This article argues that International Relations (IR) researchers concerned with why-questions about the state’s external behaviour ought to employ a multicausal approach attentive to the interrelated relationship between external structures and internal agents, presenting the (meta-)theoretical rationales underlying its argument. Here the author suggests ‘a rich/bold ontology’ regarding foreign policy behaviour. Then the article elaborates on detailed and explicit guidelines on how to traverse the bridge that connects the insights of that rich ontology to the empirical research necessary to make claims about the real world of any one moment. In a related vein, the article claims that a multicausal approach should be established using what the author calls ‘loose-knit deductive reasoning’ through which epistemological and methodological openness can be preserved in a manageable way. More importantly, this article discusses the role of theory for IR scholarship and the standards for judging theoretical contributions and progress in the field of IR. Ultimately, the author argues that a complex and flexible approach – both as a useful mode of explanation and as a progressive model of theory construction – can make important contributions to a better understanding of foreign policy and world politics, not only because it enables researchers to become keenly sensitive to the complex reality underlying a nation’s foreign policy and to the interrelated relationship between structures and agents in international relations, but also because it can serve to provide a secure base for the progressive accumulation of the evidence closely associated with multiple causation on which any adequate explanation about complex foreign policy behaviour must surely be founded and without which general theory cannot really flourish.

Causality in social science is hard to establish even through the finest comparative
research. To ease the task of extracting causes from comparisons, we present
the benefits of tracing particularities in any phenomenon under investigation.We introduce three real-world examples from 2011: British riots, worldwide anticapitalist protests, and the highway crash near Taunton in southwestern England. Whereas all of these three examples have broad causes, we embark on the quest after specific factors.
The Taunton accident can send a powerful message to social scientists, which is about
the danger of making general statements in their explanations. Instead of saying much
but explaining little, the merit of singling out the specific is substantial. As social scientists, when we are faced with “smoke” but no “fire,” let us then focus on the part that is distinct.

How are global crises, such as the current financial crisis, responded and dealt with? What are the consequences? Are there any links between regionalism and global crises in terms of stimuli, processes, and consequences? This edited volume brings together a range of examples to illustrate the development and importance of regional actors in the global governance of the political economy.

Regionalising Global Crises highlights the regional level dynamics that exacerbate or contribute to solving the global economic crisis. It also explores the potential for change in the governance of the global political economy and international financial architecture by assessing the current and past financial crises through regional lenses. In particular, it addresses the debates that have emerged on the roles of regions and regional actors by undertaking empirical investigation of the impact of the crises on Africa, Europe, BRICS, and East Asia and their reactions to those events. As such it will provide an important empirical and methodological resource for students, researchers and practitioners with an interest in regional actors, comparative regionalism and international political economy.

http://www.palgrave.com/page/detail/regionalizing-global-crises-toni-haastrup/?isb=9781137347565

Asia’s rise in the late 20th and early 21st century has been rapid, as China, India and other Asian nations’ regional and global influence has dramatically increased. Established IR theory has been based on the Western tradition and has often been treated as a general explanatory framework which has spatial applicability across regions. Among the many implications of the rise of Asia, however, is the need to understand and explain an emergent international system which does not necessarily follow the pattern established by this existing IR framework. There has been much debate about the merits of attempting to theorize a non-Western-centric IR and what such a framework would look like. This series aims to illuminate and develop this debate, opening up new spaces for the study of Asian international relations and the discipline of IR.

This series will publish philosophical, theoretical, methodological and empirical work by prominent scholars, as well as that of emerging scholars, concerned with IR theory and practice in the context of Asia. It will engage with a wide range of issues and questions ranging from meta-theoretical underpinnings of existing Western-oriented IR theories to ways of theorising Asian histories and cultures.
What are we looking for?

While we are open to any exciting ideas for edited, single or co-authored work, we are currently inviting book proposals which intend to address the following areas:

• Global IR
• Critical test and application of IR theory in Asian contexts
• IR scholarship in Asia
• Asian international politics
• Critical pedagogy of international studies
• Sociology of IR scholarship
• Asian theory of international relations (Chinese IR; Japanese IR; Korean IR; and IR in ASEAN)
• Multiple (or competing) discourses about non-Western IR theory
• Asian histories of international relations
• Theoretical pluralism and fragmentation in IR
• Dialogues and engagement in a pluralist IR

More specifically, the questions the series is interested in include (but are not limited to) the following:

• What are the implications of the rise of Asia, and especially China, for IR as a discipline?
• Through what mechanisms has Western IR theory dominated the discipline?
• Why has IR, as a discipline, developed the way it has?
• What are the distinctive features and teaching practices in Asian IR communities?
• To what extent is Western IR theory useful in comprehending Asian international politics?
• Do developments in contemporary Asia require new theoretical and methodological innovations?
• Is the development of an Asian theory of IR desirable? If so, how might it be achieved?
• Will efforts to develop Asian IR theory or schools lead IR to becoming a fragmented field of study?

