International Relations Theories : How to Bring about a More Inclusive International System ? (original) (raw)
Related papers
China and International Theory: The Balance of Relationships
China and International Theory, 2019
China and International Theory: The Balance of Relationships 1st Edition Chih-yu Shih et al. Summary Major IR theories, which stress that actors will inevitably only seek to enhance their own interests, tend to contrive binaries of self and other and ‘inside’ and ‘outside’. By contrast, this book recognizes the general need of all to relate, which they do through various imagined resemblances between them. The authors of this book therefore propose the ‘balance of relationships’ (BoR) as a new international relations theory to transcend binary ways of thinking. BoR theory differs from mainstream IR theories owing to two key differences in its epistemological position. Firstly, the theory explains why and how states as socially-interrelated actors inescapably pursue a strategy of self-restraint in order to join a network of stable and long-term relationships. Secondly, owing to its focus on explaining bilateral relations, BoR theory bypasses rule-based governance. By positing ‘relationality’ as a key concept of Chinese international relations, this book shows that BoR can also serve as an important concept in the theorization of international relations, more broadly. The rising interest in developing a Chinese school of IR means the BoR theory will draw attention from students of IR theory, comparative foreign policy, Chinese foreign policy, East Asia, cultural studies, post-Western IR, post-colonial studies and civilizational politics. Table of Contents Introduction: Relating China to International Relations Part 1: Balance of Relationships 1. Relationality vs. Power Politics 2. Relational Policy of Small States 3. Relational Policy of Major Powers Part 2: Philosophical Resources 4. Relational Ontology 5. Buddhist State of Nature 6. Cyclical Perspective on History Part 3. Processes of BoR 7. Cultural Memory 8. Psychological Efficacy 9. Institutional Style Part 4. Identities of the Theory 10. Plausible Post-Western Theory 11. Plausible Chinese Theory 12. Plausible Western Theory In Lieu of Conclusion. Four Caveats Preface During the development of the balance of relationships (BoR) as simultaneously a theory undergirding an international system and a strategic agency, we face the challenge of engaging in and contributing to two major dialogues at the same time––international relations theory in general and the relational turn in particular. Further complicating this challenge is the fact that the second dialogue involves a readership across the Anglosphere and the Sinosphere, with both spheres similarly focusing on why and how relations are necessary in international relations but from different cultural backgrounds. In this light, our intension is for our theory to transcend the familiar binaries of China and the West, great and small powers, rationality and relationality, as well as those reflecting political rivalries. Nevertheless, our prime purpose is to illustrate how Chinese intellectual resources can enhance the understanding of international relations and foreign policy practices everywhere. Through doing so, we hope to tackle the misreading and misconstruction of Chinese international relations. Consequently, our writing seeks to construct bridges across seemingly incongruent epistemological traditions. This book accordingly offers a composite agenda comparing and reconciling relational imaginations of different kinds through the notion of the balance of relationships. We have opted to focus mainly on unpacking the concepts, ideas and epistemology that undergird BoR theory. Thus, we took out extensive case chapters. Nevertheless, we rely on examples to scope out its potential application to make sense of real-world phenomena that familiar IR theories struggle to explain. Such a double-headed mission complicates not only the writing but also the coordination among authors. I am grateful to my eight younger colleagues who fearlessly agreed to join the collective writing of this book, which trespasses multiple fields and critically moves outside familiar scopes of thinking. Our professional teaching spreads over the disciplines of political science, postcolonial studies, modern Chinese history, intellectual history, philosophy, East Asian and Chinese studies, and ethnic studies. In terms of nationality, we come from Japan, the Netherlands, Taiwan, and Thailand. We have received doctoral training or taught in Australia, China, Germany, India, Japan, the Netherlands, Thailand, Taiwan, the UK, and the US for extensive periods respectively in our careers. All these factors meant parallel and long processes of negotiation and coordination. However, as the existence of this work now shows, in the end we managed to merge all these diverse perspectives together and establish our own balance of relationships among ourselves. We realize that it is unconventional to have nine coauthors as opposed to nine authors of separate chapters. I rather enjoyed the processes of cooperation and coordination, however. As I have always initiated the idea and the writing of a chapter, my coauthors joined at different points upon my invitation and yet inevitably contributed across the writing of different chapters. We interacted intensively. At least four of us participated in finalizing all chapters. Relying on our other collaborative projects or workshops, I was able to improvise meetings with coauthors every once in a while over the past few years. The major sponsor for the writing of the book was nevertheless a three-year writing grant I received from the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan from 2014 through 