non-Western International Relations Theory Research Articles

Existence and Dynamics of The Islamic-Malay Sultanate Across The Malacca Strait: A Multifaceted Exploration Of Non-Western Ir Theories

The historical interactions among the Malay sultanates/kingdoms across the Malacca Strait offer a fascinating glimpse into the world of international relations beyond the Western lens. Based on the desire to build a non-Western IR theory, this study has highlighted the rich tapestry of cultural diversity, postcolonial struggles, local agency, alternative ideas, and hybridity that characterized the diplomatic landscape of these kingdoms. The struggle for power, strategic cooperation, and regionalism among the Malay kingdoms were deeply rooted in their cultural heritage, challenging the conventional narratives, and showcasing the resilience and adaptability of non-Western societies in shaping their international relations. As we reflect on these historical dynamics, it becomes evident that the lessons from the past continue to resonate in the contemporary global landscape, emphasizing the importance of embracing diverse perspectives and recognizing the agency of all nations in shaping the course of international relations. This study delves into the intricate historical interactions among the Islamic-Malay kingdoms in the Malacca Strait region. Employing a diverse array of non-Western International Relations (IR) theories, the research sheds light on the multifaceted dimensions of the diplomatic landscape in pre-modern Southeast Asia. Through an extensive library research approach, which involved the analysis of classic manuscripts and texts relevant to the topic, this study unveils the nuanced power struggles, strategic alliances, and regional cooperation mechanisms that shaped the Malay kingdoms' international relations. By delving into these historical records, the research provides a comprehensive understanding of how cultural context, postcolonial perspectives, local agency, alternative ideas, and hybridity influenced the diplomatic maneuvers of the Malay kingdoms, challenging conventional Western-centric narratives and showcasing the richness of non-Western IR theories.

Non-Western Theories in International Relations Education and Research: The Case of Turkey/Turkish Academia

This study examines the usage of non-Western theories in research and education by International Relations (IR) scholars in Turkey. Our primary purpose is to understand the level of engagement with the non-Western IR debate, with its prospects and variations, in Turkish academia, and to evaluate the familiarity of Turkish IR scholars from different schools with non-Western IR theories. Relevant data were obtained from a questionnaire with 47 items designed to let participants, consisting of 116 academicians at IR departments from 57 Turkish Universities, provide their teaching experiences, views, and perceptions concerning non-Western IR Theory. While our findings based on this data confirm the literature on the scarcity of non-Western theories in Turkish IR scholarship, we have also furthered it with many details. Firstly, according to the findings, respondents who study and teach IR Theory at Turkish universities think that the IR theories of Western origin dominating the literature are not universal or objective in terms of their function as interpreters of IR issues. But interestingly, those considerations direct scholars to Western critical IR Theory schools rather than non-Western theories. The other key conclusion of this study confirms our expectations. The thoughts, concepts and theories emanating from the Turkish-Islamic world have much more recognition than other non-Western IR theories among Turkish IR scholars.

From guo to tianxia: linking two Daoist theories of International Relations

Abstract This study examines the international relations theory (IRT) of Daoism, one of Asia’s long-standing traditions to have theorized international politics. Drawing upon Laozi’s Dao De Jing, this study elucidates two Daoist IR theories. First, Laozi provides a state-focused guo-based IRT for conducting foreign policy and managing inter-state relations with emphasis on yielding and softness to overcome violence and domination. Second, Laozi offers a Utopian and globalist tianxia-centered IRT based on following the Dao whereby inter-state rivalry is dissolved in favor of peaceful planetary governance in harmony with the natural rhythms of the cosmos. Whereas previous scholarship often concentrates on only one of these two scenarios, I argue the two visions are tightly connected with the more pragmatic first theory envisioned as a stepping stone to obtaining the second. This link demonstrates how Daoism offers a sophisticated non-Western IRT with relevance to addressing planetary challenges today.

The Silence of non-Western International Relations Theory as a Camouflage Strategy: The Trauma of Qing China and the Late Ottoman Empire

My main argument in this article is that there have been at least three important barriers to the development of non-Western international relations theory (NWIRT): intellectual barriers (traumatizing effects of the imposition of the “standard of civilization”); ideational barriers (dominance of Western concepts and contexts); and scientific barriers (imposition of the standard of science). I argue that the silence of NWIRT is substantially a side effect of the strategy of mimicking the West, which was developed as an intellectual defense mechanism or as a camouflage strategy for the (re)establishment and the survival of non-Western states after their traumatic encounter with the Western states. Therefore, the surfacing of NWIRT discussions in the last decades can be attributed primarily to the maturation of an internal condition that is the revival of self-confidence in the residuals of former empires due to their regaining of rising power status and, thus, can be seen as a new phase of the ‘revolt against the West.’ On the other hand, I argue that the rise of NWIRT discussions are also related to the ripening of an external condition: some European schools of IR have been attempting to intellectually balance against the hegemony of American mainstream IRT, therefore, publication of edited books and special issues on NWIRT can also be read as searching for intellectual alliance with NWIRT.

