Global IR through dialogue

References

• Acharya, A. (2011). Dialogue and discovery: In search of international relations theories beyond the west. Millennium, 39(3), 619–637.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Acharya, A. (2014). Global international relations (IR) and regional worlds: A new agenda for international studies. International Studies Quarterly, 58(4), 647–659.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Acharya, A. (2016). Advancing global IR: Challenges, contentions, and contributions. International Studies Review, 18(1), 4–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Acharya, A. (2017). Theorising the international relations of Asia: Necessity or indulgence? Some reflections. The Pacific Review, 30(6), 816–828.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Acharya, A., &Buzan, B. (Eds.). (2010). Non-western international relations theory: Perspectives on and beyond Asia. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Acharya, A., &Buzan, B. (2017). Why is there no non-western international relations theory? Ten years on. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 17(3), 341–370.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arai, T.,Goto, S., &Wang, Z. (Ed.). (2013). Clash of national identities: China, Japan and the China sea territorial dispute. Washington, DC: Wilson Center.
   Google Scholar
• Bleiker, R. (2001). Identity and security in Korea. The Pacific Review, 14(1), 121–148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bilgin, P. (2016). ‘Contrapuntal reading’ as a method, an ethos, and a metaphor for global IR. International Studies Review, 18(1), 1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brecher, M., &Harvey, F. (2002). Millennial reflections on international studies. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Breslin, S. (2011). The ‘China Model’ and the global crisis. International Affairs, 87(6), 1323–1343.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buzan, B. (2016). Could IR be different? International Studies Review, 18(1), 155–157.
   Google Scholar
• Buzan, B., &Little, R. (2014). The historical expansion of international society. In Navari C. & Daniel G. (Eds.), Guide to the English school in international studies. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, C.-C. (2011). The absence of non-western IR theory in Asia reconsidered. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 11(1), 15–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choe, H. (2006). National identity and citizenship in the people's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea. Journal of Historical Sociology, 19(1), 84–118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunne, T.,Hansen, L., &Wight, C. (2013). The end of international relations theory? European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 405–425.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eun, Y. S. (2016). Pluralism and engagement in the discipline of international relations. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Eun, Y. S. (2017). To what extent is post-positivism ‘practised’ in IR? Evidence from China and the USA. International Political Science Review, 38(5), 593–607.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glosserman, B., &Snyder, S. A. (2015). The Japan-South Korea identity clash: East Asian security and the United States. Columbia: Columbia University Press
   Google Scholar
• Goh, E. (2013). The struggle for order: Hegemony, hierarchy, and transition in post-cold war East Asia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action, volume 1. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action, volume 2. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1996). Three normative models of democracy. In Benhabib S. (Ed.), Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hobson, J. M. (2012). The Eurocentric conception of world politics: Western international theory, 1760–2010. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hopf, T. (1998). The promise of constructivism in international relations theory. International Security, 23(1), 171–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hurrell, A. (2016). Beyond critique: How to study global IR? International Studies Review, 18(1), 149–150.
   Google Scholar
• Hutchings, K. (2011). Dialogue between whom? The role of the west/non-west distinction in promoting global dialogue in IR. Millennium, 39(3), 639–647.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson, P. (2011). The conduct of inquiry in international relations:Philosophy of science and its implications for the study of world politics. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Johnston, A. I. (2012). What (if anything) does East Asia tell us about international relations theory? Annual Review of Political Science, 15, 35–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahn, C. H. (1996). Plato and the socratic dialogue: The philosophical use of a literary form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kang, D. C. (2003). Getting Asia wrong: The need for new analytical frameworks. International Security, 27, 57–85.
   Google Scholar
• Katzenstein, P. J. (2016). Diversity and empathy. International Studies Review, 18(1), 151–153.