2017. A few summer and winter camps specifically contrived to introduce the balance of relationships to younger generations were organized in the Center of International China Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the Division of Area Studies at the University of Tokyo, the Department of Political Science of National Taiwan University, and the Institute of International Relations of Shanghai Tongji University. With the support of the editors of the Worlding the West Series of Routledge and the publication of this book, we wish to engender likewise passion in the Anglosphere to reflect upon China and international theory in even more comprehensive and sophisticated ways. Chih-yu Shih Author(s) Bio Chih-yu Shih, the primary author of this book, teaches international relations theory, anthropology of Knowledge, and cultural studies as National Chair Professor and University Chair Professor at National Taiwan University. Access to his current research—Intellectual History of China and Chinese Studies—is at http://www.china-studies.taipei/ Together, his writings on IR theory, intellectual history, and ethnic citizenship challenge familiar social science and humanity categories. His co-authors—Chiung-chiu Huang (National Cheng-chi University), Pichamon Yeophantong (University of New South Wales, Canberra), Raoul Bunskoek (National Taiwan University), Josuke Ikeda (Toyama University), Yih Jye Jay Hwang (Leiden University), Hung-jen Wang (National Cheng-Kung University), Chih-yun Chang (Shanghai Jiaotong University), and Ching-chang Chen (Ryukoku University)—have all published critically on Asia in IR in general and on China, Japan, Taiwan and ASEAN in specific. They have come cross each other through different joint projects involving critical IR, post-Western IR, homegrown IR, global IR, Asian IR and Chinese IR. Their careers include professional posts in India, Germany, Thailand, Japan, the US, Taiwan, the Netherlands, Australia, and China. Chiung-chiu Huang is Associate Professor at the Graduate Institute of East Asian Studies, National Chengchi University, Taiwan. Pichamon Yeophantong is Senior Lecturer at the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of New South Wales at the Australian Defence Force Academy, Australia. Raoul Bunskoek is a Ph. D candidate in the Department of Political Science at National Taiwan University, Taiwan. Josuke Ikeda is Associate Professor at the Faculty of Human Development, University of Toyama, Japan. Jay Yih-Jye Hwang is Assistant Professor at Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs, Leiden University College, The Netherlands Hung-jen Wang is Associate Professor at Department of Political Science, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan. Chih-yun Chang is a Research Fellow at the Department of History, Shanghai Jiaotong University, China. Ching-chang Chen is Associate Professor at Department of Global Studies, Ryokoku University, Japan. Routledge April 8, 2019 Reference - 320 Pages - 3 B/W Illustrations ISBN 9781138390508 - CAT# K399572 Series: Worlding Beyond the West
Revista Relaciones Internacionales - Universidad Nacional de La Plata, 2018
Abstract: 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. Resumen: Este artículo analiza críticamente la teoría china de las relaciones internaciona-les, como estudio de caso, desde la perspectiva del marco teórico de las relaciones inter-nacionales no occidentales. Debe haber un intento de democratizar la disciplina existente de las relaciones internacionales ya que las interacciones sociales entre los países del globo no pueden ser juzgadas desde la perspectiva de las experiencias occidentales. Las teorías de las relaciones internacionales no occidentales también pueden ser generadas dentro del marco metodológico post-positivista ya que es igualmente importante incluir las voces y experiencias localizadas de los países asiáticos, africanos y latinoamericanos a partir de la reactivación de sus tradiciones históricas locales y sus filosofías antiguas, la perspectiva sociológica y la dimensión ontológica, epistemológica y axiológica de las teorías de las relaciones internacionales
CHINA AND NEW INTERNATIONAL ORDER: THOUGHTS AND PRACTICE Of JUSTICE
Gdańskie Studia Azji Wschodniej, 2016
An essential element for the functioning of the international system is idea forming the basis for creating rules and institutions 1 ruling political and economic interactions of international actors 2. With the crisis of the position of the West since 2008 3 , one can observe non-Western actors' narrative pointing a need for a new international order in the twenty-first century. Behind that lies the idea of a "fair and reasonable international order" supported by the developing countries, and especially by the so called "emerging powers". The most important role plays the People's Republic of China (PRC), which reached the status of the second world's well-developed economy, aiming at strengthening its political position and seeking adequate justification for this process. The general aim of this paper is to introduce the idea of justice taking China as the example to see how a new international order respecting justice may be achieved. The paper has been divided into five parts. The first part presents justice as a matter of the utmost importance in various civilisational circles. The second one describes the picture of a new international order based on the perceptions of justice. The third one refers to China as a case in order to demonstrate how China expresses its pursuit for international order. The fourth one demonstrates opportunities and challenges China faces to build a new international order. The paper ends with a summary part that embraces all the crucial conclusions for deeper comprehension of the issue.
