User:Vslmn/sandbox

= Global International Relations (Global IR) =

= Introduction=

Global International Relations (GIR) or Global IR is part of the theoretical field of International Relations (IR), which is the interconnected study of politics, economics and law on a global level. GIR does not depict a theory, but an addition to mainstream IR with the effort to make this scholarly field more inclusive and diverse.

Global IR revolves mainly around three issues: The Western dominance of the discipline of International relations, the issue of geographic and regional specialization, and the presumption that Western scholars submit most of the theoretical work while non-Western scholars supply raw data by primarily engaging in regional studies.

The disciplinary branch reached more visibility throughout theoretical disciplines when Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan published their work “Why is there no non-Western international relations theory? An introduction.” in 2007.

= History = Over the past decades, IR schools have become increasingly aware of the fact, that they are still very strongly attached to their british and north american roots. Arising hereby, western- and eurocentrism is one of the most discussed issues within the field. Most of IR scholars as well as universities, literature and publishing outlets have emerged, settled and afterwards strongly been supported in western countries. Therefore, educational hubs remain gathered in the developed West until today Global IR has functioned as an antipole to the tendency within traditional IR to view the non-Western world as being of interest mainly to area specialists, and hence for fieldwork and theory-testing, rather than for the discovery of new ideas and approaches.

First attempts to develop theories of non-Western IR in the IR discipline have been made by Kevin C. Dunn and Timothy M. Shaw in their edit of  “Africa’s Challenge to International Relations Theory" In addition, Stephen Chan, Peter Mandaville, and Roland Bleiker published a book entitled “The Zen of International Relations: IR Theory from East to West”.   Yet, it was not until 2007 when Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan condensed the previous work and posed the question “Why is there no non-western IR theory?”. Their goal was to examine methodology as well as epistemology of Western IR comprehensively. Thereforthey worked out five possible explanations for the western dominance within IR. Firstly, IR contains a universality that implies that it has “discovered the right path in understanding international relations.” Their second explanation has been, that western IR has gained such a great status that it had started to be reproduced in an unconscious way by others, even by non-western scholars. Their third explanation for the absence of non-Western IR theory has been that in reality, there are indeed many non-Western theories but due to language barriers or lacking access to publishers they are hidden. The fourth is that local historical, cultural and political conditions discriminate against the production of IR theory. Lastly, Acharya and Buzan hypothesized that the West has a “big head start and the rest of the world is in a period of catching up.”

= Theory = Global International Relations is part of International Relations theory as well as an addition to it. Global IR attempts to provide a conceptual framework upon which the relations between all states in the world can be analyzed in a differentiated and holistic manner. Global IR scholars claim that IR does not reflect the voices, experiences, knowledge claims, and contributions of mostof the societies and states in the world, and often marginalizes those outside of the core countries of the West. The concept of GlobalIR urges the IR community to look past the American and Western dominance of their field and embrace greater diversity, especially by recognizing the places, roles, and contributions of “non-Western” peoples and societies. GIR scholars deem the expand of IR to be crucial in order to understand world politics and developments between countries in the global south and between the “West and the Rest”.

Within Global IR, the term “non-Western” is used mainly as a term of “convenience” In addition, it has been used to examine the idea of “Westernism” which worked as a concept i.a. for the English school which based its’ believe around the beginnings of international relations on it. Furthermore, the term “non-Western” can describe regions and communities which might geographically be located in the West, but by recognizing their cultural heirs, cannot be viewed as Western. This applies vice versa to countries with the historical background of colonialism.

Under the most prominent scholars of the field are Amitav Acharya and L.H.M. Ling(US), Barry Buzan and John Hobson(UK), Arlene Tickner (Colombia), Pierre P. Lizée (Canada) and Ole Weaver (Denmark). Their works focus more on the broader non-Western context while sometimes giving reference toEast Asian IR

Despite their discontent with eurocentrism in IR, GIR scholars acknowledge the attempts that have been made in the past. They emphasize that there are theories, despite their Western origins, that are “more relevant to the non-Western world with the help of extensions and “advances”’ These include constructivism, post-colonialism, feminism and strands of critical IR.(ibid.) Global IR researchers believe that simply extending these existing theories is not enough to change the western dominance inIR but that there is a demand for a more representative discipline. “What is needed, indeed, are proposals for alternative theories about the functioning of international relations that have their origin in the South” Promoting dialogue between mainstream scholars and scholars from the non-Western world as well as between scholars of new disciplines within IR has therefore been a major goal of GIR in the past years.

