non-Western International Relations Research Articles

Whose Security? Conflict and (Critical) Security Studies in the Middle East and North Africa

Security Studies (SS) is a subfield of International Relations (IR) concerned with the ways that conflict and violence contribute to shaping the world. The subfield’s concern with the conditions of war and peace has situated the state as the referent object of security and produced a state-centrism in scholarship, academic journals, and teaching that overemphasizes security as a policy problem. Beginning in the early 1990s challenges to state-centrism emerged through Human Security (HS) and Critical Security Studies (CSS) approaches that sought to challenge and rethink the referent objects of security while introducing more critical theoretical traditions from which to research, publish, and teach about what constitutes threat and security. These new approaches expanded inquiry into security and oriented scholars around different ways of approaching questions of what security is and for whom (or what) it is produced. Despite the expansion of the different subfields of inquiry into security, a common criticism levelled at these approaches concerned how regions of the Global South were incorporated into scholarship. In this reflective essay, I draw inspiration from these criticisms to ask how the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) has been studied, taught, and theorized from in the fields of Security Studies and Critical Security Studies. The principal question guiding this essay is What do different traditions in Security Studies have to tell us about conflict in the Middle East and North Africa? I seek to reflect on how the region, its peoples, and their experiences are incorporated into these fields and how this has shaped scholarly and popular understandings of conflict and peace in the MENA. I wish to reflect on how tensions between the MENA’s incorporation into SS and CSS produce patterns of visibility and invisibility. I then shift attention to a discussion of how the emergent scholarship on non-Western IR and other approaches from within the MENA region itself may contribute to different ways of researching and teaching conflict and security in the MENA. The essay concludes with some observations about the future of conflict and security studies in the MENA with an emphasis on key questions that are raised in the context of the region’s contemporary overlapping crises.

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.

Quo Vadis, Turkish IR? Mapping Turkish IR’s Footsteps within the Global

The International Relations (IR) discipline is ascendant because of the theoretical and methodological divisions and controversies within. As it is mostly placed in the Non-Western IR category, Turkish IR is an interesting case in that it reveals the temporal changes of theoretical debates in IR and their local resonance from the purview of a geography that is jammed between the West and the rest. For this reason, this paper examines the literature on the Turkish School of IR (if there is any) and draws some conclusions regarding its current state. This research first utilizes the Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) surveys conducted by the International Relations Council of Turkey (IRCT) between 2007 and 2018. More extensively, the top 20 journals categorized under Google Scholar’s “Diplomacy and International Relations” list are coded based on their titles containing “Turkey.” Articles from the 1922–2021 period are then analyzed considering their authors, abstracts, and keywords. From this analysis, the study finds that studies focusing on Turkey have improved over the years, although there is a need for more theoretical and methodological advancements. As a “peripheral” country in IR, Turkey is still a subject of study by the “center” countries.

Russian realism: defending ‘Derzhava’ in International Relations

In light of E. H. Carr's brutal dismissal of International Relations (IR) as ‘simply a study of the best way to run the world from positions of strength’ and Stanley Hoffman's damning 1977 article, ‘An American social science: International Relations’, the discipline has been embroiled in a series of somewhat defensive and introspective debates. Initially, the discussion centred on the value of IR theories, whereas more recent conversations have focused on whether western-centric assumptions underpin much of the (western) IR scholarship (see John M. Hobson's The Eurocentric conception of world politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012; reviewed in International Affairs 88: 5, September 2012, and Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan's The making of global International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019; reviewed in International Affairs, 96: 4, July 2020). Given the growing interest in non-western IR contributions, and the current challenges to western hegemony, Andrei Tsygankov's Russian realism is a welcome addition to Routledge's series ‘Worlding beyond the West’.

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.

Islam and International Relations (IR): why is there no Islamic IR theory?

International Relations (IR) as an academic discipline is relatively new and almost entirely dominated by Western sources of knowledge. Its biased nature undermines its capacity to understand, explain and predict events in the non-Western part of the world. With the increasing effort to explore non-Western IR and diversify the sources of knowledge of the discipline, Islam has emerged as an essential source of interest, not necessarily as a reflection of the East–West dichotomy or non-Western versus Western discourse, but rather as an approach that has its own rules, concepts and perspectives on IR. In this sense, the article contributes to the increasing discussions on the interaction between Islam and IR. It critically engages with three levels of discourse: first, IR in Islam; second, Islam in contemporary IR; and, third, Islam as an IR theory or as a paradigm. The paper attempts to address the question of why there are no modern Islamic IR theories by exploring reasons related to Muslims as well as to the nature of the current system and Western hegemony. It concludes by introducing an initial model and two paths (traditional and revolutionary) that might help mitigate this situation in the future.

