Does the Clash of Civilisations Paradigm Provide a Persuasive Explanation of International Politics after September 11th?

In the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks it is not unreasonable for scholars of international relations to begin to question whether existing paradigms continue to be of relevance in understanding the structure and process of the international system. This article focuses on Samuel Huntington's clash of civilisations paradigm to determine whether it may provide a more meaningful and persuasive lens to view the world after September 11th, by undertaking a thorough analysis of its underlying assumptions. This paper will argue that the clash of civilisations paradigm suffers from a number of serious weaknesses, particularly in its causal arguments, that undermine its usefulness and relevance to increasing our understanding of international relations generally, let alone international relations after September 11th.