If you have an idea for a new book in IR Theory and Practice in Asia, please send a written proposal to the Series Editors:
　
Yong-Soo Eun, Editor-in-Chief, ysir@hanyang.ac.kr
Kosuke Shimizu, Editor, shimizu@world.ryukoku.ac.jp
Ja Ian Chong, Editor, polcji@nus.edu.sg


https://www.routledge.com/series/IRTPA


Editorial Board Members:

Peter J. Katzenstein, Cornell University, USA
Takashi Inoguch, University of Niigata Prefecture, Japan
Timothy M. Shaw, University of Massachusetts Boston, USA
T.V. Paul, McGill University, Canada
Tim Dunne, University of Queensland, Australia
Colin Wight, University of Sydney, Australia
Shaun Breslin, University of Warwick, UK
Ian Hall, Griffith University, Australia
Wookhee Shin, Seoul National University
Chris Hughes, University of Warwick, UK
Geun Lee, Seoul National University
Mark Beeson, University of Western Australia
Yongjin Zhang, Bristol University, UK
Chaesung Chun, Seoul National University
Cheng-Chwee Kuik, National University of Malaysia
Yong-Wook Lee, Korea University
Jong Kun Choi, Yonsei University, South Korea
Inanna Hamati-Ataya, Aberystwyth University, UK
Ching-Chang Chen, Ryukoku University, Japan
Young Chul Cho, Chonbuk National University, South Korea
Emilian Kavalski, Australian Catholic University, Australia
L.H.M. Ling, The New School, USA
Pinar Bilgin, Bilkent University, Turkey

This workshop is organized to discuss IR theory and practice in the context of ‘broadening IR’ and to celebrate the inauguration of the newly launched Routledge book series, titled IR Theory and Practice in Asia (https://www.routledge.com/series/IRTPA).

This article attempts to fill a gap in International Relations (IR) literature on East Asian security. ‘East Asia’ appears to be mostly an indeterminate conceptual construct, allowing scholars to look selectively at those aspects and areas that could justify their security thesis, albeit security dynamics in the region are all too difficult to comprehend and predict. This problem has been frequently pointed out in IR literature, but its methodological implications and suggestions have neither been appropriately illuminated nor been systematically offered, and the main solution commonly found in the literature was the tautological one of ‘better defining’ the region. As an alternative, this article suggests that one needs to tighten geographical focus and differentiate the subjects of analysis.When it comes to the study of East Asian security, one needs to aim to develop specific and differentiated generalizations as opposed to generalizations of a broad character. To showcase the fact that research outcomes can be more determinate when the target of analysis is more focused and specified, this article takes Northeast Asian security as an example and challenges the so-called ‘peaceful East Asia’ thesis, one of the mainstream perspectives on East Asian security. This article ultimately argues that while apprehending East Asian security dynamics through delimiting the scope of analysis and circumscribing the subjects of investigation is often deemed to be a modest enterprise–in particular, in terms of generalizability–the merits are substantial: research outcomes will be able not only to give us a truer mapping of the real world, but also bring us closer to building knowledge which satisfies the scientific criterion of ‘falsifiability.’

This article aims to contribute to IR literature by bringing one of the most
marginalized IR theory to the fore, namely postcolonialism, and rethinking the present state of IR scholarship through postcolonialism. Further, the article puts on a postcolonialist lens to look at Korea s international political issues in different ways and thereby generate alternative approaches. In doing so, this article shows that although postcolonialism remains at the margins of the margins of contemporary IR scholarship, it can make significant epistemic contributions to the study of IR and practical contributions to addressing the challenges that South Korea and East Asia face.

(This paper is written in Korean)

This article examines the underlying contributions of agent-weighted
psychological and cognitive approaches in the field of International Relations (IR) to analyzing and explaining foreign policy and world politics. To this ends, the article first zooms in on identifying theoretical assumptions and premises upon which psychological and cognitive analysis is based, comparing them with structure-oriented major IR theories (such as characterizes neo/structural realism). Then it undertakes a critical survey of the psychological and cognitive
scholarship in IR and a close reading of the key texts in the field, which in turn can reveal the explanatory strengths and methodological advancement of psychological study, such as ‘Profiler Plus,’ an automated content analysis computer program, or the recent trend of “scientization” in linking the two disciplines-political psychology and the cognitive neurosciences. Although psychological and cognitive studies have been undervalued for decades in IR, this article suggests that they deserve more attention than they have hitherto received in the study of world political affairs, and that their (potential) contributions to a better understanding of complex nature of world politics should be appreciated more fully.

