought in a wider range of theoretical perspectives than Marxism and Postcolonialism, including Constructivism (Acharya), English School (Buzan) and even some realists (e.g. Mohammed Ayoob’s Subaltern Realism”).But labels overlap and can be confusing. Does post-Western subsume or exclude pre-Western or premodern, or pre-Westphalian histories and institutions? Are the distinctions between West and non-West meaningful? (They are increasingly blurred, but alas, the major IR theories are yet to reflect this) What is the difference between “non-Western” and “post-Western”?

China's political philosophy has its own identity and intellectual tradition. In the science of international relations, China's national developments in the field of theory are gaining popularity. The schools of theories of the People's Republic of China combine traditional national developments with classical theoretical approaches. At the same time, there is a relationship between the growth of China in the international arena and interest in Chinese theories. The author analyzes the main schools of theories of China's international relations. When analyzing theories, the author uses a retrospective approach and compares the main stages of the development of theories with important historical events in the foreign and domestic policy of the People's Republic of China. The author examines the relationship between the dominance of various theoretical approaches of international relations and the foreign policy of the People's Republic of China. The author analyzes the Chinese experience of building national schools of theories of international relations, evaluates theoretical approaches in the context of foreign policy events. The author analyzes the current state of the national school of the theory of international relations in China and the scientific discourse on the assessment of its content in the political science community. The author reveals a pattern between the foreign policy course of the state and research in the field of international relations. The article highlights several reasons for emerging of the active scientific discourse that has developed around the national theory of international relations of China. The experience of Chinese researchers can be used to build theories of international relations in Russia.

The challenges facing historical social studies in international relations are multifaceted and have different aspects. As the relationship between the science of social history and the science of international relations is deep, intertwined and interdependent because it relates to the history of societies and their social characteristics that determines its identity, lifestyle, and relationship with its peers from other societies. Therefore, the role that historical sociology plays in serving researchers in the field of international relations is essential. Most international relation theories are based on it. Also, the relationship of historical sociology with theories of international relations helps to understand generalizations in the field of international relations. It contributed to its interpretation, analysis and testing throughout history, in addition to the contribution of the science of social history in revealing the laws that control the conduct of events that societies go through during a certain period of time. Through research and analysis, it was found that historical sociology has a positive impact on international relations. By providing research material for specialists in this field, the interdependence and overlap between the social sciences makes it difficult to distinguish the boundaries and breaks between them. It also provides ample room for specialists in this field to cooperate with each other.

The discipline of International Relations (IR) is increasingly being criticized for ignoring and marginalizing states and societies outside of the core countries of the West. The idea of a ‘Global IR’ has been proposed since 2014 a pathway toward a bridging the ‘West and the Rest’ divide and thus develop a more inclusive discipline, recognizing its multiple and diverse foundations. At the same time, there is a trend toward developing theories, or ‘schools’, on a national or regional basis, the leading examples of which come from China. This article examines some theoretical constructs emerging in China, such as the ‘Relational Theory’ of Qin Yaqing, who is the foundational scholar in the ‘Chinese School of IR’, the Tianxia (‘all under Heaven’) concept as applied to IR and world order by Zhao Tingyang, and ‘Moral Realism’ of Yan Xuetong, who is the leading figure of the ‘Tsinghua School’. To many scholars, both inside and outside China, the relationship among the various Chinese approaches and their overall contribution to the IR field remain unclear. Without claiming to capture all their nuances and complexity, this article hopes to stimulate a conversation among scholars, Chinese and foreign, with a view to generate greater clarity and highlight their importance to the study of IR. I argue that while making important contributions, the Chinese approaches to International Relations Theory (IRT) also face a number of challenges. This includes the need for them to offer more convincing proof that the concepts and explanations they propose can apply to other societies and to IR more generally. Moreover, there is the need for these approaches to attract a critical mass of followers worldwide, stimulate a research agenda for other, especially younger scholars, and distance themselves from the official Chinese policy framings. The Global IR approach offers a helpful framework for highlighting and perhaps addressing these challenges, especially in avoiding cultural exceptionalism and ensuring their wider relevance beyond China.