Fantastic Theories and Where to Find Them: Rethinking Interlocutors in Global IR

How can we appreciate non-Western agency in theorising world politics without reintroducing parochialism and exceptionalism, thus reproducing the very problem that motivated global international relations (IR) in the first place? In this article, I explore an alternative approach to engaging with non-Western IR theories, which I refer to as the embedded observer approach. First, taking the scholarship on Chinese IR as an example, I argue that the present predicament of global IR is in part attributable to the way scholars engage with non-Western political thought. Drawing from discussions in critical IR and Comparative Political Theory, I propose a methodological adjustment for the study of non-Western theories. Specifically, I argue that by shifting focus from isolated scholars and texts to critical dialogues among autochthonous intellectuals, the researcher has the chance to learn about and appreciate the clashes of ideas, analytical perspectives, and methodological tools that together constitute the living intellectual tradition in a non-Western society. As a demonstration, I analyse the People’s Republic of China (PRC) scholars’ critical reaction to Zhao Tingyang’s Tianxia System through the lens of three key topics in the debate over the thesis. The discussion highlights the need to rethink interlocutors in global IR and the utility of an embedded observer approach for engaging with knowledge traditions beyond the West, both in IR and beyond. 神奇理论在哪里？反思全球国际关系学中的对话者

Questioning the quest for Pluralism: How Decolonial is Non-Western IR?

Since early 2000s, scholars of international relations have been questioning the Western-centrism of their home discipline and, in a quest for pluralism, have been envisioning ways of conceptualizing the world beyond the West. At the same time, an intellectual movement known as modernity/coloniality research collective has been critically reflecting about modernity and its often-neglected counterpart, coloniality, to resist universalism and to decolonize knowledge. Engaging with the attempts to procure pluralism in the discourse of international relations, the purpose of this article is to question the different perspectives of non-Western international relations from a decolonial angle to identify intellectual projects that could lead to decolonizing the discipline. In its discussion of how decolonial non-Western IR theory is, the article argues that while some perspectives within the subfield openly reject or simply ignore the concerns raised by decolonial thought, others put forward intellectual projects where decolonial arguments resonate. Hence, rather than characterizing the subfield in general terms, the article distinguishes those perspectives that are attentive to the need of generating a true dialog among knowledges and, by so doing, it contributes to critical scholarship within international relations.

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.

Корни и тренды японских теорий международных отношений

Japanese theories of international relations (IR) turn into an increasingly important subject of research by Russian political scientists as Russia progressively orientates toward the East. The research task of this article is to approach the understanding of the origins and current landscape of Japanese theoretical thought in IR, explaining its cultural, historical and political condition. Using the historical-genetic method, the author restores the stages of the genesis of the Japanese theoretical understanding of IR, painting a picture of historical continuity that helps to understand the political thinking of today’s Japanese. The author investigates the concepts of the contemporary Japanese theorists – Inoguchi Takashi, Tanaka Akihito, Anno Tadashi, – and other political scientists who determine the main trends of Japanese IR theories, which are the regional comparative studies (primarily Asian studies), specifically Japanese understanding of the soft power concept, political aspects of environmentalism, discourse of differences and a common denominator of Western and non-Western IR theories. Of practical importance is the analysis of the discussion of Japanese international affairs specialists on the transformation of Japan into an “ordinary country”, which has the prospect of rejecting the “peaceful” 9th article of the Japanese constitution and the historically established pacifist identity of the Japanese nation behind it. The author concludes that the most noticeable contribution of Japanese political scientists to world political science is the creative transformation and enrichment of Western concepts with non-Western approaches to world order.

‘HOME-GROWNING’ INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES: A PRE-THEORISATION

The ‘home-grown’ turn in international relations (IR) theory emerged to describe original theorising of non-Western IR from the periphery in the periphery. Enthused with the indigenisation movement in the Philippines as our country belongs to the periphery, we delve into pre-theorisations of home growning by applying it to Philippine philosophical, politicohistorical, and psycho-anthropological concepts in a schematic analysis. This paper also deliberated the significance of ‘paglundag kasama ang wika’ (existential immersion with the Filipino language), ‘pantayong pananaw’ (perspective from-us-for-us, Filipinos), ‘pagsasakatutubo mula sa labas’ (indigenisation-from-without), and ‘pagpapalitaw ng nasa loob’ (indigenisation from within) in abstracting non-Western IR concepts. We contend that Philippine languages play a central role in the Filipino lived experience of the ‘international’ towards the possibility of contribution to the indigenisation and home-growness of IR as an academic discipline in the Philippines. Keywords: home-grown international relations, indigenisation, Philippine psychology, Filipino philosophy, Southeast Asia

