IR Theory and Practice in Asia – serie

International Relations (IR) as a discipline is often deemed to be “too Western” centric. It has been argued 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 broadening the theoretical and practical horizons of IR, several critical questions remain unclear and under-explored. For example, does IR need to embrace pluralism? If so, how much? To what extent, and in what sense, is IR parochial? Should IR promote dialogue across theoretical and spatial divides? If so, how? Yong-Soo Eun addresses these questions. He undertakes a literature review and an empirical analysis of the extent to which the field has actually become diverse and pluralistic. This investigation considers diversity beyond the current limited focus on the geographical origins of theory. Yong-Soo also draws attention to the mechanisms and processes of knowledge production and transmission in IR. More importantly, he addresses what is probably the most acute issue associated with the “non-Western” IR theory-building enterprise; namely, fragmentation and dialogue. In conclusion, Yong-Soo notes that the role of unsettling the present hierarchical structure of the discipline falls to reflexive individual agents. He argues that in order for their agential power to be more fully harnessed in the opening up of IR, critical “self”-reflection and “collective” empathy and collaboration among marginalised scholars are all essential.

Despite attempts to redress the balance, international relations (IR) as a discipline is still dominated by Western theories. The contributors in this book explore the challenges of constructing an alternative, with a dialogue between global and local approaches. Drawing on scholars with backgrounds in the United States, Europe, Asia and South America, this volume attempts to critically engage with and reflect upon existing traditions of IR theory to produce a deeply pluralist approach. Traditions, cultures, histories and practices from around the world influence their respective theoretical understanding and in turn explain why the Western tradition of IR is insufficient. This book provides great insight for scholars of IR from around the world, looking for more diversity in IR theory.

There has long been considerable debate about the nature of non-Western IR theory. Most attempts to understand such a phenomenon begin by taking a top-down approach on a country by country basis. Instead, this book takes a bottom-up approach, involving specialists from a range of Thai universities, revealing the contours of the Thai IR community. It examines the state of various sub-fields under the IR rubric in Thailand such as foreign policy analysis, security studies, international political economy and area studies, and how Thai thinkers in these fields have contributed to IR as a discipline and IR theory development in Thailand. In doing so, it identifies factors unique to Thai academia which have hindered the development of an indigenous-sourced theory as well as exploring the similarities shared with other non-Western contexts that have posed an obstacle to the creation of a more general non-Western IR theory.Providing both an in-depth insight into the specific phenomena of Thai IR theory, and a broader perspective on the challenges of formulating non-Western IR theory, this book aims to push the debate on non-Western IR theory forward. It will be of particular interest to readers looking for a better understanding of IR theory in Thailand, but also for those more generally looking to formulate and characterise non-Western approaches to the discipline.

The term "middle power" is conceptually fragile. Some scholars have even argued for abandoning it. This book argues that the concept needs to be analysed more profoundly and that new analytical tools need to be developed to better understand the phenomenon. The traditional approach, based on Western states, is insufficient and has become increasingly irrelevant in a transformed global environment. Instead of drawing from a single theory of international relations, the contributors have chosen to build upon a wide range of theories in a deliberate demonstration of analytic eclecticism. A pluralistic approach provides stronger explanations while remaining analytically and intellectually rigorous. Many of the theory contributions are reconsidering how the largely "Western" bases of such theorising need revising in light of the "emerging middle powers", many of which are in Asia.Presenting a strong argument for studying middle powers, this book explores both the theory and empirical applications of the concept by rethinking the definition and characteristics of middle powers using a range of case studies. It examines changes in the study of middle powers over the last decade, proposing to look at the concept of middle powers in a coherent and inclusive manner. Finally, it aims to further the discussion on the evolution of the international system and provides sound conclusions about the theoretical usefulness and empirical evolution of middle powers today.

What do we study when we study International Relations (IR)? This book interrogates the meanings of the established ontology and subjectivity embedded in the discourse of "Western" and "non-Western" IR. We are predisposed to see a nation-state as a unified entity, everlasting and moving towards a particular end. This leads us to say, for example, "Japan is threatened by the possible Chinese attack’ without questioning what "Japan" and "China" mean in this context. This book tries to locate and unearth the consistent structure and system of the world, with a particular focus on subjectivity and temporality in IR that captures the way in which we conceive and misconceive the world. The contributors reveal the extent to which contemporary IR discourses are a part of the culture of linear progress and pre-given autonomous sovereign individuals. Our targets of inquiry therefore inevitably include not only "Western" IR, but "non-Western" discourses as well. The contributors focus on the fluid identities of contemporary world affairs with special attention to temporality, and strive to develop a new approach to understanding the contemporary world and the meanings of world affairs.