Review of International Studies, 2020
This article explores how International Studies as a scientific discipline emerged and developed in China, against the background of a Sinocentric world order that had predominated in East Asia for a long time. The argument of this article is threefold. First, the discipline relied heavily on historical, legal, and political studies, and placed a heavy focus on the investigation of China's integration into the Westphalian system. Second, studies of International Relations were grounded in a problem-solving approach to various issues China was facing at various times in the course of modernisation. Third, the historical development of International Studies in China has had a profound impact on the current IR scholarship in both the PRC and Taiwan, including the recent surge of attempts to establish a Chinese School of IR theory in China and the voluntary acceptance of Western IR in Taiwan. By way of conclusion, the article suggests that there is still an indigenous Chinese site of agency with regards to developing IR. This agency exists despite the fact that in the course of the disciplinary institutionalisation of IR Chinese scholars have largely absorbed Western knowledge.
Review of Non-Western International Relations Theory Perspectives on and Beyond Asia
Journal of International and Global Studies, 2012
This edited volume brings together six authors who evaluate the state of non-western oriented International Relations Theory in case study/country formats, incorporating studies of China, Japan, Korea, India, and Indonesia. Accompanying micro-level case study evaluation are meso-and macro-level inquiries from a Southeast Asian, Islamic, and World Historical view. The various authors come together in providing key insights into the fundamental question posed by this volume, namely: Why is there no non-western international relations theory—or, perhaps more pointedly—why is there a lack of appreciation for, exposure to, and dissemination of non-western oriented international relations theoretical scholarship? The nature of this volume is to offer readers a systematized purview of the nature of international relations theorizing, which stands in western academic circles as being the crux of scholastic achievement and stands apart from practitioner/policy analysis (which has as its core motive the solving of everyday issues and problems). The question posed by Acharya and Buzan's text has perhaps escaped academicians and laymen in general for the preceding half century of international relations scholarship. Nonetheless, the research trajectory set by the editors is both intriguing and prescient to the contemporary period, not least because the focus of power relations and international influence in the 21 st century is shifting and will continue to shift towards Asia, with its dynamic economies and rapidly modernizing social and political spaces. International relations (IR) is an interdisciplinary field of study, sometimes considered a branch of political science, with the primary goals of (1) understanding relationships between countries and (2) seeking to both analyze and formulate the foreign policy of states. Students of IR are keenly aware of the demand for rigorous study of the IR " classics " as well as the expectation that publishable work adhere to a theoretically sound and testable base, both of which are the essence of scholarship in the field of IR (and, indeed, in academia in general). However, in U.S. academic circles, the limited scope of theoretical inquiry into the field of IR itself (which has centered on few debates such as neorealist v. neoliberal, realist v. ideational, positivist v. reflexive) has led students and instructors of IR in U.S. universities down a dangerous path. This path is characterized by ever-increasing inflexibility and the need to " reheat " studies and approaches, using familiar paradigmatic expressions (inherently stemming from post-colonial studies) rather than looking towards the nature of international society or exploring the effects that globalization is bringing to the fore, including fracturedness, diversity, reimagination, and reconnection with lost traditions (i.e. the recapturing of local, regional, and subsystem coherence). The threat of reifying western IR Theory and the problem of its uneven fit to emerging regions of the world highlight the need for a fresh look and a diversified understanding of IR. The volume itself is readily accessible to students of international relations. This accessibility is a result of the authors' narrative styles, clearly structured work, and the absence of academic jargon. This text would appeal to a wide range of persons, including students of international relations, Asia experts, and those who simply find international relations interesting. The first chapter, written by Yaqing Qin, addresses the state of international relations theorization and the components which have led to a lack of IR theorization in contemporary Chinese scholarship. Qin begins by making distinctions regarding the different periods of Chinese international relations academic inquiry. The author finds that the state of Chinese IR is