= The six dimensions = During the 2015 ISA Presidential Year, the concept of Global IR has been pushed forward by different scholars. Leading has been Amitav Acharya who outlined and developed six dimensions of Global IR in his work “Global IR and Regional Worlds: A New Agenda for International Studies”. It transcends categories such as non-Western and post-Western IR and argues that the discourse about the future of IR should involve “multiple but overlapping conversations”. It should not be an exclusive discourse within the global south community researchers, but a dialogue among different theoretical and epistemological approaches. Furthermore, it should intersect with other debates about the future of IR.

The six elements of a Global IR approach are: A commitment to pluralistic universalism, grounding in world history, redefinition of existing IR theories, integration of the study of regions and regionalism, avoidance of cultural exceptionalism, and recognition of multiple forms of agency, including the agency of non-Western actors.

Pluralistic Universalism
The first dimensions of Global IR calls for a new understanding of universalism. Global IR should be founded “upon a pluralistic universalism: not “applying to all” but recognizing and respecting the diversity in us.” The dimension calls out the tendency of IR to view Western practices as “a universal standard while non-Western practices are viewed as particularisms or aberrations or something that is in some way inferior.” Furthermore it rejects the notion within IR that the theory itself can be viewed as a monistic universalism which is applicable to every state. In IR theory and methods such universalism would “manifest as a way of (…) arbitrary standard setting, gatekeeping, and marginalizing of alternative narratives, ideas and methodologies.” Amitav Acharya and other non-Western IR theory supporters argue for the expansion of their discipline to a wider range of theoretical and normative perspectives. In Acharya’s words, IR should “not impose any particular idea or approach on others but respect diversity”.

The first dimension is inter alia undermined by the understanding of universalism in the sense of Robert Cox.This understanding rests on “comprehending and respecting diversity in an ever-changing world.” Yaqing Qins’“relational theory of IR”, which emphasizes multiple cultures and the “high degree of intimacyin our pluralistic world”, is an endeavor to give theoretical ponderosity to Acharya’s dimension of pluralistic universalism. Additionally, keeping in line with the concept of pluralistic universalism, Global IR encourages the integration of different non-Western scholars such as Ibn Khaldun, Ashoka, Sun Tzu, Jawarhalal Nehru or Franz Fanon.” Doing so would encourage a complementation of IR based on concepts and ideas brought up in the works of these authors, whilst at the same time allowing scholars to improve their ability in “addressing the issues where Western theorizing has been relatively thin”

The quintessence of the first dimension is that the opposite of universalism is pluralism and by implementing this into new IR theories one already prevents a too narrow-minded perspective. Pluralistic universalism provides the background for Global IR.

Grounded in world history
The second dimension comprises the idea of Global IR to be founded in world history. It posits the approach of Global IR to take more into account than just Western history such as the Greco-Roman, European or US past. In this context world history includes the values, institutions, intellectual perspectives and practices of every society in the world.The dimension can also be seen as a reminder, that Western history is not in fact world history. Global IR faults that Western imperialism has not only overwhelmed local traditions of thought and knowledge, but also “cut people off from their own history by drawing their self-understanding into a Western historical frame.”