How and why was it possible for a small state such as Thailand to challenge great powers France and Japan during the Second World War?Putting ontological security theory into dialogue with status seeking approaches, Charoenvattananukul uses a case study of Thailand in the early 1940s to interrogate the dynamics and logic of a small state foreign policy. During this period, Thailand’s foreign policy can appear to be surprising, if viewed through a lens of survival imperatives which would assume that passivity towards more powerful states is the optimal policy. As the majority of states are small- and medium-sized it is very important to understand the imperatives that drive such states, especially in their interactions with great powers.In applying these frameworks to a small state, this book makes a unique and valuable contribution to the field of international relations theory. It will also be of great interest to scholars of twentieth century Thai history and of the Pacific Theatre of the Second World War.

What do we study when we study International Relations (IR)? This book interrogates the meanings of the established ontology and subjectivity embedded in the discourse of "Western" and "non-Western" IR. We are predisposed to see a nation-state as a unified entity, everlasting and moving towards a particular end. This leads us to say, for example, "Japan is threatened by the possible Chinese attack’ without questioning what "Japan" and "China" mean in this context. This book tries to locate and unearth the consistent structure and system of the world, with a particular focus on subjectivity and temporality in IR that captures the way in which we conceive and misconceive the world. The contributors reveal the extent to which contemporary IR discourses are a part of the culture of linear progress and pre-given autonomous sovereign individuals. Our targets of inquiry therefore inevitably include not only "Western" IR, but "non-Western" discourses as well. The contributors focus on the fluid identities of contemporary world affairs with special attention to temporality, and strive to develop a new approach to understanding the contemporary world and the meanings of world affairs.

There has long been considerable debate about the nature of non-Western IR theory. Most attempts to understand such a phenomenon begin by taking a top-down approach on a country by country basis. Instead, this book takes a bottom-up approach, involving specialists from a range of Thai universities, revealing the contours of the Thai IR community. It examines the state of various sub-fields under the IR rubric in Thailand such as foreign policy analysis, security studies, international political economy and area studies, and how Thai thinkers in these fields have contributed to IR as a discipline and IR theory development in Thailand. In doing so, it identifies factors unique to Thai academia which have hindered the development of an indigenous-sourced theory as well as exploring the similarities shared with other non-Western contexts that have posed an obstacle to the creation of a more general non-Western IR theory.Providing both an in-depth insight into the specific phenomena of Thai IR theory, and a broader perspective on the challenges of formulating non-Western IR theory, this book aims to push the debate on non-Western IR theory forward. It will be of particular interest to readers looking for a better understanding of IR theory in Thailand, but also for those more generally looking to formulate and characterise non-Western approaches to the discipline.

International Relations (IR), as a discipline, is a western dominated enterprise. This has led to calls to broaden the scope and vision of the discipline by embracing a wider range of histories, experiences, and theoretical perspectives – particularly those outside the Anglo-American core of the West. The ongoing ‘broadening IR projects’ – be they ‘non-Western IR’, ‘post-Western IR’, or ‘Global IR’ – are making contributions in this regard. However, some careful thinking is needed here in that these attempts could also lead to a national or regional ‘inwardness’ that works to reproduce the very parochialism that is being challenged. The main intellectual concerns of this edited volume are problematising Western parochialism in IR; giving theoretical and epistemological substance to pluralism in the field of IR based on both Western and non-Western thoughts and experiences; and working out ways to move the discipline of IR one step closer to a dialogic community. A key issue that cuts across all contributions in the volume is to go beyond both parochialism and fragmentation in international studies. In order to address the manifold and contested implications of pluralism in in the field of IR, the volume draws on the wealth of experience and research of prominent and emerging IR scholars whose contributions make up the work, with a mixture of theoretical analysis and case studies.This book will appeal to scholars and students interested in Global IR and promoting dialogue in a pluralist IR.

Despite attempts to redress the balance, international relations (IR) as a discipline is still dominated by Western theories. The contributors in this book explore the challenges of constructing an alternative, with a dialogue between global and local approaches. Drawing on scholars with backgrounds in the United States, Europe, Asia and South America, this volume attempts to critically engage with and reflect upon existing traditions of IR theory to produce a deeply pluralist approach. Traditions, cultures, histories and practices from around the world influence their respective theoretical understanding and in turn explain why the Western tradition of IR is insufficient. This book provides great insight for scholars of IR from around the world, looking for more diversity in IR theory.

How and why was it possible for a small state such as Thailand to challenge great powers France and Japan during the Second World War?Putting ontological security theory into dialogue with status seeking approaches, Charoenvattananukul uses a case study of Thailand in the early 1940s to interrogate the dynamics and logic of a small state foreign policy. During this period, Thailand’s foreign policy can appear to be surprising, if viewed through a lens of survival imperatives which would assume that passivity towards more powerful states is the optimal policy. As the majority of states are small- and medium-sized it is very important to understand the imperatives that drive such states, especially in their interactions with great powers.In applying these frameworks to a small state, this book makes a unique and valuable contribution to the field of international relations theory. It will also be of great interest to scholars of twentieth century Thai history and of the Pacific Theatre of the Second World War.