Much of the debate in international relations (IR) theory in the past decades has concerned epistemological matters and the possibility of empirical research in the field. Most of this debate happened either within the United States or between Americans and Europeans, translating the general trend of keeping the theoretical core of the discipline centered around its geographical (developed) core. Brazilian international relations provides an additional peripheral view to IR theory (IRT). It is worth analyzing how theory has been used in Brazilian teaching and research, with the aim of understanding how Brazilian academics have used different theoretical approaches to understand their objects of study. With this objective, it is important to look into teaching syllabi, PhD dissertations, and articles published in academic journals in the field of international relations. There are considerable differences between teaching and research in Brazil, with the first following traditional American textbook standards. Research, however, shows considerably different theoretical and methodological bases.

Recent interest in Global international relations (IR) theory has prompted efforts to give voice to non-Western approaches to international politics, accentuating how cultures and their specific local problems contribute to distinct scholarly practices, and how this in turn challenges the hegemony of taken-for-granted, “universalized” Anglo-American IR theory. Encouraged by the overtures of Western academics, Chinese scholars have begun to articulate the role of “traditional” mindsets in Chinese thinking about world politics, proposing avenues toward the development of an IR theory “with Chinese characteristics.” Although these efforts are a laudable attempt to break through ethnocentrism, broaden the relevance of IR theory, and legitimate non-Western knowledge, we argue that the fact that gender seems to be entirely absent from the China-centered portion of this collaborative “West/non-West” project results in a partial and problematic approach: It fails to engage Chinese feminist theorizing by relying upon unexamined gendered concepts. This article uses the results of a series of interviews with mainland scholars to spotlight the challenges faced by existing Chinese IR feminists whose work is overlooked in mainstream Chinese IR’s holistic, Confucian approach to international society. We suggest ways gender sensitivity might inform debates about “Chinese IR” and how to improve Western efforts to engage non-Western IR more broadly.

Debates between International Relations (IR) and Area Studies (AS) have a long history. With the rise of non-western/global International Relations (global IR) theory since the early 21st century, there have been increasing calls for dialogue and knowledge exchange between the two disciplines. This article uses Japan/Japanese Studies as a case to explore its contributions to IR theory and to examine how mainstream IR theory addresses Japan and Japanese Studies. Meso-level theories originating from Japan, such as the ‘developmental state’ theory, the ‘trading state’ theory and the ‘flying geese paradigm’, have significantly enriched the IR research agenda. Prominent IR scholars also regard Japan as a unique and important case to enhance their theoretical work. Beyond external perspectives, this article, based on interviews with Japanese scholars and Japanese-language literature, examines how the Japanese academic community understands the debate between IR and AS and how Japanese Studies is positioned between the two disciplines. Finally, using Japan's pacifism and defence debates as examples, the article highlights how localized knowledge can serve as a bridge between IR and AS, particularly in the context of Japanese Studies.

International relations (IR) theory is difficult to define. It is often taught as a theory that seeks both to explain past state behavior and to predict future state behavior. However, even that definition is contested by many theorists. Traditional IR theories can generally be categorized by their focus either on humans, states, or on the state system as the primary source of conflict. Any bibliography of international relations theory is bound to create controversy among its readers. Why did the author choose one theory and not the other? Why did the author choose one source and not the other? Indeed, a wide variety of permutations would be perfectly valid to provide the researcher with an adequate annotated bibliography, so why were these particular entries chosen? This article identifies Realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism as the three major branches of IR theory. These three branches have replaced the earlier realism-idealism dichotomy. The “English School” could be considered part of any of the aforementioned three branches, and its placement in the IR theory world is the subject of some debate. It has therefore been given its own section and is not included in any of the other sections. Critical IR theory and Feminist IR theory are often considered part of constructivism; however, there is much debate over whether they constitute their own branches, and so they are included in this article (as well as in their own entries in the OBO series), though the sources are somewhat different. Post–Cold War IR Theory is given its own heading because there are a number of theories that were proposed in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War that are still widely taught and discussed in the field. Perhaps the most controversial inclusion is that of Neoconservatism. Though it is quite possible to mount a case for it to be considered a theory of US foreign policy, it is theoretically distinct from other IR theories (the belief in bandwagoning instead of balancing). The final three sections are included to show how political theory has influenced IR theory, and how history and foreign policy have influenced IR theory (and vice versa). The included sections and citations represent both the mainstream of IR theory and those nonmainstream theories that have just started to break into the mainstream of IR theory. This article provides a starting point for both the beginning and the serious scholar of international relations theory.

