Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, counterterrorism has become a central organizing principle of international security discourse. While major powers have relied primarily on military and intelligence capabilities, India has simultaneously pursued a strategy of narrative construction and moral diplomacy in global forums. This article argues that India’s counterterrorism diplomacy in the post-9/11 order represents a deliberate effort to shape international opinion through normative framing rather than coercive leverage alone. Drawing on constructivist international relations theory and the concept of strategic narratives, the study examines how India has framed terrorism as a universal moral threat in multilateral platforms such as the United Nations, the Financial Action Task Force, BRICS, and the G20.Using qualitative discourse analysis of official speeches, diplomatic statements, and multilateral resolutions between 2001 and 2023, the article demonstrates that India has sought to transition from a state-centric security claimant to a norm entrepreneur advocating a universal definition of terrorism. This moral framing serves multiple strategic purposes: delegitimizing state-sponsored terrorism, consolidating India’s reputation as a responsible global actor, and strengthening its claim to major power status. However, the effectiveness of this strategy remains constrained by geopolitical contestation and competing narratives within global institutions. The article contributes to the literature by conceptualizing counterterrorism diplomacy as a form of soft power embedded in normative persuasion and global opinion

This article explains the relationship between Mearsheimer’s theoretical work and role as a public intellectual on three contemporary issues: Russia, China and Palestine. The argument is twofold. First, Mearsheimer’s theory sets limits on state behaviour that are dictated by the requirement of survival, while offering little normative theorisation on how policymakers should address the consequences of these limits. Second, the combination of too much limit and too little normative theorisation turns Mearsheimer’s theory into a prison that he seeks to escape in his public commentary through inconsistency and/or referring to rhetorical hopes. These rhetorical hopes absolve Mearsheimer of the responsibility to explore alternative actions to address the normative challenges in these cases. By surrendering these alternatives, Mearsheimer’s hope serves his theory’s ideological rationalisation of the status quo. Mearsheimer’s experience showcases that IR theorists should not restrict theories to the point where they enclose future possibilities of political action and become ideologies of state power in the status quo. Theorists can discharge this responsibility by taking seriously the role of power in the operation of their concepts and limiting their concepts’ elevation above the political as the realm of the contestation of interests.

This study examines relations between China and the Central Asian countries from a constructivist perspective in international relations theory. It focuses on the analysis of ideas, values, norms, and discursive practices that shape the nature of regional interactions, including historical narratives and humanitarian forms of cooperation. The study aims to identify how political rhetoric, official documents, and public communications contribute to the social construction of strategic partnerships and mutual trust.The methodological basis of the study is a discourse and content analysis of official statements, policy documents, and media materials. It is shown that concepts such as "peaceful development," "mutually beneficial cooperation," "community of common destiny," and the principle of non-interference play a key role in shaping the dominant framework of regional interactions. The article argues that China's relations with the Central Asian countries are shaped not only by material factors but are also largely determined by socially constructed perceptions, norms, and value orientations. The findings expand the understanding of the mechanisms of regional cooperation and contribute to the development of constructivist research in the Central Asian context.

Abstract Critical discussion of empire and imperialism has become a key theme in international relations. Much confusion, however, is generated by a lack of consensus on the meaning of imperialism. This paper offers one avenue for clarifying the terms of debate by reconstructing the conceptual history of imperialism from its inception in the late nineteenth century to post-war IR theory. In its initial formulation at the turn of the twentieth century, the theory of imperialism sought to analyse the interplay of capitalist development and geopolitical conflict in the formation and reproduction of international hierarchies. Immediately after World War I, however, an intellectual counter-revolution narrowed the concept into a synonym of colonialism, or the formal rule and administration of subject territory. As anti-colonial struggles won independence in the post-war period, imperialism was increasingly understood as a thing of the past. The paper argues that this conceptual narrowing remains an obstacle to contemporary theorizing, and that a rereading of the classical theories can strengthen contemporary IR frameworks. A key implication of this argument is that renewing the theory of imperialism in IR entails a reintegration of political economy and security studies.