Furthermore, Global IR scholars attempt to think beyond the Westphalian model and investigate other types of international systems and orders with different dynamic of power and ideas. Barry Buzan and Richard Little, for instance, argue that "Westphalia-based IR theory is not only incapable of understanding pre-modern international systems, but also (...) its lack of historical perspective makes it unable to answer, in many instances address, the most important questions about the modern international system." The scholars suggests, the structural change in international systems needs to be understood in order to be able to merge history and theory

Judith Ann Tickner, an American political theorist and former ISA president, urges that “rather than searching for one universal history, we need to uncover stories about forgotten spaces that respect difference, show tolerance and compassion, and are skeptical about absolute truths. Such stories can help us build a more inclusionary, more open minded, and more reflexive International Relations that transcends the structures of domination that all of us still carry within ourselves from the past. More inclusive stories about our discipline’s foundations that respectdifferent ways of being and knowing are needed if we are to conceptualize a more just, less hierarchical,global politics” The second dimension verbalizes the invocation of Global IR to consider every societies’ history when developing IR theory. To understand the local context, the local culture and the local history in order to make the primary point of reference local. Acharya claims that “IR has to be inclusive and integrated”otherwise “it will be marginalized and sidelined.”

Redefining existing IR theories and methods
The third dimension describes the self-imposed charge of Global IR to redefine existing IR theories and methods. It should not replace current IR Theories but rather subsume them. IR theories are not static in dealing with the non-Western world, Acharya states. Especially disciplines like post-colonialism or feminism are more aware of IRs’ ethnocentric tendencies and more sensitive to non-Western experiences. These critical theories have been trying to recognize knowledge and events from the global south.” Constructivism has played a major role in paving ways for scholarship on the non-Western world because of its focus on culture and identity.New forms of realism like neo-classical realism or defensive realism have made realism more relevant to the non-Western world. Furthermore, Global IR challenges the mainstream theories to rethink the assumptions of their research. They are encouraged to “look beyond conflicts induced by national interest and distribution of power and acknowledge other sources of agency, including culture, ideas, and norms that make states and civilizations not clash, but embrace and learn from each other.” Liberalism is challenged to look beyond American hegemony as the background of multilateralism and regionalism and their institutional forms. Liberalism would also need to recognize the differences in cooperative behavior that exist in different regions, and that no single model of integration or interactions can account for all or most of them, Amitav Acharya demands. Realism is compelled to look beyond national interest and the distribution of power to discover new foundations of power distribution in the world. For constructivism, “taking stock of different forms of agency in the creation and diffusion of ideas and norms remains a major and as yet unrealized challenge.”

The renowned scholar of international relations, Peter J. Katzenstein elucidates, that Global IR should use a broader range of methodological instruments alongside with new research questions to reinforce the diversities of theoretical positions in IR. (Sil/ Katzenstein 2010). Global IR scholars should engage in dialogue across perspectives rather than “seeking homogeneity and common “best-practice” approaches.”.

Integrating the Study of Regions and Regionalisms
The fourth of the main dimensions of Global IR is the demand to integrate the exploration of regions and regionalism into the central concerns of IR. Greater attention should be paid to the diversity of regions, regionalism and regional order. The differences between global and regional interaction patterns as well as the differences between regions will also be investigated. Regions, traditions and the approach of Area Studies are to be put at the centre and regional diversity and regional measures are to be recognized. Global IR understands regions as dynamic, goal-oriented and socially and politically constituted spaces. Region and regionalism are not understood as physically, territorially, culturally or state-oriented. Global IR aims at a reorientation of the dominant theories of IR in order to consider diversity and regionalization in world politics. The aim of this dimension is to establish a link between disciplinary IR and the traditions of Area Studies. The aim is to recognize the importance of region, regionalism and regional orders for the theory of IR. The challenge is to rethink the existing IR and to expand the scope of investigation.

(The existing main regional groupings are the European Union, African Union, Arab League, Association of South East Asian Nations, Commonwealth of Independent States and the Organization of American States.)

Avoiding Ethnocentrism and Exceptionalism
The fifth dimension demonstrates the relevance of avoiding cultural exceptionality, ethnocentrism and parochialism in Global IR. Exceptionalism in particular is restricted by Global IR. The dominance over weaker states is legitimized by this. However, a division into weaker and stronger states is not possible in Global IR. American exceptionalism is a particularly strong example, since it sees itself as so exclusive that it is promoted offensively and accepted socially. Ethnocentrism forms the basis for exclusion and ignorance and is one of the most dangerous forms of exclusion in IR theories. Differentiation from others thus leads to an upgrading of one's own IR theories. The most common tendency in IR is to ignore non-Western voices. Here, world politics is viewed exclusively from the prism of one's own nation state. Since IR is indeed a product of interaction and mutual learning between all civilizations and states, the tendencies of marginalization and exclusion in Global IR should be avoided. In the past, some states have been more powerful than others, which can be attributed, among other things, to obstacles of development, such as restrictions on freedom of expression. Global IR calls for these differences to be eliminated. Past attempts at globalisation by IR have merely led to an increased integration of scientists from weaker countries into IR, which continues to be dominated by the West.