As progress unfolded, religion was supposed to be consigned to the dustbin of history. So argued many of the 19th-century founding fathers of the modern social sciences such as Max Weber, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud. This insight became conventional wisdom as modernization and secularization theorists sought to systematize and theorize more explicitly God’s demise during much of the 20th century. This understanding of an ever more disenchanted world was increasingly challenged from the 1970s onward by a series of events and process that modernization and secularization theories could hardly explain let alone predict. These events included the Iranian Revolution of 1979; the rise of the Christian Right in the United States since the late 1970s; the progressive emergence of religious fundamentalisms across most world religions; the role played by a Catholic pope in Europe and the Mujahidin in Afghanistan in the fall of Soviet Communism; a new post–Cold War security environment with its emphasis on the politics of identity, the so-called New Wars, the clash of civilization scenarios, and religious terrorism, all epitomized by the 11 September 2001 attacks; and not least, the contemporary growing mobilization of religious identities and values by nationalists and populists around the globe. These developments have led scholars to reconsider the role of religion in the modern world, reexamine the Eurocentric and universalist premises on which much secularization theory and the very same concept of religion had been based, and reflexively assess the secularist biases through which social scientists generally understand and explain world politics. The study of religion and its twin concept of the secular are thus currently going through a period of great vitality across the social sciences. This article focuses on debates and scholarship within the field of international relations (IR). As the study of religion is by its very nature an interdisciplinary affair, a number of studies from cognate fields that make a direct and important contribution to ongoing debates in IR are also included. The bibliography is organized along six main sections. The first section is a general overview of key books and articles, journals, and online resources in the field. The second section, titled Understanding Religion in IR, explores why the sacred had long been overlooked in IR and a range of ongoing definitional debates in the discipline. The third section, titled Religion and IR Theory, presents three broad perspectives—non-paradigmatic, paradigmatic, and theological—seeking to integrate religion with IR theorizing. The fourth section briefly presents major studies and debates on the Secular and Postsecular in IR. In the fifth section, titled Religion and International Issues, readers are acquainted with work exploring the complex interaction between religion and a range of issues central to the field of IR, such as the sovereign state, war, peace, and the liberal order. The sixth section dives into the scholarship examining the role of Religion in Foreign and International Policy.

The field of International Relations (IR) is motivated as much by the institutional dynamics of American universities and the internal rewards structure of tenure, promotion, and merit pay, as it is by wider scholarly recognition. This article discusses how the incentives of the U.S. academe influence IR theory and how it imitates the preferences of American foreign policy. Moreover, this article denotes that IR scholarship has abstracted away from the realities of international affairs and it does not speak of, or speak to those in the far away periphery. It concludes by discussing two promising movements: Global IR and Planet Politics. Global IR involves rebuilding the theories of IR by incorporating contributions from the periphery, whereas Planet Politics is a manifesto for rewriting IR as a set of practices based on the concept of Anthropocene by proposing a new ontology that is driven by the dread of planetary extinction.

ABSTRACTThe study of international relations in or of Asia is no longer atheoretical, as was the case only three decades ago, when the Pacific Review was founded. But how serious are the efforts to study the international relations of Asia theoretically? Some Western scholars argue that writings on Asian International Relations (IR) are still peripheral to the major concerns and debates among IR theories such as realism, liberalism, and constructivism. The ‘indigenization’ of Asian IR theory remains limited by, among other factors, a tendency among local scholars to rely heavily on Western theories, and the close academia-officialdom nexus in the region that inhibits theoretical work. But this essay argues that Asia offers an opportunity to IR theory for broadening itself and shed its hitherto Westerncentrism, especially at a time of a ‘global’ turn in IR (global IR). Theoretical writings on Asian IR are already making a difference by exposing the limitations of mainstream IR theories in the regional context. And they have the potential to offer new and alternative concepts that are more contextually grounded and relevant for Global IR. At the same time, there remain some important conditions that must be met before theoretical writings on Asian IR can make further progress and realize their full potential.