War’ is a perennial issue of world politics. Building upon the insight that war is a socially constructed phenomenon (Bartelson, Butler, Wilhelmsen), one to be “explored… not explained or counted by IR theory” (Barkawi), this paper suggests an original theoretical framework for deciphering the role that language plays in making modern international conflict. The article reflects on the persistence of war in world politics, despite the extensive normative, legal, moral, and even aesthetic rejections of this form of interstate interaction that have developed over many centuries. Taking these injunctions seriously, the project explores how the ‘language of war’ (the elective framing of international issues, relationships, and even forms of actors, within militarised metaphors and symbolic invocations) enacts particular processes which participate in the making of armed (international) conflict. Specifically, the framework suggests that the language of war not only reflects but actively shapes the predispositions and decisions leading to conflict. By framing international disputes in this way, language establishes a symbolic landscape that makes recourse to violence appear permissible, advantageous, and then necessary. It argues that the metaphor of war operates through, and indeed pervades, the ‘ordinary security language’ (Leader Maynard 2022) which attends the modern international state system. By explicitly deploying such framings, which are easily brought to the surface, the language of war – inadvertently, at first – enacts a cycle of radicalisation between domestic constituencies, international diplomacy, and (political) elites. In this way, the paper begins to ask how we can talk ourselves into war.

Geography has remained an instrumental factor in shaping Nepal’s foreign policy for a considerable time. The presence of dominant powers in the neighborhood and beyond has made Nepal concerned about safeguarding its vital interests. For this reason, its strategic position is referred to as the ‘yam between three boulders’. Hence, this article aims to apply the leading theories of international relations, namely Realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism, in analysing the shifting trends in Nepal’s foreign policy behavior. There has been a gradual shift in traditional balance policy towards a hedging policy. This strategy provides a realistic viewpoint that explains the unfolding, complex relations in contemporary foreign policy. Liberalism fosters Nepal's engagement in multilateral treaties, active participation in various regional and global forums, and adherence to international law. Foreign policy adopts a constructivist insight in its enduring commitment to non-alignment, neutrality, and the value of world peace. Nepal, as a small power, behaved realistically during the escalating mode of external threat. It followed a constructivist approach to resist pressure from powerful neighbors, whereas the liberal viewpoint prevailed during periods of regional and global relaxation. The study concludes that a sensitive geostrategic position, shifting global power, the emergence of new actors, and changes in the domestic power sequence have led to a shift in foreign policy behaviour. This article assumes a qualitative approach and uses secondary sources to gather the required data.

This article examines Necmettin Erbakan’s foreign policy vision as a distinctive anti-imperialist and civilizational critique of the Western-centered international order. Departing from conventional realist or pragmatic approaches dominant in Turkish foreign policy analysis, Erbakan conceptualized foreign policy as an ethical and structural struggle against economic dependency, political domination, and cultural subordination. Central to his vision was the construction of alternative networks of cooperation among Muslim-majority and non-Western countries, most notably articulated through initiatives such as the D-8 Organization for Economic Cooperation. The study situates Erbakan’s foreign policy thought within the broader intellectual traditions of Islamic political thought, Third Worldism, and Global South solidarities, highlighting his emphasis on “just order” and multipolarity. By analyzing parliamentary speeches, policy proposals, and institutional initiatives, the article argues that Erbakan’s approach should not be reduced to ideological rhetoric but understood as an attempt to formulate a coherent counter-hegemonic foreign policy framework. In doing so, the article contributes to rethinking Turkish foreign policy beyond Euro-Atlantic paradigms and offers insights into non-Western alternatives to modern international relations theory.

ABSTRACT In recent years, states from various parts of the world have embraced the concept of a ‘friends to all, enemy to none’ foreign policy. Such states include Namibia, the Philippines, Singapore, Bangladesh, and Papua New Guinea. Solomon Islands, in the south-west Pacific Ocean, has also maintained this stance consistently and fervently. Despite the frequent use of the term ‘friendship’ or ‘friend’ in the diplomatic rhetoric of states, the concept of a ‘friends to all foreign policy’ remains underanalysed in the field of International Relations and Foreign Policy Analysis. Drawing on Oelsner and Koschut’s framework for international normative friendship, this article finds that Western-oriented IR conceptions are limited in explaining Solomon Islands’ policy of friendship. It is argued that Solomon Islands pursues what this article labels ‘pragmatic friendship.’ This form of friendship is influenced by the cultural and religious contexts of Melanesian society and is both normative as well as strategic. The addition of this term expands International Relations theory to incorporate a non-Western perspective and illustrates how small states can effectively manoeuvre geopolitical competition between major powers.

Abstract Kenneth Waltz argued that more states should have nuclear weapons. This remains a controversial position in international relations theory, while in philosophy of technology, it is largely unknown. This is regrettable, because Waltz offers interesting arguments for why nuclear weapons have a positive influence on the world. In short, he implies that nuclear weapons contain morally desirable values. Because of this, Waltz should be a more prominent voice in philosophy of technology, especially in the debate on the values embedded in technological artifacts. Waltz offers a convincing account for why nuclear weapons are not value-neutral, and I argue that his works imply a strong version of this position: that nuclear weapons co-act together with humans. The paper will outline and defend this position. However, I note that Waltz’s analysis is narrowly focused on international relations. For him, nuclear weapons are good because they foster peace. Philosophy of technology should expand on this thesis. To integrate Waltz into the field, scholars should interrogate the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear weapons based on a variety of values – including, but not limited to, those that Waltz proposes. Value neutrality thesis; nuclear weapons: international relations; history of ideas; ethics of technology.