Between East and West: Japanese IR at a crossroads

That East Asian IR communities are increasingly interested in knowledge production has become self-evident. While the form that this interest is taken in China is predominantly focused on developing a Chinese School of International Relations Theory (IRT), the situation in Japan is much more diverse and complicated. This article examines the impact of the non-Western IRT movement on Japanese IR academia from a sociology of science perspective. It finds that while indigenous theorizing has garnered interests in a portion of Japanese IR academia due to both internal and external driving forces, there have been few claims for and actual theorizing on a ‘Japanese brand-name’ in IRT like the ‘Chinese School.’ The majority of Japanese IR scholars remain strongly attached to mainstream IRT or the traditional historical and area studies. Such development has its roots in the structural restraints embedded in Japan’s unresolved identity as a de facto polity situated between ‘East and West’ and the heritage of its war-time history. Given these characteristics of IR studies in Japan, the different components of Japanese IR academia will most likely follow their own trajectory without integration and synthesis. This will position Japanese IR, just like its current foreign policy, at a crossroads.

Kautilyan foreign policy analysis: Sino-Indian dynamics in South Asia and the Indian Ocean region

ABSTRACTThis article evaluates and interprets Kautilya’s Arthasastra – an ancient Sanskrit treatise on statecraft and foreign policy – as a framework for analyzing the conflicting dynamics in a pluralistic order. Second, it operationalizes Arthasastra as an analysis of Sino-Indian dynamics in South Asia and the Indian Ocean region. In examining Kautilya’s political theory, the article answers the perceived need for non-Western international relations theory. A theoretical contribution of the analysis of Kautilya includes an understanding that even inferior powers can become leaders in international affairs and that the precondition of sustainable leadership is the welfare of all subjects of government. Thus, Kautilya appears as an untapped source for conceptualizing international relations in a post-hegemonic order and provides a normative background for rethinking how to manage conflicts. On an empirical level, the article discusses the problem of China’s membership in the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), as well as the economic, military and political implications of the Belt and Road Initiative for India and the Indian Ocean Region. The article proposes SAARC + 1, Indian active engagement with the Bangladesh–China–India–Myanmar Economic Corridor and the initiation of investment, connectivity and infrastructure projects through the Quad.

Why is there no Non-Western International Relations Theory? Ten years on

A decade ago in 2007 we published a forum in International Relations of the Asia-Pacific (IRAP) on ‘Why there is no non-Western IR theory?’. Now we revisit this project ten years on, and assess the current state of play. What we do in this article is first, to survey and assess the relevant literature that has come out since then; second, to set out four ways in which our own understanding of this issue has evolved since 2007; third to reflect on some ways in which Asian IR might contribute to the emergence of what we call ‘Global IR’; and fourth to look specifically at hierarchy as an issue on which East Asian IR scholars might have a comparative advantage. Our aim is to renew, and perhaps refocus, the challenge to Asian IR scholars, and our hope is that this will contribute to the building of Global IR

Non-Western International Relations Theory and Ibn Khaldun

Acharya and Buzan, Non-Western IR Theory, 16-22. Acharya and Buzan, Non-Western IR Theory, 222. Barry Buzan and Richard Little, “World History and the development of non-Western International Relations Theory,” in

Materializing the ‘non-Western’: two stories of Japanese philosophers on culture and politics in the inter-war period

This paper investigates the risk presumably involved in the narratives of non-Western international relations theory (IRT) by focusing on a similar historical case in Japan. It reveals the risk of uncritically accepted geographical division, and particularly focuses on the discourses of the Kyoto School's theory of world history as an example of non-Western narratives in the past, which was to ‘overcome’ the Western civilization similar to the contemporary non-Western IRT. However, they are also infamous for providing justification for the wartime regime in Japan for their aggression in the Asian continent. What is the connection between their philosophy and support for the imperialist regime? If there is a connection between them, is there any possibility of the resurrection of the same results in the case of non-Western IRT? To answer these questions, the article introduces the philosophy of Tosaka Jun who was critical of the School but, unlike Kyoto School philosophers, stubbornly fought against the mainstream politics of the time.

