1

Global IR and West-centrism

by [Name]

Institution
Course
Instructor
Date

Q2. Do you think ‘Global IR’ can undo the deeply entrenched West-centrism in IR?
Explain why/why not?
 2

Introduction
Internationalization and lateralization of International relations have enhanced and

impacted the cross-border arrangements in business and organization cultures and practices. The

development and adoption of Global IR have hence seen a multiverse acceptance and adoption

influencing performance and orientations in the study and practice of international relations

(Ayhan and Gouda, 2021, pp. 15-29). The dynamic of global IR and Western cultural

orientations have thus shaped the IR rationales eliciting different understandings. It is hence

significant to note and recognize the impact and domination of Western perspectives and

originality in the study and practice of global IR. According to Dunford (2017, pp.145-167), the

dominance of Western relations systematics has shaped aspects of global IR, reverberating the

descriptive discourse and perceptional differentiation in global IR criticism. Western perception

and theoretic revelation dominion and structuring of International Relations, including Western

states' experiences, interests, and ideologies, have shaped global political understanding

(Tsygankov and Tsygankov, 2022, pp.7-16). With criticism and proponents of Western

dominance, the perspective discourse has hence seen a rise and analysis of the inherent bias

termed Western-centrism. In its European and American perspective, theories, and IR experience

prioritization, West-centrism is tentatively called to limit comprehension of the intricate

dynamics and diverse actors operating on the world stage. However, a paradigm shift is

emerging in recent years with the advent of Global International Relations (Global IR). The

theoretical approach challenges the long-standing Western bias. It fosters a more inclusive and

comprehensive understanding of international relations by embracing the diversity of actors,

ideas, and global power dynamics. Global IR perspectives and positions hence redesigning and

restructuring the formative Western orientations for inclusive and adverse IR practices. The
 3

following essay presents the implications of West-centrism, acknowledging its historical roots in

the dominance of Western powers and the subsequent shaping of international relations theory

and practice. However, it holds firm on the impact of Global IR countering the Western-centric

IR practice and presents the changes and transformations of IR from the Western-centric

influence. The essay examines the conceptual Global IR and its crucial role in overcoming the

West-centrism limitations, exploring the definitive strengths and limitations of Global IR in

challenging the existing power dynamics and promoting a more inclusive and comprehensive

understanding of international relations.

Western-centrism influence on IR

Assessment and examination of Global IR’s potential in addressing and countering

Western centrism require a distinctive understanding of Western centrism influence and

structures in shaping and prompting IR and its practices. According to Eun (2022a, pp.107-122),

Western-centric norms and values through conceptual inclinations of democracy, human rights,

and free-market capitalism have been widened and promoted as universal ideals in International

Relations (IR). While these concepts have established and printed their merits, the dominance of

Western perspectives has marginalized and downscaled non-Western norms and values, resulting

in a limited understanding and recognition of diverse cultural perspectives. For instance,

democratic principles and obligations are structured and duplicated to assimilate and represent

Western cultures. Western democracies are presented as the beam balance for judging and

justifying other political systems, thus accredited as the standard universal norm for democracy

(Pan and Kavalski,2022, pp.1-20). Hence every systematic governance and political system for

democracy must satisfy the Western democratic system. Thus, the global community has

witnessed a tendency to view non-Western political systems as deficient or less legitimate,

 4

disregarding the diversity in various social organizations and societies’ unique historical,

cultural, and social contexts shaping their political structures. As a result, non-Western political

systems are marginalized and dismissed as authoritarian or undemocratic without total

consideration of the possible unique forms of governance.