Opening up the debate over ‘non-western’ international relations

This opening article maps the terrain of the ongoing debate over various forms of ‘non-Western’ International Relations (IR) theory-building enterprise with the aim not only of providing contextual background for the Special Section, but also, and more importantly, of identifying what is missing in the overall debate. It is often pointed out that IR as a discipline is ‘too Western centric’, and that much of mainstream IR theory is ‘simply an abstraction of Western history’. In this respect, many IR scholars have called for ‘broadening’ the theoretical horizon of IR while problematising the Western parochialism of the discipline, and it is increasingly acknowledged that IR needs to embrace a wider range of histories, experiences, and theoretical perspectives, particularly those outside of the West. However, despite such a meaningful debate over non-Western IR theorisation and its recent contributions, several critical questions and issues still remain unclear and under-explored. I suggest that there are (at least) three sets of questions that require more careful attention in our discussion. First, does IR need to embrace theoretical pluralism? Second, to what extent has contemporary IR become pluralistic? Third, should IR pursue the promotion of dialogue and engagement across theoretical and spatial divides? Of course, each of these questions invites several subsequent questions. This discussion will serve as a useful point from which more substantial and exciting bearings may be taken in enriching the ongoing debate and moving IR towards becoming a more pluralistic discipline.

Theorising Chinese International Relations and the Rise of China

This paper critically analyses the case study of Chinese international relations theory through the lens of a non-Western International relations theoretical framework.There should be an attempt to democratise the existing international relations discipline because societal interactions among the countries across the globe cannot be judged by the yardstick of Western experiences. Non-Western international relations theories can be also generated under the post-positivist methodological framework, as it is equally important to include the localised voices and experiences of Asian, African and Latin American countries by reactivating their local historical traditions and ancient philosophies, sociological perspective and ontological, epistemological and axiological dimension of international relations theories 3.
 Key words: International Relations Theory - Tribute System – Confucian Model of Governance – World Order

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.

An IR for the Global South or a Global IR? (Guest Editorial)

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”?

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

Homegrown Theorizing: Knowledge, Scholars, Theory

In recent years, the discipline of International Relations (IR) has entered another of its turns: the homegrown turn. This new turn focuses on possible contributions to IR theorizing using non-Western knowledge and/or scholarship. This article deconstructs the idea of homegrown theorizing by focusing on its constitutive part, dealing separately with the aspects of knowledge, scholar, and theory, questioning thereby the differing meanings of homegrownness. Such an approach provides an initial framework that accomplishes two things: First, the paper discusses today’s core Western IR community and its disciplinary sociology in terms of the main factors engendering present critiques of its scholarship. Second, it then becomes possible to pay attention to peripheral non-Western IR’s position at a time of gradual post-Westernization, both world politically and within the discipline. Engaging with the pitfalls of Western IR and elaborating on the reasons not only explains the emergence of IR’s homegrown turn, but also provides the basis for understanding how scholars engaging in homegrown theorizing can learn from the (past) mistakes of core scholarship. Dealing with the impact of globalization, Eurocentrism, presentism, and parochialism as the main problem areas of (Western) IR, the article concludes by providing a list of lessons to be taken into account when engaging in homegrown theorizing within the periphery.

Culture and the international relations of Asia

ABSTRACTLooking back over the last 30 years, culture as an explanatory factor has been in retreat. Today, however, with the determined reassertion of Islamic values, and an increasingly confident China developing its own international paradigms, the need to investigate cultural and historical specificities is hard to deny. In the Asian region, developments in the South China Sea during 2016 have been especially perplexing for many commentators: International Relations (IR) analysis has come up against a wall of stubborn Chinese and Southeast Asian perspectives. Even some elements in Samuel Huntington ‘civilizations’ approach, widely condemned in the 1990s, today deserve reconsideration – certainly with respect to what Wang Gungwu saw as Huntington's stress on a ‘new language and logic of behaviour’. The common IR analytic framework – highlighting sovereignty, state interests and power (and the balance of power) – needs to be supplemented. Current interest in non-Western IR is promising, especially if it engages in research collaboration with history (particularly the history of ideas, with its focus on close textual analysis). Culture – though certainly in a refined conceptualization – is back.

Gender and Non-Western “Global” IR: Where Are the Women in Chinese International Relations Theory?

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.

The IR of the Beholder: Examining Global IR Using the 2014 TRIP Survey

This article presents findings from the 2014 Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) Project’s worldwide faculty survey that speak to recent claims in the Global International Relations (IR) Debate. The expansion of the 2014 TRIP faculty survey to thirty-two countries, including more than a dozen non-Western IR communities, enables an initial empirical assessment of some key questions raised by advocates and detractors of “Global IR.” This contribution describes and analyzes scholars’ own perceptions of the IR discipline and adds to the empirical literature on the Global IR Debate. In particular, we address three claims: that IR is a Western/American dominated discipline, that geography is the core dividing line in IR, and that there is a division of labor within IR wherein scholars in the West are responsible for theory production while the non-West supplies data and local expertise for theory testing. We believe that these findings shed light both on how the discipline came to be divided between dominant and marginalized discourses and in which areas this division is most embedded and/or ready to be dismantled.