Abstract:The discipline of International Relations (IR) does not reflect the voices, experiences, knowledge claims, and contributions of the vast majority of the societies and states in the world, and often marginalizes those outside the core countries of the West. With IR scholars around the world seeking to find their own voices and reexamining their own traditions, our challenge now is to chart a course toward a truly inclusive discipline, recognizing its multiple and diverse foundations. This article presents the n… Show more
“…The Bandung conference is important not only for any serious investigation into the evolution of the post-war international order, but also for the development of IR as a truly universal and inclusive discipline: a Global IR (Acharya 2014a). Global IR is not a theory or method, but a framework of enquiry and analysis of IR in all its diversity, especially with due recognition of the experiences, voices and agency of nonWestern peoples, societies and states that have been marginalised in the discipline of IR.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While the Global IR perspective has several elements (Acharya 2013(Acharya , 2014a, the ones that are most relevant to the analysis of the Bandung conference may be noted here. Global IR broadens the study of world politics to include the ideas, identities, institutions, events and processes that are outside of, and challenging to, the interstate system of Europe and its colonial expansion, which have been central to the construction of the dominant IR theories.…”
Mainstream international relations scholarship has ignored or disparaged the significance and legacies of the Bandung conference. The author argues in favour of its importance, not only for any serious investigation into the evolution of the postwar international order, but also for the development of Global IR as a truly universal discipline: a global international relations. Few events offer more fertile ground for rethinking the established boundaries of international relations. After introducing the concept of a global international relations, the author then considers ways in which the conference's key legacies challenge conventional accounts and attest to the 'agency' of the newly independent states in the making of the post-war international order. The legacies this section focuses on include frustration at Western attempts to 'sabotage' the conference; the delegitimisation of collective defence pacts and the development of the Non-Aligned Movement; the emergence of a South-East Asian regionalism; the strengthening of emergent global norms affirming decolonisation, human rights, universalism and the United Nations; and support for the 'comity', over the 'clash', of civilisations. The author also canvasses negative legacies of the conference, including the polarisation of Asia and the encouragement of authoritarian tendencies and regional interventionist impulses. The author concludes by drawing implications of the conference for the study of global international relations.
“…The Bandung conference is important not only for any serious investigation into the evolution of the post-war international order, but also for the development of IR as a truly universal and inclusive discipline: a Global IR (Acharya 2014a). Global IR is not a theory or method, but a framework of enquiry and analysis of IR in all its diversity, especially with due recognition of the experiences, voices and agency of nonWestern peoples, societies and states that have been marginalised in the discipline of IR.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While the Global IR perspective has several elements (Acharya 2013(Acharya , 2014a, the ones that are most relevant to the analysis of the Bandung conference may be noted here. Global IR broadens the study of world politics to include the ideas, identities, institutions, events and processes that are outside of, and challenging to, the interstate system of Europe and its colonial expansion, which have been central to the construction of the dominant IR theories.…”
Mainstream international relations scholarship has ignored or disparaged the significance and legacies of the Bandung conference. The author argues in favour of its importance, not only for any serious investigation into the evolution of the postwar international order, but also for the development of Global IR as a truly universal discipline: a global international relations. Few events offer more fertile ground for rethinking the established boundaries of international relations. After introducing the concept of a global international relations, the author then considers ways in which the conference's key legacies challenge conventional accounts and attest to the 'agency' of the newly independent states in the making of the post-war international order. The legacies this section focuses on include frustration at Western attempts to 'sabotage' the conference; the delegitimisation of collective defence pacts and the development of the Non-Aligned Movement; the emergence of a South-East Asian regionalism; the strengthening of emergent global norms affirming decolonisation, human rights, universalism and the United Nations; and support for the 'comity', over the 'clash', of civilisations. The author also canvasses negative legacies of the conference, including the polarisation of Asia and the encouragement of authoritarian tendencies and regional interventionist impulses. The author concludes by drawing implications of the conference for the study of global international relations.
“…It is worth noting, however, that several other causal mechanisms may also be at work, which reinforce the decline in the efficacy of multilateral institutions. These include an increase in numbers at the negotiating table, as well as diversity of visions and voices (Narlikar, ). Hypothesis 2 : Rising powers, insofar as they are yet to become fully‐established as global agenda‐setters in international forums, are likely to rely on regional cooperation (Hurrell and Fawcett, ; Acharya, ) as at least one route to increase their international clout.…”
In this article, I investigate the impact that the rise of regional powers as global players has had on the nature of international conflict, and also the negotiating table. I focus specifically on China and India, and analyze their negotiating behavior in two areas: one multilateral, the other regional. Despite the apparent similarities that one might assume at first glance, the article points to some significant points of difference between these two players. The differences are important from a policy perspective, besides being theoretically interesting. The argument proceeds in five parts. The first section explains the reasoning behind the case selection, with respect to the countries (China and India) as well as issue‐areas (multilateral trade governance, and the Belt and Road Initiative [BRI]). It also outlines the main hypotheses in Section 1. Section 2 investigates the two hypotheses about the negotiation behaviors of China and India in the World Trade Organization (WTO). Section 3 takes on a similar comparison with reference to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Section 4 presents the conclusions of the study, and Section 5 offers policy recommendations.
“…The field is marked by asymmetric ignorance; a hegemonic but parochial Americo-Western core remains the primary exporter of ideas, particularly theories, while little travels from periphery to core (Tickner and Waever, 2009;Tickner, 2013;Maliniak et al, 2018). Recent years have therefore witnessed intensified efforts to open spaces for "peripheral", "Southern", and "non-Western" scholarship in order to "decenter", "provincialise", and make IR more "global" (Nayak and Selbin, 2010;Shilliam, 2010;Tickner and Blaney, 2012;Acharya, 2014Acharya, , 2016Deciancio, 2016;Turton and Freire, 2016;Aydinli and Biltekin, 2018). 1 At stake in debates on Western-centrism is not simply parochialism, ethnocentrism, and representation within the discipline, but the broader relationship between knowledge and power: how American-Western dominance in IR is entangled with, and constitutive of, American-Western dominance in world politics (Smith, 2000(Smith, , 2002.…”
This article examines the relationship between the geopolitical rise of new powers in international relations and knowledge production in International Relations. It draws on the science studies literature on the ‘co-production’ of science and politics to conceptualise and analyse this relationship between the ‘state of emergence’ and ‘state of knowledge’. I argue that the ‘state of emergence’ should be conceptualised not only as a real-world condition external to science that imposes itself on an otherwise pure internal ‘state of knowledge’, but also as a scholarly sensibility, ethos and motivation that operates ‘within’ it. The article illustrates the argument ethnomethodologically by interviewing International Relations scholars in China and India on how they themselves make sense of the emerging condition and justify their own positions and actions within it. Based on the interviews, I identify four co-productive registers connecting the state of emergence to the state of knowledge (the constitutive, civic, infrastructural and psychological) but also find that scholars in China and India differ in their enactment of these registers.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