Coloma examines the bilateral relationship between China and Chile over the past decades and explores an approach that accounts for the plurality of political and ideological dimensions in international relations, particularly concerning non-Western and non-European countries.The book develops three key claims. First, two socialist countries can arrive at antagonistic understandings of socialism and yet articulate ideological convergences around other elements. Second, a communist country can obscure its political divergence from an anti-communist regime by redefining its ideological horizon. Third, the signing of China’s first free trade agreement and its upgrade can be understood as the articulation of political demands and the ideological concealment of antagonisms, rather than as a result of technocratic decisions informed by economic complementarities. These findings suggest that the significance of China’s presence in Latin America depends on how each country articulates the other as an element of its foreign policy and vice versa. It thus shifts our perspective away from dominant interpretations that reduce China to the image of a rising power encroaching on the backyard of the United States.An insightful book for researchers and academics in Global International Relations and Politics, as well as those interested in Latin America and China’s relations.

International Relations (IR), as a discipline, is a western dominated enterprise. This has led to calls to broaden the scope and vision of the discipline by embracing a wider range of histories, experiences, and theoretical perspectives – particularly those outside the Anglo-American core of the West. The ongoing ‘broadening IR projects’ – be they ‘non-Western IR’, ‘post-Western IR’, or ‘Global IR’ – are making contributions in this regard. However, some careful thinking is needed here in that these attempts could also lead to a national or regional ‘inwardness’ that works to reproduce the very parochialism that is being challenged. The main intellectual concerns of this edited volume are problematising Western parochialism in IR; giving theoretical and epistemological substance to pluralism in the field of IR based on both Western and non-Western thoughts and experiences; and working out ways to move the discipline of IR one step closer to a dialogic community. A key issue that cuts across all contributions in the volume is to go beyond both parochialism and fragmentation in international studies. In order to address the manifold and contested implications of pluralism in in the field of IR, the volume draws on the wealth of experience and research of prominent and emerging IR scholars whose contributions make up the work, with a mixture of theoretical analysis and case studies.This book will appeal to scholars and students interested in Global IR and promoting dialogue in a pluralist IR.

International Relations (IR) as a discipline is often deemed to be “too Western” centric. It has been argued 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 broadening the theoretical and practical horizons of IR, several critical questions remain unclear and under-explored. For example, does IR need to embrace pluralism? If so, how much? To what extent, and in what sense, is IR parochial? Should IR promote dialogue across theoretical and spatial divides? If so, how? Yong-Soo Eun addresses these questions. He undertakes a literature review and an empirical analysis of the extent to which the field has actually become diverse and pluralistic. This investigation considers diversity beyond the current limited focus on the geographical origins of theory. Yong-Soo also draws attention to the mechanisms and processes of knowledge production and transmission in IR. More importantly, he addresses what is probably the most acute issue associated with the “non-Western” IR theory-building enterprise; namely, fragmentation and dialogue. In conclusion, Yong-Soo notes that the role of unsettling the present hierarchical structure of the discipline falls to reflexive individual agents. He argues that in order for their agential power to be more fully harnessed in the opening up of IR, critical “self”-reflection and “collective” empathy and collaboration among marginalised scholars are all essential.

Deepening regionalism in Asia demands new leadership. Strong elites who are committed to a supranational identity are a minimum requirement of successful regionalism. Regional leaders are increasingly seen as a new set of leaders in Europe. Currently, Asian regional leaders largely come from the diplomacy community, or trade and economic sectors. Yet further regionalization demands a new type of leadership from civil society and citizens. In this context it is important to cultivate new regional leadership through the development of regional citizenship. This book examines contested ideas of regionalism in Asia with a particular focus on two competing ideas of pan-Asianism and Pacificism. It also identifies a new trend and contestation, the fundamental shift from a civilization understanding of regionalism to a technocratic and functional understanding of regionalism in the form of regulatory regionalism. It also examines the other contested imaginations of regionalism in Asia including elitist versus participatory approaches to regionalism, and democracy-centric versus nationalism-centric approaches to regionalism.

The term "middle power" is conceptually fragile. Some scholars have even argued for abandoning it. This book argues that the concept needs to be analysed more profoundly and that new analytical tools need to be developed to better understand the phenomenon. The traditional approach, based on Western states, is insufficient and has become increasingly irrelevant in a transformed global environment. Instead of drawing from a single theory of international relations, the contributors have chosen to build upon a wide range of theories in a deliberate demonstration of analytic eclecticism. A pluralistic approach provides stronger explanations while remaining analytically and intellectually rigorous. Many of the theory contributions are reconsidering how the largely "Western" bases of such theorising need revising in light of the "emerging middle powers", many of which are in Asia.Presenting a strong argument for studying middle powers, this book explores both the theory and empirical applications of the concept by rethinking the definition and characteristics of middle powers using a range of case studies. It examines changes in the study of middle powers over the last decade, proposing to look at the concept of middle powers in a coherent and inclusive manner. Finally, it aims to further the discussion on the evolution of the international system and provides sound conclusions about the theoretical usefulness and empirical evolution of middle powers today.