Similarly, other social constructs such as human rights, economy, leadership, and

education systems in the post-colonial systems have remained adaptive to the Western powers

and orientations. Kaczmarska and Ortmann (2021, pp.820-847) emphasize that wester-centrism

has remained the order of global governance and systematic international mechanisms. The UN

Security Council is a composition of powerful Western nations with veto powers and an uneven

playing field for critical decision-making and developmental procedures in different countries

(Yong-Soo, 2019, pp.131-149). Several decision-making processes within similar institutions

have often reflected Western interests, sidelining the concerns and perspectives of non-Western

states. For instance, the promotion of free-market capitalism as the ideal economic system has

had significant implications for global economic policies. Western-led institutions like the

International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank have advocated for market-oriented

reforms, privatization, and deregulation, often disregarding alternative economic models that

may be more suitable for particular societies. The approach creates a disadvantage and overlooks

the importance of cultural and historical factors in shaping economic systems, leading to

negative consequences, exacerbating inequalities, and undermining local industries in non-

Western countries. According to Behera and Buzan (2016), while universally necessary, the

notion of human rights has been predominantly defined and interpreted through Western lenses.

Universal declarations and international treaties on human rights, for instance, the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), reflects the implication and influence of the Western
 5

cultural backgrounds, legal and philosophical traditions with a partial concentration on the

diverse range of values and priorities of non-Western societies (Eun,2022b, pp. pp.169-183). The

documents have prompted a framework of rights and freedoms deemed universal and applicable

to all individuals regardless of their cultural or social background. However, the emphasis on

individual rights and the specific articulation of those rights sometimes align with the values and

priorities held by non-Western societies(Eun, 2018c, pp.435-449). Thus, a limited understanding

and application of human rights principles in different cultural contexts.

Western-centrism perpetuation has hence failed to recognize diversity and differentiation

across global domains in the practice of IR. Different cultural, religious, and philosophical

traditions shape diverse understandings of human rights, social behavior, politics, economics,

and education systems(Behera et al. 2021, pp.8-16). Some societies emphasize collective rights

or prioritize social and economic rights over civil and political rights. According to Eun (2023),

cultural relativism stipulates that human rights censorship is understood within specific cultural

contexts, considering each society's values and norms. Therefore, other non-westernized

civilizations have the liberty and right to optimize and prioritize a diverse socioeconomic and

political orientation. Global IR inclination on cultural relativism highlights the essence of

avoiding ethnocentrism, which is the belief in the inherent superiority of one's culture or values

and emulating an open-minded approach to human rights, recognizing the differences and

variations in societies having legitimate reasons for prioritizing certain rights or positing

different interpretation on similar social constructs (Eun, 2018, pp.435-449). Global IR finds a

balance between universal principles and cultural particularities in a complex and ongoing debate

within the relational socio-political construct interpretations. Therefore, moral and ethical

principles that underpin different social constructs such as human rights, economy, and politics
 6

vary across cultures, and what is considered a fundamental right in one society is not necessarily

regarded as such in another (Baker,2021, pp.124-132).

Global IR on Western-centrism

Global IR can undo Western-centrism, a dominant feature of the IR discipline. Global IR

incorporates non-Western theories, perspectives, and experiences into the study of international

relations. It recognizes the importance of diverse voices and knowledge systems from regions

beyond Europe and North America (Baker,2021, pp.124-132). Global IR broadens the analytical

lens and provides a more balanced and comprehensive understanding of global politics, socio-

economic integration, and cultural realism, counteracting the Western theories and frameworks’

superiority. Global IR acknowledges the diverse regional difference and intercultural distinctions

and influence on socioeconomic perspectives on international relations, shaped by unique

histories, cultural values, and socio-political contextualization (Sharma,2021, pp.2039-2054). It

itches and enriches integrated perspectives mechanisms, encouraging IR orientations to engage

critically with alternative theories and concepts.

Global IR highlights the importance of understanding and analyzing the actions and

interests of actors from various regions rather than a single focus on the actions of Western

states. According to Tripathi (2021, pp.2039-2054), Global IR, traction and actionabilities

emphasize the non-exclusivity of power, influence, and decision-making in international to

Western states. The Global IR approach creates a distorted understanding of global politics and

social institutions, reinforcing power imbalances in the international system. Global IR hence

rectifies Western-centrism highlighting the importance of understanding and analyzing the

actions and interests of actors from integrated global regions. Sharma (2021, pp.2039-2054)

emphasizes integrational understanding and analysis of non-Westerners culture, history, and

 7

socio-cultural institutional backgrounds. Global IR establishes the capacity of non-Western states

to create a civilization to shape and influence international relations. Non-Western civilizations’

historical experiences, cultural values, and geopolitical contextualization have integrated global

dynamics. The multi-nationality and cultural differentiations across the non-Western world move

beyond the narrow focus on Western states and expand the analytical lens to encompass a

broader range of actors and perspective increments.

