Since its inception, the discipline of International Relations (IR) has been marked by a fundamental tension: on the one hand, the claim to explain “global politics” through universally valid theories; on the other, a deep reliance on Western—particularly European and American—historical experiences, epistemological assumptions, and normative priorities. Amitav Acharya, former president of the International Studies Association (ISA), places this tension at the center of theoretical debate through his concept of Global IR.
Global IR rests on the premise that dominant theories—realism, liberalism, and even constructivism—are not necessarily incorrect, but profoundly incomplete. Their limitation lies in the implicit assumption that the historical experience of the West represents a generalizable model for the rest of the world. As a result, other regions have largely appeared either as “case studies” or as deviations from the presumed “natural” trajectory of political modernity.
Acharya does not present Global IR as a new theoretical school, but as a broader framework for rethinking the production of knowledge. Within this framework, IR must reflect the historical, civilizational and normative diversity of the world. This does not mean merely adding a few “non-Western examples” to existing theories; rather, it requires revisiting foundational concepts such as order, power, rationality, normativity, and even the very meaning of the “international.”
One major implication of Global IR is that theory production can no longer be separated from structures of power. As the global balance of power shifts and actors such as China, India, and other non-Western powers rise, the West’s monopoly over theoretical production is increasingly contested. Chinese theories of International Relations must be understood within this historical and epistemic transformation.
Why Chinese IR Theories Matter
Chinese IR theories should not be viewed merely as reflections of “Chinese cultural characteristics” or as ideological projects serving Beijing’s foreign policy. What renders them significant within the Global IR framework is their conscious effort to rethink the foundational assumptions of dominant theories. These approaches typically share three core features:
- A critique of the individualist and state-centric ontology of Western theories;
- An emphasis on ethics, relationality, and process in the formation of international order;
- Skepticism toward the universality of the liberal order and rules derived from Western historical experience.
Chinese theorists engage seriously with Western theoretical traditions. They often begin with realism, constructivism, or the English School, yet arrive at conclusions that diverge significantly from the foundational premises of those schools. Four major strands—Moral Realism, Relational Theory, Tianxia Theory and the Coexistence Theory—each offer distinct interpretations of international order.
Moral Realism: Ethics as a Source of Order
Moral Realism (daoyi xianshi zhuyi), associated with Yan Xuetong, represents a systematic attempt to reconstruct realism from within. Unlike structural realism, which treats morality as either irrelevant or instrumental to interests, Moral Realism regards ethics as a decisive factor in the durability of international order.
Yan continues to view anarchy as the basic condition of the international system and considers power competition inevitable. However, he argues that not all hegemonies are alike. What enables a great power to create a stable order is not merely material superiority, but moral authority. Moral authority refers to a state’s capacity to honor commitments, treat allies fairly, and exercise restraint in the use of force.
In this framework, international order is hierarchical, yet hierarchy need not be inherently unstable or oppressive. If the dominant power enjoys moral legitimacy, other actors accept the order not merely out of coercion but as a legitimate and tolerable arrangement. Implicitly, this argument constitutes a serious critique of the American-led liberal order, which Yan contends has witnessed a growing gap between its moral claims and its actual behavior.
Relational Theory: A Relational Ontology in Global Politics
Relational Theory (guanxi lilun), formulated by Qin Yaqing, poses perhaps the most fundamental challenge to dominant IR theories. Its intervention is not primarily at the level of policy or strategy, but at the level of ontology.
In mainstream IR theories, states are assumed to be pre-existing, autonomous units with relatively fixed interests that subsequently interact. Relational Theory reverses this assumption: units do not exist prior to relationships; rather, they are constituted within relationships. Interests, identities, and preferences are not given in advance but are socially constructed through interaction.
Accordingly, international order is neither simply a product of power distribution nor merely the result of formal institutions and rules. Order emerges as an ongoing process rooted in sustained relationships, mutual trust, and the continuous adjustment of expectations. While sharing certain affinities with constructivism, this approach differs from Western variants by placing greater emphasis on harmony and relational balance rather than on relatively stabilized norms and rule structures.
Tianxia Theory: Imagining an Inclusive World Order
Tianxia Theory (tianxia zhuyi), articulated by Zhao Tingyang, is the most ambitious Chinese contribution to debates on global order. Tianxia is not merely a theory of International Relations but a global political philosophy that identifies the Westphalian state-centric system as a root cause of many global crises.
Within the Tianxia framework, the world should be conceived as a single political community. The distinction between inside and outside, self and other, is seen as a primary source of insecurity and conflict. Zhao views individualistic and zero-sum rationality as inherently destabilizing, proposing instead a relational rationality oriented toward positive-sum interactions.
Although widely criticized as utopian, Tianxia’s significance within Global IR lies in its willingness to pose a foundational question: must international order necessarily rest on sovereign, independent states, or can alternative forms of global governance be imagined?
Coexistence Theory: Heterogeneous and Pluralistic Order
The Coexistence Theory (gongsheng guoji guanxi lilun), developed by scholars such as Ren Xiao and Su Changhe, may be the most pragmatically oriented among the four. It begins from the premise that the international system is inherently heterogeneous and that any attempt to homogenize it—whether liberal or ideological—is bound to fail.
Drawing inspiration from biological metaphors, coexistence treats difference not as a threat but as a condition for survival. Stable order arises when actors with diverse roles and functions generate networks of interdependence. This perspective implicitly critiques liberal norm diffusion and conditionality policies that seek to standardize political and economic models.
Conclusion: Chinese Theories and the Future of Global IR
Chinese IR theories demonstrate that Global IR is not merely a rhetorical slogan but a genuine horizon for theoretical renewal in global politics. By emphasizing ethics, relationality, coexistence, and inclusive order, these approaches expose the limitations of dominant theories and open alternative pathways for conceptualizing international relations.
In a world where the liberal order faces crises of legitimacy and effectiveness, engaging these theoretical voices is not a matter of choice but of analytical necessity. Moreover, these approaches suggest that a transition toward multipolarity does not inevitably entail disorder. Instead, it may give rise to alternative patterns of order and governance—patterns grounded not in normative homogenization but in the management of difference and the regulation of plural relationships. In this sense, Chinese IR theories can be understood as part of a broader intellectual effort to redefine the theoretical foundations of international order in a post-liberal age.
Sajjad Atazade, IPIS Expert
(The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the IPIS)