Introduction
This essay examines the contentious debate surrounding the existence of a distinct theory of international relations (IR) developed in Asia, drawing on the seminal works of David Kang’s *Getting Asia Wrong* (2003) and Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan’s *Why is there no non-Western IR theory?* (2007). The objective is to critically analyze their arguments regarding whether Asian perspectives contribute to a unique IR framework or remain overshadowed by Western theoretical dominance. The essay situates this discussion within the broader field of international affairs, particularly focusing on Asia’s role in global politics. It will explore Kang’s critique of Western misinterpretations of Asian international dynamics and contrast this with Acharya and Buzan’s exploration of systemic barriers to non-Western IR theory development. Through a structured analysis, including counterarguments, this work seeks to assess the validity and implications of claims about an Asian IR theory. The discussion is rooted in academic objectivity, aiming to provide a clear understanding of the complexities involved in conceptualizing IR from an Asian perspective.
Theoretical Context of IR and Asia’s Position
International Relations as a discipline has historically been shaped by Western intellectual traditions, with key theories such as realism, liberalism, and constructivism emerging from Eurocentric historical experiences. This dominance raises questions about the universality of IR theories when applied to regions like Asia, where historical trajectories, cultural norms, and political structures differ significantly. David Kang, in *Getting Asia Wrong* (2003), argues that Western IR theories often fail to account for Asia’s unique dynamics, particularly the region’s historical stability under hierarchical systems rather than the balance-of-power models central to Western realism. Kang posits that Asia, especially East Asia, operates under a different set of assumptions about power and order, rooted in Confucian notions of hierarchy and deference to a dominant state, such as China (Kang, 2003). This perspective suggests the possibility of an indigenous theoretical framework that better captures Asian realities.
Similarly, Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan (2007) address the broader question of non-Western contributions to IR theory in their article Why is there no non-Western IR theory?. They argue that while there are rich intellectual traditions in Asia, these have not coalesced into a recognized IR theory due to structural factors, including the dominance of Western academic institutions and the global power hierarchy. Their work highlights the need to reconsider how IR theory is constructed and whether regional perspectives can challenge or complement existing paradigms. This sets the stage for a deeper exploration of whether Asia has indeed developed, or can develop, its own theoretical lens for understanding international relations.
Kang’s Critique: Misreading Asia through Western Lenses
David Kang’s central thesis in *Getting Asia Wrong* is that Western IR scholars misinterpret Asian international behavior by imposing inapplicable theoretical frameworks, particularly realism’s focus on anarchy and conflict. Kang argues that East Asian states have historically embraced a hierarchical order, with China at the center, leading to relative stability rather than constant rivalry (Kang, 2003). He provides historical evidence from the pre-modern era, where tributary systems facilitated peaceful coexistence among states, contrasting sharply with the European experience of incessant warfare. This suggests that an Asian IR theory might emphasize order and stability over conflict, challenging the universality of Western assumptions.
Furthermore, Kang critiques contemporary Western analyses of Asia, particularly predictions of inevitable conflict due to rising powers like China. He contends that Asian states often prioritize accommodation over confrontation, reflecting cultural and historical preferences for harmony. However, his argument leans heavily on historical patterns, raising questions about their applicability to modern geopolitical realities shaped by globalization and technological advancements. While Kang’s work implies the foundations for an Asian IR theory, he stops short of fully articulating such a framework, focusing instead on critiquing Western approaches. This gap leaves room for debate about whether his observations constitute a theoretical contribution or merely a contextual critique.
Acharya and Buzan: Structural Barriers to Non-Western IR Theory
In contrast to Kang’s region-specific analysis, Acharya and Buzan adopt a systemic perspective in *Why is there no non-Western IR theory?* (2007). They identify several structural barriers preventing the emergence of non-Western IR theories, including those from Asia. First, they note the overwhelming influence of Western academic infrastructure, where key journals, funding, and educational systems prioritize Western paradigms (Acharya and Buzan, 2007). This creates a vicious cycle where non-Western scholars often adopt Western frameworks to gain legitimacy, rather than developing alternative theories.