Consequently, Global IR challenges the power structures that have historically privileged

Western states and institutions in shaping global politics. It posits the rationality of recognizing

the agency and contributions of non-Western actors and the necessity to level the playing field

and reduce power asymmetries (Eun, 2018, pp.435-449). IR practices have demonstrated power

concentration, especially in the major New World powers, leading to a hierarchical system where

Western states exert significant influence over global governance and decision-making

processes. However, Global IR acknowledges the agency and contributions of non-Western

actors. It emphasizes their voices, interests, and perspectives in shaping global politics and

relational socioeconomic institutions, undoing Western civilizations’ superiority and prerogative

influence. It, thus, reduces the power imbalances in the international system and promotes an

inclusive and democratic approach to global governance (Peterson, 2021, pp.17-27). Global IR

brings a pluralistic and diverse understanding of global politics and orientations. Its challenges

on the traditional hierarchies establish and enable a democratic approach within decision-making

frameworks, influencing a qualitative and equal distribution of democratic measures across all

members. Its position in diverse historical, cultural, and socio-political contexts orientations

democratize and opens up the Western-centrism for collaborative and colloquial governance. It

emphasizes the importance of understanding specificities of democratic or aspects considered

 8

and justifiable as human rights. It contextualizes the democratic experiences to a non-one-size-

fits-all approach to enhance and promotes inclusive and culturally sensitive perspectives. Global

IR broaches Western-centric systematics into inclusive and participatory approaches considering

the perspectives and diverse actors.

On the other hand, Global IR is continually outdoing Western centrism through a

theoretical diversity framework. According to Doran (2019, 92-108), Global IR has a theoretical

diversity strength. Hence observe and analyze IR from integrated and compound-oriented, and

liberalized positions. The normative IR theories, rooted in Western experiences and

assumptions, have overlooked the perspectives and realities of non-Western actors and regions.

However, Global IR has diversified the homogeneity by integrating non-Western theories and

perspectives into the IR practice and training. According to Mälksoo(2022, pp. 1-11), Global IR

provides diversity and expansion of cognizant intellectual collectivity by integrating

postcolonialism, constructivism, and other indigenous frameworks. According to Noda (2020),

postcolonialism emphasizes the importance of diversity and integration in IR dashes of realism.

Postcolonialism remains firm elements of deconstruction and critiques of Western-centric

perspectives and knowledge production that have dominated the field. Postcolonial scholars

highlight how Western knowledge and theories have universalized and imposed on non-Western

contexts without considering historical, cultural, and political specificities. It brings attention to

the experiences and perspectives of formerly colonized societies, encouraging curiosity and

prompting the questioning and investigation into the assumptive biases inherent in traditional

theories and methodologies and establishing the recognition of non-Western actors' diverse

agency and contributions. Gani (2022, pp.45-65) establish that it highlights the power

imbalances, inequalities, and structural injustices and digresses the persistent result of historical
 9

colonial encounters. Global IR hence develops a nuanced understanding of the complexities of

global politics and challenges the dominant Western-centric narratives. It significantly promotes

an inclusive and dialogic approach to knowledge production in Global IR, enforcing engagement

with diverse voices and perspectives, especially the marginalized and the silenced orientations.