Since Stanley Hoffmann's assertion that the field of international relations (IR) is predominantly Western, several non-Western trends have emerged to challenge this dominance. This study aims to examine Arab efforts that challenge Eurocentrism, their success in doing so within the field of IR, and to draw connections with other transformative efforts, mainly Global IR and Post-Western IR. The analysis is carried out within the broader context of the "Homegrown" trend in IR that seeks to diversify and decolonize the field. The argument within this article states that while the Arab efforts, represented by the Beirut School of Critical Security Studies, the School of International Relations of the Middle East (IRME), and the Islamic IR, are important steps. However, they have had limited impact and, in some cases, replicated the problems they seek to address. It also advocates for a more self-critical and contextual approach to decentralizing Western International Relations Theories (IRT), drawing lessons from the experiences and shortcomings of other non-Western initiatives. Moreover, a vision for enhancing the Arabic efforts to overcome Western hegemony, on the level of knowledge production as well as on the pedagogical and institutional levels, will be presented. An Arab exclusivity is not advocated in this article; instead, it emphasizes the need for a thorough examination of Arab initiatives, as part of the Global South, to improve their impact in achieving their goals

Abstract The twentieth anniversary of The Chinese Journal of International Politics (CJIP) offers an opportunity to reflect on its evolution and achievements, while also looking forward to its continued growth and contributions to the field of International Relations (IR). Founded in 2005 by Professor Yan Xuetong and publishing its inaugural issue in 2006, the journal was established with the vision that China’s IR community could make meaningful theoretical contributions through upholding universal scholarly standards and actively engaging with the global academia. CJIP’s core mission is to foster theoretical innovation, particularly through the analysis of China’s external relations and the integration of ancient Chinese and East Asian thought with contemporary practices. Over the years, the journal has solidified its reputation as a key platform for intellectual exchange between China and the rest of the world. Its influential publications have spurred significant efforts to develop, test, and refine IR theories by synthesizing East Asian historical and contemporary experiences with broader perspectives. This has led to the development of some innovative theories, such as Moral Realism and Relational Theory. Looking ahead, CJIP will focus on prominent themes, including the great power competition in the digital age, the evolving transition of the international order, and the ongoing development of leader-level and middle-range theories through cross-regional comparisons. At the same time, the journal remains committed to its role as a bridge for inclusive global academic dialog.

The Palestine–Israel conflict, is one of the most complex and prolonged issues in modern international politics, marked by an acute humanitarian crisis since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. In this context, Indonesia holds a distinctive position as a country that has consistently supported the Palestinian struggle, from the era of President Soekarno to President Joko Widodo. This research, aims to analyze Indonesia's foreign policy toward the Palestine–Israel issue through the lens of normative theory in International Relations, which emphasizes the importance of moral values, ethical principles, and international norms in state decision-making. Utilizing a qualitative method based on literature studies and in-depth interviews, this study explores how the constitutional foundation of the 1945 Constitution, the values of Pancasila, and the nation's moral identity shape Indonesia’s consistent stance in international forums. The findings reveal, that Indonesia’s support for Palestine is not merely a political strategy or a response to global dynamics, but rather a representation of a normative commitment to justice, human rights, and anti-colonial principles. The normative theory approach in this study demonstrates that Indonesia’s foreign policy reflects the nation’s ethical identity as well as its moral stance in confronting global injustices experienced by the Palestinian people. This research contributes to a deeper understanding of how normative theory can be applied to analyze foreign policy in the Global South, particularly in post-colonial contexts. The study also provides insights for policy makers and scholars in recognizing the enduring role of ethical considerations in shaping international relations.