(This paper is written in Korean)

Although Critical Theory still remains at the margins of International Relations (IR), it can make significant contributions to improving our understandings of world politics and foreign policy. In particular, it is argued here that Critical Theory can offer meaningful implications for South Korea’s foreign policy practice. In this respect, this article first examines the Frankfurt School as well as contemporary IR studies on Critical Theory while comparing them with mainstream IR theories, namely neorealism, neoliberal institutionalism, and conventional constructivism. More importantly, the article shows what contributions and implications that Critical Theory has for South Korea’s foreign policy in East Asia.

(This paper is written in Korean)

The Pacific Review

This opening article presents rationales for the Special Section which analyses South Korea's debates and discourses on crucial issues related to East Asian regional politics. The article opens with a consideration of why attention is drawn to South Korea and particularly to its discourses. Expanding upon constructivist theoretical insights, this article shows how they matter in foreign policy-making and state behaviour. In addition, the article clarifies the scope of analysis of this Special Section. While recognising that many different actors and issues shape the regional order in East Asia to varying degrees, we hold that the most direct impact on changes and/or continuity in that order comes from state actors in the realm of security (or the security–economy nexus). The article ends on a cautiously optimistic note: although the perspectives and discourses analysed in this Special Section are not exhaustive, the analysis can serve as a useful reference point for discussion that seeks to advance our understandings of how South Korea is likely to behave toward its neighbours and what the future of the East Asian regional order will look like.

International Relations (IR) as a discipline is often deemed to be “too Western” centric. It has been argued that much of mainstream IR theory is “simply an abstraction of Western history.” In this respect, many IR scholars have called for “broadening” the theoretical horizon of IR while problematising the Western parochialism of the discipline, and it is increasingly acknowledged that IR needs to embrace a wider range of histories, experiences, and theoretical perspectives, particularly those outside of the West. However, despite such a meaningful debate over broadening the theoretical and practical horizons of IR, several critical questions remain unclear and under-explored. For example, does IR need to embrace pluralism? If so, how much? To what extent, and in what sense, is IR parochial? Should IR promote dialogue across theoretical and spatial divides? If so, how? Yong-Soo Eun addresses these questions. He undertakes a literature review and an empirical analysis of the extent to which the field has actually become diverse and pluralistic. This investigation considers diversity beyond the current limited focus on the geographical origins of theory. Yong-Soo also draws attention to the mechanisms and processes of knowledge production and transmission in IR. More importantly, he addresses what is probably the most acute issue associated with the “non-Western” IR theory-building enterprise; namely, fragmentation and dialogue. In conclusion, Yong-Soo notes that the role of unsettling the present hierarchical structure of the discipline falls to reflexive individual agents. He argues that in order for their agential power to be more fully harnessed in the opening up of IR, critical “self”-reflection and “collective” empathy and collaboration among marginalised scholars are all essential.

In this paper, I argue that IR needs to pay greater attention to the theorisation of emotion, and that a focus needs to be on having a rich understanding of the ‘generalisable’ mechanisms through which a state’s ‘collective emotions’ are triggered and produced. I posit that the generation of collective emotions is affected by whether and how much the symbols or symbolistic cues of a ‘superior’(or ‘master’) national identity are manifested visually and persistently in our daily lives. Based on the forgoing discussions, I make three basic theoretical propositions
and four IR-sensitive assumptions about when a state’s collective emotions are generated and how they are related to the state’s external actions.

(This paper is written in Korean)

This article aims to address how to ensure a two-way ‘dialogue’ across ‘the West/non-West distinction’ in international studies. To this end, I first discuss three different approaches to dialogue, the Socratic, the Habermasian, and the Weberian, and clarify what kind of thing dialogue should be if it is to overcome the ‘West-non-West divide’ and transform the current ‘Western-centric’ IR into a global discipline. I argue that dialogue should be understood as reciprocal feedback from different perspectives for mutual learning. In order to achieve this goal (i.e. mutual learning), I call for an ‘instrumentalist’ approach to dialogue. To elucidate this point, I offer an empirical illustration. The focus here is on dialogue as mutual learning between Western-centric IR theory, more specifically constructivism, and the indigenous experience and knowledge of East Asia.

David Lake wrote that International Relations (IR)1 will be a more diverse and better field of study if we embrace varied “life experiences and intuitions,” especially those of “marginalized” scholars, about politics and how the world works. Although concurring with his admonition, I also believe that his call for “greater diversity” in IR and his approach to realizing it need to be subject to critical scrutiny, being reconsidered in terms of reflexivity—more specifically, self-reflection by “marginalized” scholars. For this reason, as a “non-white” scholar working in a “non-Western” (or, in Lake’s words, “underrepresented”) IR community, I want to make my own confession to better understand what is at stake in promoting diversity in the academy from a different angle.