Significantly, Global IR engagement also prioritizes non-Western citations' knowledge

production and philosophical orientation. The discipline recognizes knowledge creation

universality as unlimited and unconfined to the Western academic sphere (Sadiq and Tsourapas,

2021, pp.884-912). It emphasizes the diverse perspectives, languages, and epistemologies

cruciality in a comprehensive international relation understanding. Global IR enhances

collaboration and integrative dialogue within internationalized educational systems, thus the gap

between the Western and non-Western scholarship significations. According to Gonzalez-

Vicente and Montoute (2020, pp.219-238.) Global IR collaborative instincts include Western and

non-Western scholars’ integration in the working obligations, expertise engagement, and

ideological and perspectives exchange, thus, incorporating non-Western voices and experiences

in producing IR knowledge(Hagström,2021, pp.331-342). The perspective integration provides

valuable alternative viewpoints, challenges prevailing Western scholarly perspectives, and

enriches the discipline by offering different analytical frameworks and interpretations. Thus,

Global IR enriches international relations through broadened ideological and conceptual

analytics, understanding global phenomena and avoiding the pitfalls of imposing Western-centric

interpretations onto non-Western contexts. Inclusive non-Western theories encourage and

promote a critical examination of the underlying power dynamics, colonial legacies, and

traditional practices inequalities. Critical engagement enhances the discipline to develop a more
 10

comprehensive and contextually sensitive analysis reflecting the diverse realities of global

politics and social schematic organization and orientation (Jazeel, 2019).

Despite the above correlative advantages and strengths in diversifying international

relations and outdoing intrinsic and profound Western-centrism, it remains significant to

understand and highlight the weaknesses of Global IR to indicate the loopholes for adventive and

integrated IR curations comprehensively. According to Sørensen et al. (2022), understanding the

Global IR weaknesses opens up a scholastic orientation and improvements to advance,

necessitating an all-around comparative and complete IR training and practice. The study hence

emphasizes the curation of advanced diversity. However, it points to the political superiority and

social institution preparation levels for the implementation of Global IR schematics. Jung (2019)

point the existing limitations within the Global IR practice, training and scholar orientations have

potential challenge and miscreation in mobilizing and undoing the dynamics of Western-

centrism since various cultures and environments have a diverse systematics orientation and

progression in reaction to changes as a result to Global IR realism. According to Brinks et al.

(2020), institutional resistance and organizational persistence and synchronizations to deep

Western-Centric orientations have limited the diversity and positionality of the Global IR in

countering the Western popularity and singularity. The IR and its disciplines have a historical

concentration and centring within Western, political, social, economic, religious and academic

institutions(Cooke,2022, p.7), the principal perpetrators of the dominance of Western scholars

and theories. Resistance to organizational change or down-placement of Global IR within similar

institutions has simulated resistance to integrated change and differentiation in human social

dynamics organizational schematic progression and hence tainting the inclusivity goals of Global
 11

IR and promoting the normative Western-centrism(Valbjørn,2019, p.18). The entrenched power

structure makes it difficult for Global IR to gain mainstream recognition and acceptance.

The study by Alatas (2021,p.31) establishes a specification trend in the design resistance

to non-Western observation and consideration within IR practice's educational and academic

environments for both Western and non-Western scholars. The study points to the limitation

non-Western scholars assimilates and traverse to attain the necessary recognition. Academic

institutions' existing structures and hierarchies have prioritized and formulated reward systems to

resonate with Western-centric perspectives and methodologies. Similar institutional orientations,

from political paradigms to economic foundations, are observed across the board, creating a

cycle where Western theories and scholars continue to dominate the field. At the same time,

alternative perspectives and voices, including those from non-Western regions, are marginalized

or overlooked. The study by Barbieri (2019, pp.424-441), however, emphasizes the necessity of

change and long-term commitments to structural transformation adaptation presented by the

pluralism curation of Global IR. The institutional long-term commitment evaluation and

transformation must thus engage academic, economic, religious, social and political fields union

for an enhanced and integrated differentiation acceptance (Ho, 2019, pp.91-106). Global IR must

encourage Western institutions to consider the performativity and the depths of advancement

made in campaigning for inclusivity and diversity perspectives in IR practicum. It entails

reevaluating and challenging existing knowledge production and academic success criteria. It

involves active inclusivity progression, diversity, and the integration of non-Western theories

and perspectives in the curriculum, research, and hiring practices. Institutional changes must also

remain adaptive and open to spaces creation for non-Western scholars’ research to thrive,

establishing research centres or programs dedicated to Global IR and providing support and
 12

resources for scholars working in non-Western contextualization. It calls for a collaborative and

interdisciplinary approach to promotion that encourages dialogue and knowledge exchange

between Western and non-Western scholars(Danso and Aning, 2022, pp.67-83). Therefore,

overcoming institutional resistance requires a collective effort from scholars, institutions,

policymakers, and funding agencies. It commits to challenging the status quo, advocating for

diversity and inclusivity, and actively supporting the integration of non-Western theories and

perspectives in IR.