This article explores the issue of international political bias in large language models (LLMs), using ChatGPT, Llama, Gemini, and DeepSeek as case studies. The research examines how these models construct assessments of key geopolitical actors–namely, the United States, Russia, China, Iran, and Israel– through the combined methodological lens of critical discourse analysis (CDA) and the emotional turn in International Relations (IR) theory. The study employs both automated sentiment analysis (via the NRC Emotion Lexicon) and qualitative discourse analysis of LLM-generated texts. The findings reveal a persistent structural asymmetry in the representation of states, which correlates with dominant narratives of Western political elites: the United States and China are predominantly associated with positive emotions (trust, joy), whereas Russia and Iran are more frequently linked to negative emotional frames (anger, fear). Although Israel’s foreign policy is subject to some criticism, its portrayal remains considerably more neutral compared to that of Russia and Iran. Moreover, LLMs appear to adopt discursive strategies of soft power, promoting Western normative concepts such as human rights and a “rules-based international order,” while marginalizing alternative geopolitical perspectives. Notably, the analysis also uncovers instances of criticism directed at U.S. foreign policy, suggesting that such bias is not uniform and may vary across contexts. The study contributes to ongoing scholarly debates on the role of AI in public diplomacy, algorithmic power, and technological sovereignty, underscoring the need for regulatory mechanisms to mitigate ideological distortions embedded in the outputs of generative language models.

This study examines the dilemmas faced by weak states in South Asia through the lenses of geopolitics, geoeconomics, and security dynamics. It addresses the central research question: how do weak states leverage the competition among major powers to create opportunities for their own benefit? To answer this question, the study employs a historical– geographic approach, qualitative research methods, in-depth expert interviews, and a review of recent literature. Through a critical assessment of mainstream IR theories – particularly realism and constructivism – this paper argues that the dynamics of South Asia call for a new theoretical framework that synthesises elements of these established approaches. One innovative avenue is the application of postcolonial theory, which challenges Westerncentric IR paradigms and provides a critical lens through which to analyse power relations, identity formation, and historical legacies of the region. The study finds that weak states in South Asia have predominantly pursued hedging strategies in their relations with dominant powers, enabling them to create limited leverage. While this strategy may offer short-term advantages, there are growing concerns that long-term pressure from dominant powers to align with one side could result in geopolitical entrapment.

The article uses the role theory of international relations as an analytical tool for a systematic study of strategic logic and the evolution of energy diplomacy in the Russian Federation in the post-bipolar period. The author substantiates the thesis that energy diplomacy serves as a key mechanism for Russia to implement its main national role concepts, such as “energy superpower”, “Eurasian leader” and “independent global center”, and is aimed at transforming resource potential into geopolitical influence and economic power. Empirical analysis shows that through the creation of critical infrastructure and the formation of a regional energy order, Russia has managed to strengthen its position in the “near abroad” countries to a certain extent and enhance its status in the global energy architecture. However, the model of diplomacy under study is faced with growing structural contradictions: the fundamental conflict between the internal roles of a “reliable supplier” and a “user of a politi-cal instrument” leads to the erosion of strategic reputation.; At the same time, the global energy transition, sys-temic Western sanctions and severe restrictions on the raw materials model of the economy create a constant increasing external pressure. The continued effectiveness of Russia’s energy diplomacy will depend on its abil-ity to find a new balance between maintaining traditional power roles and adapting to the transformation of the international system.

This article examines the strategic, affective and performative dimensions of ‘friendship’ in contemporary US foreign policy. Utilising three case studies that span domestic, multilateral, and bilateral settings—a US ambassadorial confirmation hearing, Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar’s multilateral rhetoric and Kenyan President William Ruto’s 2024 State Visit to Washington—the paper illustrates how diplomatic friendship operates not as a fixed alliance but as a flexible discourse deployed across contexts. Positioned at the intersection of International Relations theory and political anthropology, the paper introduces the concept of ‘affective alignment diplomacy’ to describe how symbolic displays of friendship can project legitimacy, manage power imbalances, and navigate uncertainty. It argues that friendship in diplomacy serves both as a tool for emotional governance and as a mechanism for strategic ambiguity—creating moral resonance while often delaying structural reforms. While friendship can encourage engagement and foster symbolic closeness, it also has the potential to reinforce inequality if it is not supported by institutional trust, material reciprocity, or accountability. The article provides a framework for understanding friendship as a relational practice shaped by performance, power dynamics, and changing geopolitical contexts.