Book Review: Buzan, Barry and Acharya, Amitav. 2010. Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and Beyond Asia

Book Review: Buzan, Barry and Acharya, Amitav. 2010. <i>Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and Beyond Asia</i>

Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and beyond Asia. Edited by Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan. New York: Routledge, 2009. 248p. $47.95. - International Relations Scholarship Around the World. Edited by Arlene B. Tickner and Ole Wæver. New York: Routledge, 2009. 354p. $42.95.

Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and beyond Asia. Edited by Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan. New York: Routledge, 2009. 248p. $47.95. - International Relations Scholarship Around the World. Edited by Arlene B. Tickner and Ole Wæver. New York: Routledge, 2009. 354p. $42.95.

Book Review: Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan (Eds), Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives On and Beyond Asia.

Book Review: Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan (Eds), <i>Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives On and Beyond Asia</i>.

The absence of non-western IR theory in Asia reconsidered

This paper critically examines an ongoing debate in International Relations (IR) as to why there is apparently no non-Western IR theory in Asia and what should be done to ‘mitigate’ that situation. Its central contention is that simply calling for greater incorporation of ideas from the non-West and contributions by non-Western scholars from local ‘vantage points’ does not make IR more global or democratic, for that would do little to transform the discipline’s Eurocentric epistemological foundations. Re-envisioning IR in Asia is not about discovering or producing as many ‘indigenous’ national schools of IR as possible, but about reorienting IR itself towards a post-Western era that does not reinforce the hegemony of the West within (and without) the discipline. Otherwise, even if local scholars could succeed in crafting a ‘Chinese (or Indian, Japanese, Korean, etc.) School’, it would be no more than constructing a ‘derivative discourse’ of Western modernist social science.

Conclusion: On the possibility of a non-Western IR theory in Asia

AbstractIn the conclusion, we seek to ascertain the possibility of a non-Western International Relations theory (IRT) in Asia. We find while there is a good deal of writing that can be regarded as ‘pre-theoretical’, these have not been fully exploited or exported to other parts of Asia and beyond. There is certainly little that can be called an Asian IRT. This is not because scholars in the region accept that Western IRT is unchallengeable nor that it has found all the answers to the major problems of international relations. Nor is it because non-Western theories are ‘hidden from the public eye’. It is rather due to a lack of institutional resources, the head-start of Western IRT, and especially the hegemonic standing of Western IRT. At the same time, the case studies point to the existence of abundant intellectual and historical resources that could serve as the basis of developing a non-Western IRT that takes into account the positions, needs and cultures of countries in the region. There is room in Asia for the development of non-Western IRT, but not an ‘Asian School of international relations’ (although national perspectives such as a ‘Chinese School’ are possible) which would assume a degree of convergence of perspectives and interactions among Asian scholars, which clearly does not exist. This development should and could go beyond simply ‘joining in to the existing game seeking to add local colour and cases to existing theory’, or developing a localist exceptionalism (‘Asian values’) or organizing local thinking into rebellions against prevailing orthodoxies (especially realism and liberalism) in the manner of the dependencia theory. Western IRT does not need to be replaced, but can and should be enriched with the addition of more voices and a wider rooting not just in world history but also in informed representations of both core and periphery perspectives within the ever-evolving global political, economic and social order.In the conclusion, we first offer some generalizations from the four case studies with a view to addressing the main question posed in the introduction: the apparent absence of IRT in Asia and possible explanations behind it. We then reflect on whether the question of a non-Western IRT in Asia is a meaningful one, and whether the way it is approached in this special issue could result in a productive debate that would advance the discipline of IR. Although our empirical focus is on Asia, we suggest some insights that have more general relevance for non-Western IRT.

Why is there no non-Western international relations theory? An introduction

In Section 1, we outline the conceptual framework, rationale, and objectives of the Special Issue. Next, we clarify what we mean by ‘international relation theory (IRT)’, which would serve as the basis for organizing the case studies. We then examine several possible explanations of the absence of non-Western IRT, such as the belief that Western IRT has discovered the right path to understanding international relations so as to preclude the need for other voices, the hegemonic status of Western IRT that discourages theoretical formulations by others, the ‘hidden’ nature of IRT in Asia, lack of resources and local conditions that discriminate against the production of IR theory, and the time lag between the West and Asia in developing theoretical writings. This is followed by our suggestions about the possible Asian Sources for IRT, including the writings of classical political, military, and religious figures, thinking, and foreign policy approach of leaders, the work of Asian scholars who have applied Western IRT to local contexts, and finally, generalizations of Asian experiences to develop concepts which can be used more widely.