Additionally, Global IR experiences a language barrier, a significant obstacle in

promoting Global IR and the inclusion of non-Western perspectives. English language

predominance in IR schooling systems widens the gap between Western scholars and

perspectives due to greater access to resources and publishing opportunities limiting non-

Western scholars' visibility, recognition, and field contributions. Danso and Aning, 2022, pp.67-

83) express the necessity for efforts to support translation initiatives as an intuitive approach to

welcoming diverse ideologies and creating multilingualism in IR practice. The translation of

works from non-English into English and other widely spoken languages bridges the language

gap making non-Western perspectives accessible to a broader audience.it is thus significant to

translate influential English materials and works into non-Western languages to disseminate

Western theories and perspectives to non-English speaking regions, thus enhancing integrations.

Thus, an integrated and international organisation must join forces and jack Global IR in creating

and promoting inclusive IR practices and orientation across its dimensional disciplines. Seo and

Cho (2021, pp.619-636) emphasises that promoting language diversity in academic publications

must strive to include works in languages other than English by dedicating specific sections to

non-English works or publishing articles with parallel translations. Hence, amplifying non-
 13

Western voices and facilitating a more inclusive and comprehensive understanding of

international relations.

Conclusion

Global IR can outdo and transform Western-centrism through non-Western theories,

perspectives, and experiences incorporation into the study of international relations. Global IR

remains objective to create an inclusive and comprehensive understanding of global social

institutions broadening the analytical lens, recognizing non-Western agency, and deconstructing

Western-centric narratives. Global IR recognizes the Western-Centrism strengths and

weaknesses and calls for integrating existing biases deformation to create an inclusive and

diverse internal relation through compound theories and enactment of the postcolonial and

modernism philosophies in IR systems. It highlights the importance of understanding and

analyzing the actions and interests of actors from various regions. Global IR aims to provide a

more inclusive and accurate portrayal of global politics and relational social constructs. It stands

over the inherent bias in Eurocentric perspectives and promotes an equitable and comprehensive

understanding of IR principles hence sustainable international relations.

 14

Reference

Alatas, S.M., 2021. A Malaysian perspective on foreign policy and geopolitics: Rethinking
West-centric international relations theory. Global Studies Quarterly, 1(4), p.ksab031.
Ayhan, K.J. and Gouda, M., 2021. Determinants of global Korea scholarship students’ word-of-
mouth about Korea. Asia Pacific Education Review, 22, pp.15-29.
Baker, C., 2021. The contingencies of whiteness: Gendered/racialized global dynamics of
security narratives. Security Dialogue, 52(1_suppl), pp.124-132.
Barbieri, G., 2019. Regionalism, globalism and complexity: a stimulus towards global IR?. Third
World Thematics: A TWQ Journal, 4(6), pp.424-441.
Behera, N. and Buzan, B., 2016. Could IR Be Different?. International Studies Review.
Behera, N.C., Hinds, K. and Tickner, A.B., 2021. Making amends: Towards antiracist critical
security studies and international relations. Security Dialogue, 52(1_suppl), pp.8-16.
Brinks, D.M., Levitsky, S. and Murillo, M.V. eds., 2020. The politics of institutional weakness in
Latin America. Cambridge University Press.
Cooke, S., 2022. Introduction: Refocusing International Relations. In Non-Western Global
Theories of International Relations (pp. 1-15). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Danso, K. and Aning, K., 2022. African experiences and alternativity in International Relations
theorizing about security. International Affairs, 98(1), pp.67-83.
Doran, C., 2019. Postcolonialism, anti-colonialism, nationalism and history. International
Studies, 56(2-3), pp.92-108.
Dunford, R., 2017. Peasant activism and the rise of food sovereignty: Decolonising and
democratising norm diffusion?. European Journal of International Relations, 23(1), pp.145-167.
Eun, Y.S., 2018c. Beyond ‘the West/non-West divide’in IR: How to ensure dialogue as mutual
learning. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 11(4), pp.435-449.
Eun, Y.S., 2022a. Reflexive Solidarity: Toward a Broadening of What It Means to be
“Scientific” in Global IR Knowledge. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and
Peace, 11(1), pp.107-122.
Eun, Y.S., 2022b. Introduction: Southeast Asia in Global IR—A Reflexive Stocktaking in
Research and Teaching. Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic
Affairs, 44(2), pp.169-183.
 15

