Conventional international relations (IR) builds on Western problems and remain fixated on the Western understanding of war and conflict. Such ontology is grossly misleading to reflect upon and make sense of conflicts of the non-Western world. Western theories are based on ontological imaginations that are removed from the historical and sociological experiences of the non-Western world. Understanding non-Western conflicts requires an ontology based on the experiential reality of the post-colonial other. However, unless local variants are sufficiently factored in, it may also become as hegemonic as the Western imagination/s that it wishes to resist, counter and transcend. Conflicts in post-colonial societies demand explanatory frames sensitive to their historical and sociological specificities. The challenge before academic IR remains to question its Eurocentric ontology and historicise the subjectivity of the non-Western world. Epistemology is not the site for this much-needed breakthrough. Understanding the non-West is prior to understanding its conflicts.
AbrahamItty. 2014. How India Became Territorial: Foreign Policy, Diaspora, Geopolitics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
2.
AcharyaAmitavBarryBuzan2007. ‘Why is there no non-Western international relations theory? An introduction’. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 7 (3): 287–312.
3.
AngellNorman. 1912. The Great Illusion: A Study of the Relation of Military Power to National Advantage. London: W. Heinemann.
4.
AshleyRichard K.1984. ‘The Poverty of Neorealism’. International Organization38 (2): 225–86.
5.
AshleyRichard K1988. ‘Un-tying the Sovereign State: A Double Reading of the Anarchy Problematique’. Millennium: Journal of International Studies17 (2): 227–86.
6.
BaldwinDavid A. ed. 1993. Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate. New York: Columbia University Press.
7.
ChanSteve. 1993. ‘Democracy and War: Some Thoughts on Future Research Agenda’. International Interactions18 (3): 205–13.
CliftonMorgan T.SallyHoward Campbell. 1991. ‘Domestic Structure, Decisional Constraints, and War: So Why Kant Democracies Fight?’Journal of Conflict Resolution35 (2): 187–211.
10.
DoyleMichael W.1986a. ‘Liberalism and World Politics’. American Political Science Review80 (4): 1151–69.
11.
DoyleMichael W.1986b. ‘Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs’. Philosophy and Public Affairs12 (3): Summer, 205–35.
12.
DoyleMichael W.1986c. ‘Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, Part 2.’Philosophy and Public Affairs12 (4): Autumn, 323–53.
13.
DunneTim. 2008. ‘Liberalism’. In The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, edited by BaylisJohnSmithSteve108–23. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
14.
FarrellTheo. 2002. ‘Constructivist Security Studies: Portrait of a Research Program’. International Studies Review4 (1): Spring, 49–72.
15.
FearnonJamesWendtAlexander. 2002. ‘Rationalism vs Constructivism: A Skeptical View’. In Handbook of International Relations, edited by CarlsnaesWalterRisseThomasSimmonsBeth A., 52–72. London: SAGE.
16.
GowaJoanne. 1999. Ballots and Bullets: The Elusive Democratic Peace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
17.
JacksonRobertSorensenGeorg. 2003. Introduction to International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18.
KeohaneRobert. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
19.
KeohaneRobertJosephS. NyeJr.1971. Transnational Relations in World Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20.
KeohaneRobertJosephS. NyeJr.1977. Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston: Little, Brown.
21.
LakeDavid A.1992. ‘Powerful Pacifists: Democratic States and War’. American Political Science Review86 (1): 24–37.
22.
LevyJack S.2002. ‘War and Peace’. In Handbook of International Relations, edited by CarlsnaesWalterRisseThomasSimmonsBeth A., 350–68. London: Sage.
23.
MansfieldEdward D.JackSnyder J.1995. ‘Democratization and the Danger of War’. International Security20 (4): 5–38.
24.
MastandunoMichael. 1991. ‘Do Relative Gains Matter? America’s Response to Japanese Industrial Policy’. International Security16 (1): Summer, 73–113.
25.
MastandunoMichael. 1997. ‘Preserving the Unipolar Moment: Realist Theories and U.S. Grand Strategy after the Cold War’. International Security21 (4): Spring, 49–88.
26.
McDonaldMatt. 2008. ‘Securitization and the Construction of Security’. European Journal of International Relations14 (4): December, 563–87.
27.
MearsheimerJohn J.2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton.
28.
MehtaUday Singh. 1999. Liberalism and Empire: India in British Liberal Thought. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
29.
MorgenthauHans J.1947. Scientific Man versus Power Politics. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
30.
MorgenthauHans J.1948/1978. Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred Knopf.
31.
OnealJohnRussettBruce. 1999a. ‘Is the Liberal Peace Just an Artifact of Cold War Interests? Assessing Recent Critiques.’International Interactions25 (3): 213–41.
32.
OnealJohnRussettBruce. (1999b). ‘The Kantian Peace: The Pacific Benefits of Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, 1885–1992’. World Politics52 (1): 1–37.
33.
RichardsonJ.L.2001. Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
34.
RuggieJohn Gerard. 1998. ‘What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge’. International Organization52 (4): 855–85.
35.
SethSanjay. 2011. ‘Postcolonial Theory and the Critique of International Relations’. Millennium: Journal of International Studies40 (1): 167–83.
36.
SmithSteve. 1995. ‘The Self-images of a Discipline: A Genealogy of International Relations Theory’. In International Relations Theory Today, edited by BoothKenSmithSteve, 1–37. Cambridge: Polity Press.
37.
SnyderGlenn H.2002. ‘Mearsheimer’s World: Offensive Realism and the Struggle for Security’. International Security27 (1): 149–73.
38.
SchwellerRandall L.1992. ‘Domestic Structures and Preventive War: Are Democracies More Pacific?’World Politics44 (2): January, 235–69.
39.
SchwellerRandall L1994. ‘Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In’. International Security19 (1): Summer, 72–107.
40.
SchwellerRandall L1997. ‘New Realist Research on Alliances: Refining, Not Refuting, Waltz’s Balancing Propositions’. American Political Science Review91 (4): December, 927–30.
41.
Sunil Khilnani. 1997. The Idea of India. New York: Farrar Straus Giroux.
42.
VasquezJohn A.1998. The Power of Power Politics: From Classical Realism to Neotraditionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43.
WaeverOle. 1996. ‘The Rise and Fall of the Inter-paradigm Debate’. In International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, edited by SmithSteveBoothKenZalewskiMarysia, 149–85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44.
WaltStephen M.1988. ‘Testing Theories of Alliance Formation: The Core of Southwest Asia’. International Organization42 (2): 275–316.
45.
WaltStephen M. (1998). ‘International Relations: One World, Many Theories’. Foreign Policy110 (Spring): 29–46.
46.
WaltzKenneth W.1959. Man, the State, and War. New York: Columbia University Press.
47.
WaltzKenneth W1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
48.
WendtAlexander. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49.
ZehfussMaja. 2002. Constructivism in International Relations: The Politics of Reality. New York: Cambridge University Press.