The purpose of the research paper is to examine the evolution of Azerbaijan-China relations from 2015 to 2025 within the context of shifting geopolitical dynamics and global power competition. Special attention is paid to the strategic planning, institutional mechanisms, and normative dimensions that define the comprehensive strategic partnership between the two countries in 2025, as well as its implications for the broader Global South. The scientific novelty. This study lies in its multi-perspective analysis of Azerbaijan-China relations (2015-2025), grounded in the domestic development strategies of both countries. Unlike traditional accounts that focus narrowly on bilateral cooperation, this paper integrates empirical evidence with diverse International Relations theories to move beyond simplistic narratives. It reveals how emerging countries build stable and strategic partnerships in the context of shifting global dynamics. Conclusions. The development of Azerbaijan-China relations over the last ten years (2015-2025) presents an inspiring instance of the formation of a comprehensive partnership of strategic importance, exhibiting the complex interaction of core International Relations (IR) theories in modern governance. It can be interpreted along three dimensions: as a realist response to security and geopolitical shifts, as a relationship shaped by institutional and economic interdependence, and as a normative alignment grounded in shared identity and discursive values within the Global South. From a realist perspective, Azerbaijan and China relations have steadily deepened, driven by converging interests in national sovereignty, regional influence, and security. From a liberal institutionalist standpoint, the Azerbaijan-China partnership, through institutionalization and economic interdependence, reduces the risk of strategic miscalculation and enhances policy coordination and cooperation. From a constructivist point of view, Azerbaijan-China relations are shaped chiefly by shared identity and discursive equality rather than merely by economic concerns or institutional structures. Conceptually, the Azerbaijan-China partnership affirms the analytical relevance of a pluralistic approach to international relations theory. No single paradigm adequately captures the multidimensional character of this bilateral engagement. A synthesized framework is therefore needed, one that incorporates power dynamics, institutional structures, identity formation, and geopolitical context. Empirically, the partnership demonstrates how middle powers can exercise strategic agency and advance development goals through calibrated, multilateral engagement with emerging powers. It also illustrates the potential of non-hegemonic cooperation to support alternative forms of global governance that reflect more inclusive and representative international norms.

The South China Sea is a focal point for tensions between international law, great-power politics, and regional security in the Asia-Pacific region. This article critically analyses the 2016 arbitral award in Philippines v. China under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and considers the implications of China’s persistent defiance. Drawing on a multidisciplinary approach combining legal analysis, International Relations theory, and geopolitics, the paper argues that the arbitration did clarify legal entitlements (dismissing China’s expansive ‘nine-dash line’ claims, clarifying the legal status of maritime features, and recognising the Philippines’ EEZ rights), but has not led to a modification of China’s strategic conduct. The paper illustrates how China’s militarization of artificial islands, control over sea lanes, and wielding of economic and diplomatic influence represent limits to what international law enforcement can compel when a major power is its subject. These trends highlight the friction between written law and power politics, expose the fragility of UNCLOS enforcement mechanisms, and reveal the potential in multilaterally-driven diplomacy, regional security architecture, and integrated governance approaches that address legal, environmental, and strategic concerns. The South China Sea case thus provides lasting lessons about the efficacy of international maritime law, the role of smaller states in formulating legal claims, and the prospects for a rules-based order in contested waters. Received: 18 November 2025 /Accepted: 30 December 2025 /Published:January 2026

Abstract A central concept in Global International Relations (IR) is ‘global’ or ‘globality,’ which has been commonly understood as the sum total of all geo-cultural parts of the world. This understanding underpins Global IR’s efforts to make IR more geo-epistemologically representative and inclusive, but it has been criticized for its essentialism trap and geo-epistemology. While many critics problematize Global IR’s conception of globality, few pay attention to an alternative form of existence of globality, namely, its embodiment within each of the ‘geo-cultural’ parts. This article aims to engage with this form of globality by drawing on the conceptual framework of quantum holography, which sees the whole as not just comprising its parts but also being encoded within them. The implications are that if global-local relationality is holographic in nature, globalizing IR should entail not only externally expanding IR’s geo-epistemological horizon but also discovering and appreciating the globality that always already exists within each locale. Thus, this approach may help us tackle the stubborn binary of global vs. local/national in the Global IR debate and mitigate its essentialism trap and geo-epistemology. To illustrate, we apply this framework to problematize ‘Chineseness’ in the Chinese School of IR theory.

While International Relation (IR) has long relied on historical cases and data, in recent years the Historical IR subfield has moved beyond banal recognition of this relationship to help overcome IR’s presentism and encourage reflexivity on the historical foundations of IR theory. Yet, despite its successes, Historical IR has primarily distinguished itself via its contributions to IR, rather than as an interdisciplinary bridge between IR and History. This article sketches a path for Historical IR to cultivate new dialogue between IR and History. This bridge would not only benefit IR by bringing historians’ insights to IR in a more sustained manner but also facilitate opportunities for IR to contribute to History. Although this bridge necessarily implicates historians, our argument focuses on moves the Historical IR subfield could make to become more attractive to History. To foster deeper dialogue, we argue that Historical IR should both work to synthesize the historical elements it brings to IR to make itself more recognizable to historians and engage historiography to target IR’s contributions to historical debates. Doing so, we argue, will not only enhance Historical IR’s contributions to IR, but also make it a more suitable interdisciplinary bridge.