Eun, Y.S., 2023. Knowledge Production beyond West-Centrism in IR: Toward Global IR
2.0. International Studies Review, 25(2), p.viad015.
Gani, J.K., 2022. From discourse to practice: Orientalism, western policy and the Arab
uprisings. International Affairs, 98(1), pp.45-65.
Gonzalez-Vicente, R. and Montoute, A., 2020. A Caribbean perspective on China–Caribbean
relations: global IR, dependency and the postcolonial condition. Third World Quarterly, 42(2),
pp.219-238.
Hagström, L., 2021. Great power narcissism and ontological (in) security: The narrative
mediation of greatness and weakness in international politics. International Studies
Quarterly, 65(2), pp.331-342.
Ho, T.E., 2019. The relational-turn in international relations theory: Bringing Chinese ideas into
mainstream international relations scholarship. American Journal of Chinese Studies, pp.91-106.
Jazeel, T., 2019. Postcolonialism. Routledge.
Jung, H., 2019. The evolution of social constructivism in political science: past to present. SAGE
Open, 9(1), p.2158244019832703.
Kaczmarska, K. and Ortmann, S., 2021. IR Theory and area studies: a plea for displaced
knowledge about international politics. Journal of International Relations and Development, 24,
pp.820-847.
Mälksoo, M., 2022. The postcolonial moment in Russia’s War against Ukraine. Journal of
genocide research, pp.1-11.
Noda, O., 2020. Epistemic hegemony: the Western straitjacket and post-colonial scars in
academic publishing. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 63.
Pan, C. and Kavalski, E., 2022. Introduction: The Rise of China and Its Challenges to
International Relations Theory. In China’s Rise and Rethinking International Relations
Theory (pp. 1-20). Bristol University Press.
Peterson, V.S., 2021. Critical privilege studies: Making visible the reproduction of racism in the
everyday and international relations. Security Dialogue, 52(1_suppl), pp.17-27.
Peterson, V.S., Critical Privilege Studies: Making visible the reproduction of racism in the
everyday and IR (Revised Submission to Security Dialogue-January 2021) V. Spike Peterson,
University of Arizona.
 16

Sadiq, K. and Tsourapas, G., 2021. The postcolonial migration state. European Journal of
International Relations, 27(3), pp.884-912.
Seo, J. and Cho, Y.C., 2021. The emergence and evolution of International Relations studies in
postcolonial South Korea. Review of International Studies, 47(5), pp.619-636.
Sharma, A., 2021. Decolonizing international relations: Confronting erasures through Indigenous
knowledge systems. International Studies, 58(1), pp.25-40.
Sørensen, G., Møller, J. and Jackson, R.H., 2022. Introduction to international relations:
theories and approaches. Oxford university press.
Tripathi*, S., 2021. International relations and the ‘Global South’: from epistemic hierarchies to
dialogic encounters. Third World Quarterly, 42(9), pp.2039-2054.
Tsygankov, A.P. and Tsygankov, P.A., 2022. The Global and the Nationally Distinctive in IR
Theory. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, 22(1), pp.7-16.
Valbjørn, M., 2019. Global/Regional IR and changes in global/regional Middle East international
relations structures. Shifting Global Politics and the Middle East, p.18.
Yong-Soo, E., 2019. Global IR through dialogue. The Pacific Review, 32(2), pp.131-149.