Recognizing a broader Conception of Agency
The last of the six main dimensions of Global IR deals with the recognition of a broader conception of Agency. Agency forms of non-Western states are not recognized in IR, although some complicated forms of statesmanship in history already existed in non-Western states. Global IR integrates a broader understanding of agency in which all forms are taken into account. Different forms of agency are not assessed as differently good, but are integrated and analyzed in their existing form into Global IR. An outdated conception of European colonial powers, of which IR seems to be guided by, saw the form of institutions as the standard of civilization. The ability of the defence to wage war, to negotiate treaties, to enforce their observance and to control the balance of power. Global IR classifies this definition as ahistorical and racist. All forms of agency have the potential to be meaningful and must be integrated into the IR. Global IR recognizes other forms of agency, such as culture, ideas and norms. Realism is challenged to look beyond conflicts arising from national interests and power distribution. States and civilizations should be able to learn from each other in this concept. Agency can be idealistic and material and goes beyond military power and wealth. Transnational and normative entrepreneurship is not preferred. Agency is not the prerogative of the strong - it can rather manifest itself as the weapon of the weak. Likewise, the scope for action expands to regional, local and global transnational levels. Various forms of agency are possible. New approaches to development, security and ecological justice are also conceived and implemented within the framework of Agency. Non-Western voices and actions are recognized in Global IR and open a central place for subaltern perspectives on the global order and the changing dynamics of North-South relations.

= Criticism =

Despite many efforts to create more integrative IR, certain groups of Global IR may continue to be marginalized for purely logistical reasons. For example, IR theories of indigenous groups are likely to continue to exist, but are also likely to remain hidden from the public. Also, parts of realism, liberalism and constructivism may be too deeply rooted in the historical, intellectual tradition and agency claim of the West to allow a global variant of IR. Thus, it remains questionable whether existing IR theory can change or expand in the direction of Global IR or whether completely new approaches are needed. Also, an attempt is made to develop a non-western Asian IR theory. However, this is at best a competition concept to the western IR, without any global thoughts. Basic concepts are similar to the European IR, that anarchy, survival and balance of power are the most important functional principles of state to state interactions since pre-modern times. This could also lead to a national and regional interiority that aims to reproduce precisely the ethnocentricity that is called into question. Global IR claims to cross western/non-western borders but is based on these basic assumptions. The main claim is made in a geographical and geopolitical way: either inside or outside the West. Thus, the "to be overcome" is the basis of the whole concept.

= International Studies Association =

The International Studies Association (ISA) is a basic construct for the Global IR. In 2015 "Global IR and Regional Worlds" were the topic of the ISA congress in New Orleans. More than 300 panels and roundtables were held on this topic, representing a quarter of the total congress. A TRIP survey published shortly before the event showed that 76.62% of respondents thought IR was a Western dominated discipline, while 60.2% thought it was important to counter this Western dominance, highlighting the relevance of the issue. Also discussed was the Global IR Agenda in New Orleans, which consists of the following points. The demand on IR scientists is here:

- the discovery of new patterns, theories and methods in world history

- analysis of changes in the distribution of power and ideas

- after more than 200 years of Western dominance

- the discovery and networking of regional worlds in all their diversity

- the engagement with deeper methods, topics and the integration of this knowledge

- the study of the circulation of ideas and norms between the global and local levels

- the study of mutual learning between populations

This agenda reflects the intellectual challenges and issues facing Global IR. They are the basis for discussions and debates necessary for the expansion of Global IR. Global IR should remain a broad federation open to challenge, interpretation, elaboration and expansion.