| Abstract: | In the conclusion, we seek to ascertain the possibility of anon-Western International Relations theory (IRT) in Asia. Wefind while there is a good deal of writing that can be regardedas ‘pre-theoretical’, these have not been fullyexploited or exported to other parts of Asia and beyond. Thereis certainly little that can be called an Asian IRT. This isnot because scholars in the region accept that Western IRT isunchallengeable nor that it has found all the answers to themajor problems of international relations. Nor is it becausenon-Western theories are ‘hidden from the public eye’.It is rather due to a lack of institutional resources, the head-startof Western IRT, and especially the hegemonic standing of WesternIRT. At the same time, the case studies point to the existenceof abundant intellectual and historical resources that couldserve as the basis of developing a non-Western IRT that takesinto account the positions, needs and cultures of countriesin the region. There is room in Asia for the development ofnon-Western IRT, but not an ‘Asian School of internationalrelations’ (although national perspectives such as a ‘ChineseSchool’ are possible) which would assume a degree of convergenceof perspectives and interactions among Asian scholars, whichclearly does not exist. This development should and could gobeyond simply ‘joining in to the existing game seekingto add local colour and cases to existing theory’, ordeveloping a localist exceptionalism (‘Asian values’)or organizing local thinking into rebellions against prevailingorthodoxies (especially realism and liberalism) in the mannerof the dependencia theory. Western IRT does not need to be replaced,but can and should be enriched with the addition of more voicesand a wider rooting not just in world history but also in informedrepresentations of both core and periphery perspectives withinthe ever-evolving global political, economic and social order. In the conclusion, we first offer some generalizations fromthe four case studies with a view to addressing the main questionposed in the introduction: the apparent absence of IRT in Asiaand possible explanations behind it. We then reflect on whetherthe question of a non-Western IRT in Asia is a meaningful one,and whether the way it is approached in this special issue couldresult in a productive debate that would advance the disciplineof IR. Although our empirical focus is on Asia, we suggest someinsights that have more general relevance for non-Western IRT. Received for publication May 16, 2006. Accepted for publication June 27, 2007. |
