It is probably the most interesting time to be a student of the discipline of International Relations (IR). And more so if your are studying it based in the developing world. This post attempts to look at the new paradigms, new horizons and new tends that are emerging in the field of IR.
In Search of Non-Western IR Theory:
Traditionally and even now, the field of IR has been dominated by theories, paradigms put forth by scholars in USA and Europe. The attempt till date has been to understand the world in mould set by the Western Scholars. This bias in study was further reinforced by the theorising done in context of Cold War- with Realism and its variants being the dominant paradigm. Though neoliberalism was the contending theory, it shared many of its assumptions with neorealism. The other theories- the English School, Constructivism, and Critical Theory offered new ways to make sense of the world, but they still remained confined to the Western view of the world. The lack of Non-Western theory is seen as one of the new challenges that the scholars of Asia, Africa and South America face. This effort will be unique as it will be based on the different and varied experiences of these regions. (For more on this the special issue of International Relations of Asia-Pacific (IRAP) Vol. 7, No. 3; 2007 published by Oxford University Press in association with Japan Association of International Relations is an important contribution.)
Moving Away from the Polar Terminology:
The Cold War saw the world being described as a bipolar world, in the period immediately after the end of Cold War was defined in terms unipolar world-with USA being the sole super power. By the last years of the 1990s the world was described as ‘multipolar with a unipolar moment’ that the US was no longer the hegemon as it used to be and new power centres- EU, China, Russia, India and Brazil are slowly emerging. In an influential article- ‘The Age in Nonpolarity’ by Richard Haass (2008); Haass argued that it is time to define world as a ‘nonpolar’ world. He argued that there is neither one dominant pole now contending poles in the world currently. At the global level, states are no longer the only actors; they are now fighting for space with non-state actors like – NGO, Transnational Corporations (TNCs),other international organisations and even terrorist groups. Hence he terms the current world as ‘nonpolar’. But a pertinent point here is that should we still stick to the polar terminology? On one hand there is a continuous flux in the power equations in the world-as reflected in various international negotiations, recently in WTO. And at the same time an international power hierarchy exists, the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ are still a reality; but the ‘have nots’ are not a one homogenous category as they used be. A new terminology may be more helpful to comprehend the changing dynamics of the world.
Redefining Sovereignty- accepting R2P?
Sovereignty though treated as sacrosanct, has been conveniently manipulated over decades to suit the interests of the power holders. Globalisation-with its varied meanings- has further challenged the institution of sovereignty. But the fact remains that state sovereignty is still a reality and states continue to value it greatly. More importantly it remains the most crucial ‘organising principle’ of the world. But now efforts are on to forge a global consensus on norms that will overcome the limits imposed by sovereignty. Humanitarian Intervention has now been reframed as Responsibility to Protect (R2P). It has been conceptualised by International Commission on State Sovereignty and Intervention (funded by Canada). R2P signifies a growing consensus on the issue that the world cannot sit silent while thousands of people are either being left to die or being killed. The basic idea behind R2P is that human rights trump sovereignty. This is a controversial concept and many states-notably USA, China and India have been wary of it. It would be interesting to see what stand-at normative and policy level-these countries take as this idea gains more currency.
These are some of the areas that will define the terms of debate in future in the discipline of International Relations. Some of the forthcoming posts will seek to look at the new areas emerging in IR. Of these there will be two paper/article summaries from the papers published in the special issue of International Relations of Asia-Pacific (IRAP) Vol. 7, No. 3; (2007). This special issue deals with the theme- ‘Why there is no non-Western IR Theory: Reflections on and from Asia’; edited by Ashok Acharya and Barry Buzan.
In Search of Non-Western IR Theory:
Traditionally and even now, the field of IR has been dominated by theories, paradigms put forth by scholars in USA and Europe. The attempt till date has been to understand the world in mould set by the Western Scholars. This bias in study was further reinforced by the theorising done in context of Cold War- with Realism and its variants being the dominant paradigm. Though neoliberalism was the contending theory, it shared many of its assumptions with neorealism. The other theories- the English School, Constructivism, and Critical Theory offered new ways to make sense of the world, but they still remained confined to the Western view of the world. The lack of Non-Western theory is seen as one of the new challenges that the scholars of Asia, Africa and South America face. This effort will be unique as it will be based on the different and varied experiences of these regions. (For more on this the special issue of International Relations of Asia-Pacific (IRAP) Vol. 7, No. 3; 2007 published by Oxford University Press in association with Japan Association of International Relations is an important contribution.)
Moving Away from the Polar Terminology:
The Cold War saw the world being described as a bipolar world, in the period immediately after the end of Cold War was defined in terms unipolar world-with USA being the sole super power. By the last years of the 1990s the world was described as ‘multipolar with a unipolar moment’ that the US was no longer the hegemon as it used to be and new power centres- EU, China, Russia, India and Brazil are slowly emerging. In an influential article- ‘The Age in Nonpolarity’ by Richard Haass (2008); Haass argued that it is time to define world as a ‘nonpolar’ world. He argued that there is neither one dominant pole now contending poles in the world currently. At the global level, states are no longer the only actors; they are now fighting for space with non-state actors like – NGO, Transnational Corporations (TNCs),other international organisations and even terrorist groups. Hence he terms the current world as ‘nonpolar’. But a pertinent point here is that should we still stick to the polar terminology? On one hand there is a continuous flux in the power equations in the world-as reflected in various international negotiations, recently in WTO. And at the same time an international power hierarchy exists, the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ are still a reality; but the ‘have nots’ are not a one homogenous category as they used be. A new terminology may be more helpful to comprehend the changing dynamics of the world.
Redefining Sovereignty- accepting R2P?
Sovereignty though treated as sacrosanct, has been conveniently manipulated over decades to suit the interests of the power holders. Globalisation-with its varied meanings- has further challenged the institution of sovereignty. But the fact remains that state sovereignty is still a reality and states continue to value it greatly. More importantly it remains the most crucial ‘organising principle’ of the world. But now efforts are on to forge a global consensus on norms that will overcome the limits imposed by sovereignty. Humanitarian Intervention has now been reframed as Responsibility to Protect (R2P). It has been conceptualised by International Commission on State Sovereignty and Intervention (funded by Canada). R2P signifies a growing consensus on the issue that the world cannot sit silent while thousands of people are either being left to die or being killed. The basic idea behind R2P is that human rights trump sovereignty. This is a controversial concept and many states-notably USA, China and India have been wary of it. It would be interesting to see what stand-at normative and policy level-these countries take as this idea gains more currency.
These are some of the areas that will define the terms of debate in future in the discipline of International Relations. Some of the forthcoming posts will seek to look at the new areas emerging in IR. Of these there will be two paper/article summaries from the papers published in the special issue of International Relations of Asia-Pacific (IRAP) Vol. 7, No. 3; (2007). This special issue deals with the theme- ‘Why there is no non-Western IR Theory: Reflections on and from Asia’; edited by Ashok Acharya and Barry Buzan.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment