See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/316462641

‘Theorising the international relations of Asia: necessity or indulgence?’

Some reflections

Article  in  The Pacific Review · April 2017

DOI: 10.1080/09512748.2017.1318163

CITATIONS READS

6 837

1 author:

Amitav Acharya
American University Washington D.C.
198 PUBLICATIONS   3,959 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Global Governance View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Amitav Acharya on 30 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Pacific Review

ISSN: 0951-2748 (Print) 1470-1332 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpre20

‘Theorising the international relations of Asia:

necessity or indulgence?’ Some reflections

Amitav Acharya

To cite this article: Amitav Acharya (2017): ‘Theorising the international relations
of Asia: necessity or indulgence?’ Some reflections, The Pacific Review, DOI:
10.1080/09512748.2017.1318163

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2017.1318163

Published online: 25 Apr 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 67

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpre20

Download by: [American University Library] Date: 08 May 2017, At: 14:24
THE PACIFIC REVIEW, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2017.1318163

‘Theorising the international relations of Asia: necessity

or indulgence?’ Some reflections
Amitav Acharya
School of International Service, American University, Washington, DC, USA

ABSTRACT
The study of international relations in or of Asia is no longer atheoretical, as was the
case only three decades ago, when the Pacific Review was founded. But how serious
are the efforts to study the international relations of Asia theoretically? Some Western
scholars argue that writings on Asian International Relations (IR) are still peripheral to
the major concerns and debates among IR theories such as realism, liberalism, and
constructivism. The ‘indigenization’ of Asian IR theory remains limited by, among
other factors, a tendency among local scholars to rely heavily on Western theories,
and the close academia-officialdom nexus in the region that inhibits theoretical work.
But this essay argues that Asia offers an opportunity to IR theory for broadening itself
and shed its hitherto Westerncentrism, especially at a time of a ‘global’ turn in IR
(global IR). Theoretical writings on Asian IR are already making a difference by
exposing the limitations of mainstream IR theories in the regional context. And they
have the potential to offer new and alternative concepts that are more contextually
grounded and relevant for Global IR. At the same time, there remain some important
conditions that must be met before theoretical writings on Asian IR can make further
progress and realize their full potential.

KEYWORDS International relations theory; global international relations; global IR; Asian regionalism; ASEAN;
Chinese school of IR

Three decades of The Pacific Review is a fitting occasion to reflect on the place of theory
in the study of Asia's international relations. At its founding, the journal, in keeping with
the state of the literature on the international relations of Asia, was largely atheoretical.
But over the years, especially under the editorial direction of the Warwick team led by
Richard Higgott, the Review has evolved into a vibrant outlet for theoretically informed
work on Asia. Indeed, my own turn to IR theory was through the pages of this journal,
with an essay entitled ‘Ideas, Identity ad Institution-Building’ (Acharya, 1997). It is tied
for the top spot as the most cited article in the journal (in the last three years to August
26 2016). To its credit, the journal has not shunned analytical and empirical essays that
make no direct theoretical claim or contribution. But it has led been at the forefront of
efforts to bring Asia into IR theory and vice versa.

CONTACT Amitav Acharya aacharya@american.edu

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 A. ACHARYA

What theory? What is Asian?

Some initial clarifications are in order with respect to the development and underdevel-
opment of theoretical work on Asian IR. First, as might be expected, theoretical writings
on Asian IR are dominated by the application of three theories: realism, liberalism, and
constructivism. This leaves out others, such as postcolonial, postmodern, feminist, and
Marxist perspectives. Although not without exponents among the Asian IR scholars,
they have been less visible in the Review. Since the publication of The Pacific Review, the
most significant development in IR theory has been the emergence and rise of construc-
tivism. In Asia, this is especially seen in writings on Asian regionalism, in keeping with
the proliferation of regional institutions and dialogues post-Cold War Asia. Constructivist
writings on Asia stress cultural and ideational factors, especially the role of norms and
identity, that had previously received little attention in writings on Asian IR. Constructi-
vists have challenged the dominance of the realist/neorealist perspective, focusing on
the dynamics of the balance of power, as the basis of Asian regional order especially
during the Cold War period. Such work has given much greater play to the possibility of
peaceful change driven by socialization. No systematic data is available on the relative
popularity of different theories in Asian IR (except at the national level in China) – a
need task that ought to be addressed by Asian IR scholars. But one would suspect, based
on anecdotal evidence, that realism still holds that place. This is different from the trend
in the IR field, where in the 2014 Teaching, Research, and Policy (TRIP) survey, construc-
tivism came out the top choice of an IR paradigm 22.5%, followed by realism and liberal-
ism (Teaching, Research and International Policy [TRIP], 2014). What is beyond doubt,
however, is that constructivism in Asian IR has exerted much influence, introducing
greater theoretical diversity and opened the space for debate in the field. It has helped
to link the insights of the traditional area studies approach to Asian IR to the larger
domain of international relations theory (Acharya & Stubbs, 2006).
Second, when it comes to theory, Asia is not one. Theoretical work on ‘Asian’ IR, or
security tends to be uneven. It focuses disproportionately on East Asia, with Southeast
Asia, and South Asia (which is regrettably not covered by The Review, a policy that needs
to be reconsidered) occupying a relatively less important space. Such work does not
really extend to the wider conception of Asia, covering West and Central Asia for exam-
ple. Also, regional definitions of Asia are fluid, political constructed and contested. The
proliferation of overlapping definition of the region, e.g. East Asia, Asia-Pacific, Indo-
Pacific, etc., adds to the challenge of theorizing about Asian IR. Theoretical arguments
about balance of power developed from a Northeast Asian context, about regional insti-
tutions from a Southeast Asian context, or nuclear deterrence from a South Asian (India-
Pakistan) context, do not travel well across subregional frontiers, and therefore must be
severely qualified when presented as part of the ‘Asian’ IR theoretical toolkit.
Third, theoretical work on Asian IR is not always, or mostly by Asians. The definition of
who or what is ‘Asian’ IR is problematic. Some people think the label should only apply
to the work of scholars of Asian origin, based in Asia. Recently, I had an exchange with a
rather influential public intellectual in Asia who had complained that an essay I had writ-
ten on ASEAN and Great Power rivalry in Asia contained no references to writings by
Asian authors, even though it had cited the work of two scholars of Asian origin now
based in the USA. My simple response was: ‘I am Asian too’! What about the work of
scholars of non-Asian origin but who are based at Asian universities and institutions?
And what about Western scholars or scholars of Asian origin based in Western
 THE PACIFIC REVIEW 3

institutions but working on Asian issues? There is plenty of anecdotal evidence from the
pages of The Pacific Review that indigenization of theoretical writings (i.e. theoretical
work by scholars of Asian origin working in or outside of Asia) is growing in volume, if
not necessarily in quality, although there are some notable exceptions in China, Japan,
South Korea, and India. This trend is evident from my own engagement with Asian
scholars, as well as a cursory glance at IR journals published out of Asia, and my own
observations on the participation by Asian scholars in conferences in Asia and abroad. I
see more and more Asian scholars are engaged in theory. Yet, it begs the question:
what about the contribution of scholars (including Asian-born scholars) and institutions
based in Australia and New Zealand, not to mention, USA, Canada and elsewhere, to the
study of Asian IR? Excluding or any kind of downgrading of their work would be not
only unfair, but also intellectually questionable. It also deprives scholarship on Asian IR a
rich source of quality and breadth (especially in terms of theoretical and comparative
perspectives), a good deal of which continues to come from outside of Asia. While indig-
enization is important, I would call for including any scholar anywhere working on Asian
international issues as part of the Asian IR community.
Fourth, a good deal of work on international relations of Asia were and continue to
be done by area specialists. This is by no means unique to Asia; one suspects the writ-
ings on foreign policy, security and regional order in other parts of the developing world
have been conducted mainly within the area studies framework. But the area studies
tradition has its own biases. It is known for its historic aversion to theory and its empha-
sis on single country specialization, especially large or powerful ones like, China, Japan,
India, and Indonesia, to the neglect of the study of region-wide patterns or smaller coun-
tries. The area studies tradition has been disparaged and dismissed by ‘discipline-based’
IR scholars for lacking relevance for theory development and focusing too much field-
research. This is wrong and short-sighted. Engagement with area studies is critical not
only to the development Asian IR, but also to that of IR theory in general. Writings from
an area studies scholars can do much to offset the narrow American and Eurocentric lit-
erature on IR. Yet, equally problematic is the tendency among area studies scholars to
resort to claims about Asia's uniqueness or distinctive characteristics, cultural, political,
and developmental, to frame their contribution to international relations, without any
broader intellectual or comparative framing. There is no question that discovery of dis-
tinctive patterns of international relations did exist in Asia and continues to exist now.
But this have to be investigated, tested, debated, and proven, rather than assumed a
priori.
Arguably, the most interesting scholars and scholarship on Asian IR today – including
studies on regionalism, security, development, and the role of norms and identity – are
those which combine both disciplinary and area studies perspectives (two examples of
such work would be: Ba, 2009; Goh, 2013). While not all such work avoids the pitfall of
blindly applying theories often derived from Western history and practice to Asia, they
do make Asian ideas and practices accessible and applicable to outside and to non-area
specialists. Such work is still a minority but points to a productive avenue for further
development.
Finally, the reason for the underdevelopment of theoretical work in Asian universities
and institutions is not to be found in the lack of resources, such as good libraries, class-
rooms, and internet connectivity. This argument does not always hold, since theoretical
work lags even in some of the more developed countries of Asia, such as Singapore,
and Malaysia, and is skewed heavily in favor of narrow local themes in others, such as
4 A. ACHARYA

South Korea (Korean Peninsula conflict), and Hong Kong and Taiwan (where the litera-
ture is heavily China-centric). While there is nothing surprising or wrong about attention
to national or local issues in IR, too much preoccupation with it has stymied theory
development.
A more important reason behind the paucity of theoretical work on IR in Asia is the
proximity of IR specialists to governments. Many international relations scholars find
employment in Asia's think-tanks, which are little more than mouthpieces for their gov-
ernments. Some are extensions of foreign or defense or home affairs ministries, directly
funded and run by government officials or retired or seconded bureaucrats. This is com-
pounded by the ubiquitous presence and dominance of government-linked scholars or
retired government officials in track two dialogues. Even independent research centers
on international relations are controlled and manipulated by governments, either
overtly or indirectly either through funding or fear, or both, especially in authoritarian
countries. Such institutions had little room for theoretical or academic work. Beholden
to policy-makers, scholars avoid theoretical work. In many cases, engagement leads to
‘entrapment’ (Acharya, 2011). This occurs when scholars, after having provided intellec-
tual input at an early stage of policy-making, remain beholden to the choices made by
officials and thereby unwilling or incapable of challenging officially sanctioned path-
ways and approaches for the fear of losing their access and influence.

Taking theory seriously

Given these constraints, can IR theory in Asia make a difference to the development of IR
theory in general? In a recent essay, Iain Johnston (2012) sets limits to theoretical contri-
butions to IR from an Asian context (whether by Asians or non-Asians). He does not say
that theoretical work on Asia is itself unimportant in explaining developments in the
region. Rather he questions whether such work can ‘resolve major controversies, lead to
breakthroughs, and drive theory development.’
I have a different view. Before discussing and dismissing Asia's potential to enrich IR
theory, one needs to consider what theoretical innovation and enrichment means.
Should theoretical advances be judged solely or mainly in terms of Kuhn or Lakatos, or
the ability of theories to provide causal explanations, proceed through deductive rea-
soning and hypothesis testing, that dominates the American approach to theory? A
good deal of theoretical work on Asian IR usually means deploying certain key concepts,
such as balance of power, interdependence, institutions, or norms, and mid-range theo-
ries, such as those related to regionalism, development, and security, etc., rather than
engaging in meta-theoretical discussions, inter-paradigm debates, or ‘theorizing about
theory.’ Theoretical writings on Asian IR are more contextually grounded, with theory
used as an initial framing device for organizing data for investigating specific issues. In
fact, it is the combination of theoretically informed but contextually grounded essays
that defines the Pacific Review, and makes it arguably the leading journal on the interna-
tional relations of the Asia-Pacific. Only the International Relations of the Asia-Pacific
comes close to being a true competition.
This leads to a larger question. Must one apply existing Western standards of judging
theoretical breakthroughs to Asia, an approach which is increasingly under challenge?
This is an especially relevant question at a time when the view of IR as a science, is fac-
ing growing challenge (Jackson, 2010).
 THE PACIFIC REVIEW 5

My own answer is that the potential of writings to contribute to theoretical develop-

ment, whether out of Asia or more generally, should be judged in terms of two func-
tions. A necessary first step is challenging existing theories, especially their claim to
universality. To some extent, the question whether Asia can resolve major controversies
in IR theory seems unfair, when one realizes that those debates have been notorious
parochial. They originally emerged in Western contexts often with no or limited rele-
vance for Asia. This means going beyond the ethnocentrism of the so-called inter-para-
digm debates. Those debates were a misnomer, because they actually took place within
the same Western paradigm. In that sense, they were intra-paradigmatic. There was little
by the way of drawing on non-Western experiences and ideas to challenge existing
paradigms.
Second, theoretical innovation in IR entails presenting new or alternative concepts
that enrich the understanding and explanation of international developments. Some-
times these can be from a national or regional context, but it has to demonstrate a
broader relevance, meaning having an applicability beyond the region out of which it
was originally developed. This has been the standard pattern of much of the theoretical
development in Western social sciences which has been consistently generalizing from
Europe or the USA while staking a claim to be universal. Examples would be too plentiful
and well-known require elaboration here; suffice is to mention a few: balance of power
(European), hegemonic stability (American), and democratic peace (Western).
I would argue that Asia has already done much in terms of the first function i.e. in
testing and challenging Western international relation theory (IRT) in several areas, such
as economic development, regional security order, regionalism and norm diffusion.
When it comes to the second aspect, Asia has done less well.
Elsewhere (Acharya, 2014b), I have extensively discussed several areas where theoret-
ical writings on Asia have exposed the mismatch between the assumptions and predic-
tions of mainstream IR theories – realism, liberalism and constructivism – and the
realities in the region. Many of those examples concern issues of regional security order,
rather than the political economy of the region, which has also been a major theme for
the Pacific Review. But they do tell us much about the limits of mainstream IR theories in
the Asian context. Let me briefly highlight two of them.
Writings on Asian IR have frontally challenged the initial realist/neorealist predictions,
made at the onset of the post-Cold War era, about Europe's past being Asia's future, or
of a world war out of Asia due to multipolarity, the rise of China, the relative absence of
mitigating factors such as strong regional institutions or economic interdependence
(which for realists might serve as a trigger of competition rather than as a force for
peace). Asia also offers substantial reasons for doubting the neorealist view that regional
hegemony by rising powers can only be stopped through war, as happened to Germany
and Japan before World War II, or failed to happen in the case of the US Monroe Doc-
trine (which because there was no countervailing war).
The true theoretical limitation of the above realist/neorealist prognosis that is exposed
in Asia is not that the danger of war has been absent in Asia, even though nearly 30 years
have passed since the first such predictions were mooted, but its failure to account for the
marked differences in conditions between Europe's past and Asia's present. Not only
Asia's historical experience in dealing with China (Kang, 2003), but also degree and combi-
nation of economic interdependence, regional institutions and ideological moderation
among Asian powers, and strategic factors such as nuclear weapons and defensive bal-
ancing can also offer a cushion against catastrophic conflict (Acharya, 2014a).
6 A. ACHARYA

The second area in which theoretical writings on Asian IR have challenged the West-
ern theoretical mainstream relates to the nature and purpose of regional institutions.
Whereas the aforementioned debates over regional stability were shaped by neorealist
assumptions about the effects of multipolarity, the debate over regional institutions tar-
gets mainly Liberal conceptions about what constitutes proper and effective regionalism
and Constructivist explanations of how regional institutions might serve as agents of
norm diffusion. Writings on Asian regionalism have been central to challenging the pre-
sumed universality of the EU model. They have demonstrated the limits of the Eurocen-
tric (influenced by both Neoliberal institutionalism and constructivism) foundations of
the literature on regionalism. They have challenged neo-liberal institutionalism's con-
ceptualization of regionalism (or regional integration) as a rationalistic, interest-driven,
formal, legalistic, and bureaucratic phenomenon to be employed as a universal template
for studying comparative regionalism, instead positing Asian regionalism's more infor-
mal, consensual, and process-centric alternative. At the same time, theoretical writings
on Asian regionalism have undermined constructivism's earlier top-down narrative of
how ideas and norms spread, and offered a perspective stressing the agency of the
norm-takers through resistance, contestation, and localization of outside norms and the
construction of new norms entirely out of local context and through local agency.
These contributions to the literature on international cooperation and norm diffusion
are really not about whether the Asian approach is more effective, but rather about
whether there can be a single universal model of regionalism or international coopera-
tion derived from the Western experience that could apply to all the regions and actors
in world politics. As a result, and even before Brexit dealt a powerful blow to the prestige
and appeal of the EU model, there was a growing acceptance that the EU should not be
used to judge the performance and effectiveness of regional institutions elsewhere, not
just in Asia, but also in other parts of the world.
To add to the above, Asia is also posing the most critical test of the Liberal view that
the emerging powers of the world can be coopted into the American-made and -led
world order, and by implication the system of global governance it has promoted and
defended since World War II. According to this view, the emerging powers have benefit-
ted so much from the American-led order that they would have little reason to seek its
replacement. Yet, what co-option may actually mean in practice remains uncertain and
contested. The initiatives by China in developing parallel institutions such as the Asian
Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), and its and India's participation in the BRICS’-orga-
nized development and financial windows suggest a more complex picture. At least
they do not suggest evidence of outright co-option, but a demand for reform and reori-
entation of the existing international order. It is too early to say how the international
postures of China and India might evolve. There is little evidence from history that rising
powers simply embrace an existing order simply because they have benefitted from it.
Germany, despite having benefitted from the British-led international order of the later
nineteenth and early twentieth century, still sought to challenge it. At the very least, the
rising powers and the established powers need to negotiate reform, concession, and
accommodation, such as respecting their domestic political, economic, and social insti-
tutions. Some of these, in China's case, are rather illiberal. India's economic institutions
also do not square with strictly liberal norms. Hence, Asia may decide the fate of the lib-
eral paradox whereby to accommodate rising powers, the established liberal powers
agree to reform the existing order, but in so doing accept so much change to the norms
and institutions of that order that the residue loses its claim to be truly liberal.
 THE PACIFIC REVIEW 7

Turning to the second aspect of theoretical innovation, i.e. development of new con-
cepts, Asia has been the point of origin of the idea of ‘non-Western international rela-
tions theory.’ (Acharya & Buzan, 2007) The NWIRT idea emerged over a growing
dissatisfaction with the applicability of mainstream IR theories to Asia. But its real contri-
bution was to encourage explorations into alternative sources of IR theory, such as
indigenous histories, classical philosophy and religious traditions, the ideas national
leaders, the writings on contemporary scholars, and the foreign policy practices of mod-
ern states and the norms and process dynamics of regional interactions (such as the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations). The NWIRT concept was criticized for not imply-
ing a complete rejection of Western theories and for reifying categories such as the
‘West’ and the ‘non-West.’ But these debates have been productive in raising awareness
about the basic Westerncentrism of IR theory, and opening the space of alternative
ways of redressing it. The outcome has been the emergence of concepts such as ‘post-
Western’ IR and ‘Global IR’ (Acharya, 2014c); the latter especially oriented as a global
conversation across the West-Rest divide that challenges existing IRTs to shed their
Euro- and Americano-centrism while at the same time encouraging the developments
of new concepts and theories out of indigenous ideas and practices but with a broader
relevance beyond Asia or any specific region.
In considering theoretical work on Asian IR, one must consider the possibility and
role of regional and national ‘schools’ of IR. The development of an ‘Asian school of IR’
of region-wide scope seems remote. This is due to the distinctive local conditions and
intellectual predispositions, often shaped by national ideologies and foreign policy
frameworks, of scholars in the various parts of the region, especially Japan, China, and
India (Alagappa, 2011). Institutional support mechanisms for the study of IR also vary
widely among Asian countries. To be sure, these differences should not be overstated
and may be blurring now, with some shared themes emerging across sub-regions such
as the role of rising powers in the existing international order, economic interdepen-
dence, and regional institutions. But another constraint on the development of an Asian
School of IR is the rather limited nature of scholarly exchange and interaction among
the academics from different subregions of Asia. One limited exception here is the Asian
Political and International Studies Association (APISA), founded in 2003, and the regional
conferences organized by the International Studies Association (ISA) in various Asian
locations, including Japan, Hong Kong, and Singapore.
More plausible are ‘schools’ that reflect distinctive national metanarratives and trajec-
tories of IR thinking and foreign policy approaches. The leading example of such a
school out of Asia today is the ‘Chinese school of IR.’ It draws on some of the distinctive
elements of Chinese civilization, politics and foreign policy practice, including, but not
limited to Confucianism, the Tianxia (‘all under heaven’) concept, and the tributary sys-
tem. Some of it runs parallel to and embraces official Chinese discourses, including con-
temporary ones about the ‘peaceful rise of China.’ This has been controversial, as critics
see in it a rationalization of China's official international posture.
Politics aside, a key concern about national schools is whether such schools are only
useful for explaining developments in their domestic or regional contexts. This is indeed
a challenge for any non-Western IRT or Global IR: how to develop generalizable con-
cepts and theories from a national or regional context that should not only be applica-
ble only to that specific country or region, but must have a wider relevance. In other
words, they must travel outside national and regional limits and be applicable, at least
to some degree, to other areas, and to the world at large. For example, the English
8 A. ACHARYA

School and the Copenhagen School, despite their biases and limitations, have offered
concepts such as ‘international society’, or ‘securitization’ respectively, which have genu-
inely broader applicability beyond the UK or Europe and are used by scholars in other
parts of the world. Other examples can be found in the late Southeast Asian specialist
Ben Anderson's analysis of nationalism as ‘imagined community,’ a concept, which
reflected a strong, if not exclusively Indonesian context. To be credible, a Chinese School
of IR must offer concepts and explanations that have relevance beyond China or East
Asia, rather than simply capture China's international behavior or the East Asian interna-
tional system.
Chinese scholars are waking up to this challenge. For example, in his relational theory
of world politics’, Yaqing Qin (2016) argues that international relations scholars should
look beyond rationality and embrace ‘relationality’, in explaining foreign policy and
international behavior and outcomes in a more universal context. Relationality not only
resonates within Chinese culture deeply, it can also be applied to other contexts, even
the West. In his view, it is not that the Western actors do not behave relationally; it may
well be that Western IR theories because of their obsession with rationality have over-
looked or rendered invisible the relationality aspect. The implication of Qin's contribu-
tion may be that rationality and relationality are not mutually antithetical, but
complimentary to each other. At the same time, it should not be overlooked that Qin is
also a constructivist, and there are obvious echoes of constructivism in Qin's idea of rela-
tionality. To that extent, Western and non-Western approaches to IR can converge or
find common ground, and be mutually reinforcing. Global IR after all does not seek to
displace, but subsume existing IR and enrich them with the infusion of ideas and practi-
ces from the non-Western world.
Such an understanding goes some way in addressing another contentious issue
about a national school: whether concepts they offer are really new, or can be approxi-
mated to exiting concepts and paradigms including realism and constructivism. For
example, is the Tianxia concept another form of realism, in the sense of being a mask
for Chinese dominance (‘all under the Chinese heaven’?) Or is concept of relationality
advanced by Qin simply a variation on constructivism? These questions need to be fur-
ther debated. But my own view is to stay away from such theoretical puritanism; con-
cepts derived from Chinese culture and history are still useful and important even if
they bear resemblance to existing IR concepts because they add variation, nuance and
context to the latter. And they enhance the latter's claim to universality.
There has been no comparable attempt in Japan and India to develop a school of IR
as happening in China. Inoguchi (2007) points to some distinctive Japanese perspectives
on IR by focusing on the work of Nishida Kitaro (seen by Inoguchi as a constructivist
focusing on issues of identity), Tabata Shigejiro (International law), and Hirano Yoshitaro
(regional integration). But the talk of a distinctive Japanese theory of IR pales in compar-
ison with the efforts behind the Chinese School. There could be a greater possibility for
such a school in India, Asia's other rising power. Conceivably, Indian scholars could emu-
late their Chinese counterparts by developing such a school by focusing on the rise of
India, including the distinctive concerns and status that comes with it, just as Chinese
scholars are creating a Chinese School of IR focusing, among other things on the ‘peace-
ful rise’ of China. But these efforts are not part of any organized discourse to develop an
Indian School of IR. Critics of this idea believe that Indian foreign policy and international
behavior should enmesh and resonate with universalistic norms. To be sure, arguments
against a culturally distinctive national school are not absent in China. But I think they
 THE PACIFIC REVIEW 9

are more pronounced in India, where there have historically been powerful voices
against narrower forms of intellectual nationalism and a greater willingness to accept
intellectual pluralism and universalism. To be sure, there is a growing interest in India to
bring cultural traditions, ideas and practices to the study of IR, including insights from
classical Indian texts such as the epic Mahabharata (Datta-Ray, 2015; Narlikar & Narlikar,
2014) and the secular treatise Arthasastra (Gautam, 2015). It is possible that India the
Indian IR community would imbibe a syncretic universalism, combining the local with
outside influences, rather than create an inward-looking Indian School of IR based
largely on Indian history, culture, and practice. But I a comparative study of Chinese and
Indian international thought and practice, both classical and modern, is long overdue,
and could lead to fascinating insights into the core concepts, such as hegemony, bal-
ance, morality, cooperation, that could significantly enrich IR theory in general.
Finally, the vast majority of theoretical work on Asian IR tends to be at the level of
middle-range theories, such as those related to balance of power, interdependence,
institutions, or norm diffusion. Examples of such work can be found in the Stanford Uni-
versity Press’ series, Studies in Asian Security. This is by no means unique to Asia, but con-
sistent with the general trend in IRT in recent years (Jackson & Nexon, 2013, p. 548). Such
mid-range theories address ‘issue-oriented puzzles’ (Walt, 2005, p. 33) and explain them
with the help of IR literature's ‘widely accepted causal mechanisms’ (Jackson & Nexon,
2013, p. 548), that specify the relationship between variables. While such work may be
criticized for being more concerned with testing the empirical validity of existing con-
cepts (which are derived mainly from the Western history and experience, thereby
entrenching Western dominance in IR theory) than developing entirely new concepts
and theories on the basis of new or previously neglected empirical data, they have
expanded the use of IR theory to Asia and engaged outside, Western IR scholars in Asian
issue. At the same time, there are signs of emerging work that contributes to the general
theoretical development of IR from Asia, a leading example being Tang's (2013) ‘Social
Evolution Paradigm’ (SEP). It holds that no single theory is valid across all time, and that
IR theories, especially realism and liberalism, ‘are appropriate to different phases of his-
tory’ (Buzan, 2013, p.1304).

Possibility and conditions for further development

While the theoretical study of IR in Asia shows greater promise, the further development
of a theoretically-significant body of writings on Asian IR, and the ability of the Asian IR
literature to shape the trajectory of IRT in general, depend on a number of conditions
(Acharya & Buzan, 2007).
One obvious factor is developing more publishing outlets, and overcoming language
barriers such as lack of English language proficiency, and increasing the distance
between academic and policy work. There is some good news here, especially with the
emergence of new journals based in the region, especially the International Relations of
the Asia-Pacific (based in Japan and launched in 2000), and the newer Chinese Journal of
International Politics (published from China and launched in 2006). International Studies,
the oldest IR journal in Asia (published since 1959) has also shown a growing interest in
IR theory (see ‘International Studies in India’, Special Issue of International Studies, 2009,
46 (1 and 2)). Added to this, many new specialized book series on Asian IR have been
created by leading Western publishers that allow a greater number of Asian scholars to
engage in theoretical debates and discussion. These include, aside from the
10 A. ACHARYA

aforementioned Studies in Asian Security by Stanford University Press, Routledge (which

has several imprints on Asian IR and security), Palgrave Macmillan, Edward Elgar, Sage,
Georgetown, Columbia, etc. It is also encouraging that Asian universities are increasingly
able to devote more resources to the study of international relations, with China leading
the way. In India too, a number of private and public universities, such as the South Asia
University and the O.P. Jindal Global University have contributed to the expansion of the
resource base of the Indian IR community.
But additional resources, whether material or intellectual, are not enough. The further
development of theoretical work on IR in Asia will depend on the following conditions.
First, it depends on scholars of Asian IR not limiting themselves to the standard
deductive approach, or applying Western IRT to Asian case studies. The most common
type of theoretical work in Asian IR is that which apply concepts, paradigms, or schools
of thought, from mainstream Western IR, especially realism, liberalism, and constructiv-
ism, balance of power, institutions and culture, that are part of the mainstream IR litera-
ture, to an Asian context or case studies. These do not necessarily challenge the existing
theories, or do so only marginally. They mostly end up validating the traditional litera-
ture. I suspect much of the work on Asia by scholars working in the USA (especially the
USA), or trained in the USA, fall into this category. What Asian IR scholarship needs more
is work that derives primarily from a local context, but is consciously related to the major
theoretical debates to expose their inadequacies. I would argue that it is this type of
work that is more consistent with the idea of a Global IR and which holds the most
promise in bringing Asia into the front and center of IRT. This would require deriving
concepts about power, institutions, and ideas from an Asian context, whether from
within individual countries like China and India or from regional patterns of interactions
as a whole, and turning them into more generally applicable frameworks.
A second condition is engaging in more cross-national, and comparative work, and
work with a regional, rather than individual country-focus. A good deal of existing work
on Asian IR focuses on individual countries, especially large countries or major powers,
e.g. China, Japan, India, and to a lesser extent Indonesia. South Korea, thanks to availabil-
ity of generous endowments, also belongs in this category of more studied nations. This
to some extent is the legacy of the area studies tradition, which favors individual country
studies. This not only creates a bias against the study of smaller and weaker countries. It
also leads to the neglect of studies that are of a regional scope. Moreover, as noted ear-
lier, there is relatively less work focusing on Asia as a whole, or covering more than one
of its subregions: Northeast Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Central Asia. As a result,
theoretical insights from Asia remain compartmentalized, with limited generalizability
across sub-regions. Engaging in more comparative, cross-regional work will provide a
larger canvass for testing insights from different subregions and opportunities for theory
development.
A third condition that must be met in the further development of theoretical work in
Asian IR is overcoming the temptation and tendency to treat Asian culture, ideas, or
practices as sui generis. While every region and culture has its unique elements, they
upon seem less unique upon closer examination. Moreover, claims about being Asian
often ignore the cultural and political diversity of the region and concepts and theories
derived from an exceptionalist lens often fail to travel beyond the country or subregion
to have a general theoretical applicability. This is especially the risk with work which
claims to be derived primarily from indigenous traditions and ideas, or from local his-
tory, or the ideas, cultures, traditions, and experiences of Asian societies, and offered as
 THE PACIFIC REVIEW 11

an alternative or at least a critique of the Western literature. Some elements of the ‘Chi-
nese School’ of IR represents this type of work and needs to rise above the exceptional-
ist trap, whereby its claim to be distinctive and different conflicts with its ability to offer
a general theory (or body of theories and concepts) of IR. It is noteworthy, however, that
there is a vigorous debate among Chinese scholars of international relations about how
culturally specific IR theory should be and even on the need and usefulness of a Chinese
School of IR. Unlike some proponents of a Chinese School, Yan Xuetong, a leading Chi-
nese scholar of international relations rejects the need for a distinctive Chinese School.
His reasoning against the Chinese school are deserves notice. He believes that China is
too big and Chinese scholarship on IR is too diverse to be classified under the rubric of
any single school. He also feels that a development of a Chinese school of IR is prema-
ture because scholars ‘lack basic methodological training’ and ‘are yet to develop sys-
tematic explanations for international phenomena,’ and that theoretical debates among
Chinese scholars are too few. He does, however, encourage Chinese scholars to develop
‘an interest in rediscovering traditional Chinese IR concepts,’ but the goal of this exercise
should be to ‘enrich IR theories with traditional Chinese thought’ and to contribute to a
universal discipline of IR, rather than to develop a distinctive Chinese School of IR (Yan,
2011, pp. 255–259).
A fourth condition is for the need for academics to avoid close proximity with the
policy-makers. This has already been discussed at the outset. The true test of a produc-
tive and genuinely useful relationship between academia and policy-making is what
might be called the Hedley Bull test, contained in an essay he wrote in 1972 (Bull, 1972).
Under a section aptly headlined as Bull's Essay section: ‘Commitment and Detachment
in the Study of International Relations,’ Bull wrote:

The academic International Relations specialist in a Western democracy should not be a servant or
agent of his government… .There is a need on both sides for exchange of ideas and mutual criti-
cism between academics and officials in the field of foreign policy and defence…But inquiry into
International Relations is a different activity from running the foreign policy of a country and nec-
essarily clashes with it. (Bull, 1972, p. 264)

Although Bull's warning was directed at academics in Western democracies, it is rele-

vant to academics in all societies. And one wonders how many countries in Asia or the
West would meet the test? At the same time, maintaining a careful separation between
academia and policy does not mean treating theory and policy as mutually exclusive. In
fact, a good deal of theoretical work in academia is policy-relevant and this can be dem-
onstrated without academics falling into the official trap. It should be possible to dem-
onstrate the policy relevance of academic work by presenting it as alternative policy
choices. As Stephen Walt (1998) argues that ‘there is an inescapable link between the
abstract world of theory and the real world of policy…Even policymakers who are con-
temptuous of ‘theory’ must rely on their own (often unstated) ideas about how the
world works,’ and to ‘make sense of the blizzard of information that bombard us daily.’
The four conditions outlined above are by no means exhaustive or sufficient. But if
realized, they will go a long way in ensuring that Asia offers a robust challenge to many
deeply held assumptions of the mainstream IR theories, including realism, liberalism
and constructivism. I would also see the possibility of theoretical contributions to IR
focusing on Asia in time producing breakthroughs, and driving theory development,
especially by offering new concepts and approaches drawing on Asian ideas, history
and practice (Acharya, 2014d).
12 A. ACHARYA

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor
Amitav Acharya is a distinguished professor of International Relations and the UNESCO chair in transna-
tional challenges and governance at the School of International Service, American University, Washing-
ton, DC, USA.

References
Acharya, A. (1997). Ideas, identity, and institution-building: From the 'ASEAN Way' to the 'Asia pacific way’.
Pacific Review, 10(2), 319–346.
Acharya, A. (2011). Engagement or entrapment: Scholarship and policymaking on Asian regionalism.
International Studies Review, 13, 12–17.
Acharya, A. (2014a). Power shift or paradigm shift: China's rise and Asia's security order. International
Studies Quarterly, 58(1), 158–173.
Acharya, A. (2014b). Thinking theoretically about Asian IR. In D. Shambaugh, & M. Yahuda (Eds.), Interna-
tional relations of Asia (2nd ed., pp. 59–89). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Acharya, A. (2014c). Global international relations (IR) and regional worlds: A new agenda for interna-
tional studies. International Studies Quarterly, 58(4), 1–13.
Acharya, A. (2014d). International relations theory and the rise of Asia. In R. Foot, S. Pekkanen & J. Raven-
hill (Eds.), Oxford handbook of international relations of Asia (pp. 120–140). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (Eds.). (2007). Why is there no non-western international relations theory? Reflec-
tions on and from Asia. Special Issue of International Relations of Asia Pacific, 7, 285–286.
Acharya, A., & Stubbs, R. (2006). Theorising southeast Asian relations: An introduction. The Pacific review,
19(2), 125–134).
Alagappa, M. (2011). International relations studies in Asia: Distinctive trajectories. International Relations
of the Asia-Pacific, 11(2), 193–230.
Ba, A. (2009). (Re)Negotiating east and southeast Asia: Region, regionalism and the association of southeast
Asian nations. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bull, H. (1972). International relations as an academic pursuit. Australian Outlook, 26(3), 251–265.
Buzan, B. (2013). Review of the social evolution of international politics. International Affairs 89(5): 1304–
1305.
Datta-Ray, D. K. (2015). The making of Indian diplomacy: A critique of Eurocentrism. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Gautam, P. K. (2015). Kautilya's arthasastra: Contemporary issues and comparison. IDSA Monograph Series
No. 47. New Delhi: Institute of Defence Studies and Analysis.
Goh, E. (2013)., The struggle for order: Hegemony, hierarchy and transition in post-cold war east Asia. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Inoguchi, T. (2007). Are there any theories of international relations in Japan?. International Relations of
Asia Pacific, 7(3), 369–390.
International Studies. (2009). International studies in India. Special Issue of International Studies, 46(1 & 2),
7–183.
Jackson, P. T. (2010). The conduct of inquiry in international relations: Philosophy of science and its implica-
tions for the study of world politics. New York, NY: Routledge.
Jackson, P. T., & Nexon, D. H. (2013). International theory in a post-paradigmatic era: From substantive
wagers to scientific ontologies. European Journal of International Relations 19(3), 543–565.
Johnston, A. I. (2012). What (if anything) does East Asia tell us about international relations theory?.
Annual Review of Political Science, 15, 53–78.
Kang, D. C. (2003). “Getting Asia wrong: The need for new analytical frameworks”. International Security,
27(4), 57–85.
Narlikar, A., & Narlikar, A. (2014). Bargaining with a rising India: Lessons from the Mahabharata. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
 THE PACIFIC REVIEW 13

Qin, Y. (2016). A relational theory of world politics. International Studies Review, 18(1), 33–47.
Tang, S. (2013). The social evolution of international politics. Oxford: University Press.
Teaching, Research and International Policy (TRIP Survey). (2014). Retrieved from https://trip.wm.edu/
charts/#/questions/38
Walt, S. (1998). International relations: One world, many theories. Foreign Policy, (110), 29–46.
Walt, S. M. (2005). The relationship between theory and policy in international relations. Annual Review of
Political Science, 8, 23–48.
Yan, X. (2011). Ancient Chinese thought, modern Chinese power. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

View publication stats