Second, Acharya and Buzan argue that intellectual traditions in Asia, such as Confucian or Indian strategic thought, are often treated as empirical data rather than theoretical contributions. For instance, while concepts like the Chinese notion of “tianxia” (all under heaven) offer a distinct worldview of global order, they are seldom integrated into mainstream IR discourse as theory-building blocks. The authors suggest that this marginalization stems from a lack of institutional support and the historical imposition of Western political structures through colonialism, which disrupted indigenous knowledge systems (Acharya and Buzan, 2007). Their analysis underscores the challenge of articulating an Asian IR theory within a field dominated by Western gatekeepers, even as it acknowledges the existence of potential raw material for such a theory.
Counterarguments: Challenges to the Notion of an Asian IR Theory
Despite the compelling arguments presented by Kang and Acharya and Buzan, several counterpoints challenge the notion of a distinct Asian IR theory. One critical perspective is that IR, by nature, seeks to explain global phenomena, and fragmenting it into regional theories might undermine its universal applicability. Scholars like Kenneth Waltz, a prominent realist, argue that core principles such as power dynamics and security dilemmas are intrinsic to all states, regardless of region or culture (Waltz, 1979). From this viewpoint, Asia’s unique historical experiences, as highlighted by Kang, could be seen as contextual variations rather than the foundation for an entirely separate theory.
Additionally, there is skepticism about whether Asia, as a diverse continent, can produce a cohesive IR theory. The region encompasses a vast array of political systems, cultures, and historical experiences, from China’s authoritarian model to India’s democratic framework and Southeast Asia’s post-colonial struggles. Acharya and Buzan (2007) themselves note the difficulty of synthesizing disparate intellectual traditions into a unified theoretical framework. This diversity raises the question of whether an “Asian” IR theory is feasible or if it risks oversimplification by glossing over internal contradictions.
Another counterargument is the practical integration of Asian perspectives into existing IR paradigms. Some scholars suggest that rather than developing standalone theories, Asian contributions could enrich mainstream frameworks, such as through constructivist lenses that emphasize cultural identities and norms. This approach avoids the potential isolation of Asian IR scholarship but may dilute the distinctiveness Kang advocates for, highlighting a tension between integration and autonomy in theory-building.
Conclusion
This essay has analyzed the debate on whether a theory of international relations developed in Asia exists, using insights from David Kang’s *Getting Asia Wrong* and Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan’s *Why is there no non-Western IR theory?*. Kang’s critique of Western misinterpretations suggests that Asia’s historical and cultural distinctiveness—rooted in hierarchical stability—offers a potential foundation for an alternative IR perspective. However, he does not fully articulate a cohesive theory, limiting his contribution to a contextual challenge. Acharya and Buzan, meanwhile, identify systemic barriers, including Western academic dominance and historical disruptions, that hinder the emergence of non-Western theories, including from Asia. Their work implies that while intellectual resources exist, institutional and structural constraints prevent their recognition as theory.
Counterarguments, however, caution against regionalizing IR, highlighting the universal nature of global dynamics and Asia’s internal diversity as obstacles to a unified Asian theory. Ultimately, while there is evidence of unique Asian perspectives that could inform IR, the debate remains unresolved: no fully developed, widely recognized Asian IR theory exists at present. The implication is a need for greater dialogue between Western and non-Western scholars to integrate regional insights without fragmenting the discipline. Addressing this gap could enrich IR as a field, ensuring it reflects the diversity of global experiences rather than remaining tethered to a singular historical narrative.
References
- Acharya, A. and Buzan, B. (2007) ‘Why is there no non-Western international relations theory? An introduction’, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 7(3), pp. 287-312. doi:10.1093/irap/lcm012.
- Kang, D. C. (2003) ‘Getting Asia Wrong: The Need for New Analytical Frameworks’, International Security, 27(4), pp. 57-85. doi:10.1162/016228803321951090.
- Waltz, K. N. (1979) Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
[Word count: 1502, including references]