   Google Scholar
• Kavalski, E. (2018). The Guanxi of relational international theory. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, S. B. (2011). Identity prevails in the end: North Korea's nuclear threat and South Koreas response in 2006. EAI Asia security initiative working paper 18. Seoul: East Asia Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, M. K (Ed.). (2015). Routledge handbook of memory and reconciliation in East Asia. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kingston, J. (2015). Asian nationalisms reconsidered. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Koh, B. C. (1994). A comparison of unification policies. In Kihl Y. W. (Ed.), Korea and the world: Beyond the cold war. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kristensen, P andNielsen R. (2013). Constructing a Chinese International Relations Theory: A Sociological Approach to Intellectual Innovation. International Political Sociology, 7(1), 19–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwak, J. H., &Nobles, M. (Eds.). (2013). Inherited responsibility and historical reconciliation in East Asia. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lake, D. (2013). Theory is dead, long live theory: The end of the great debates and the rise of eclecticism. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 567–587.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lapid, Y. (2003). Through dialogue to engaged pluralism: The unfinished business of the third debate. International Studies Review, 5(1), 128–131.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, M. B. (2010a). President Lee's address for the 60th anniversary of the Korean war, 25 June, president Lee Myung BakSpeeches. Seoul: CHEONG WA DAE. The office of president.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, M. B. (2010b). Speech on 65th anniversary of national liberation 15 august, president Lee Myung Bak Speeches. Seoul CHEONG WA DAE. The Office of President.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, M. B. (2012). The way for the North to survive is to voluntarily dismantle its nuclear weapons and to cooperate with the international community through reform and open-door policies. President Lee Myung Bak Speeches, April 16. Seoul: CHEONG WA DAE. The office of president.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, N. Y., &Jeong, H. W. (2010). The impact of North Korea's artillery strike on public opinion in South Korea. EAI issue briefing on public opinion. Seoul: East Asia Institute. Retrieved from http://www.eai.or.kr/data/bbs/eng_report/201101281811046.pdf [Accessed 7 March 2017].
   Google Scholar
• Levine, D., &McCourt, D. (2018). Why does pluralism matter when we study politics? A view from contemporary international relations. Perspectives on Politics, 16(1), 92–109.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ling, H. M. (2014). The dao of world politics: Towards a post-Westphalia, Worldist International Relations. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Olsen, E. (2008). Korean nationalism in a divided nation: Challenges to US policy. Pacific Focus, 23(1), 4–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oren, I. (2016). A sociological analysis of the decline of American IR theory. International Studies Review, 18(4), 571–596.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pasha, M. K. (2011). Western nihilism and dialogue: Prelude to an uncanny encounter in international relations. Millennium, 39(3), 683–699.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patomäki, H. (2007). Back to the Kantian Idea for a Universal History? Overcoming Eurocentric Accounts of the International Problematic. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 35(3), 575–595.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qin, Y. (2011). Development of international relations theory in China: Progress through debates. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 11(3), 231–257.
   Google Scholar
• Qin, Y. (2016). A relational theory of world politics. International Studies Review, 18(1), 33–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rengger, N. (2015). Pluralism in international relations theory: Three questions. International Studies Perspectives, 16(1), 32–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roh, M. H. (2006a). Speeches on march first independence movement day address, March 1. President Roh Moo Hyun Speeches. Seoul: CHEONWA DEA. The office of president.
   Google Scholar
• Roh, M. H. (2006b). Letters on South Korea-Japan relations. President Roh Moo Hyun Speeches. Seoul: CHEONWA DEA. The office of president.
   Google Scholar
• Rozman, G. (Ed.). (2012). East Asian national identities: Common roots and Chinese exceptionalism. Washington: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, B. (2008). International relations theory: Hegemony or pluralism? Millenniu, 36(2), 105–114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shin, G. W. (2015). National identities, historical memories, and reconciliation in Northeast Asia. In Rozman G. (Ed.), Asia's alliance triangle (pp. 189–202). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Shin, G. W., &Chang, P. Y. (2004). The politics of nationalism in U.S-Korean relations. Asian Perspective, 28(3), 119–145.
   Google Scholar
• Shin, G. W.,Fred, J., &Yi, G. (1999). The politics of ethnic nationalism in divided Korea. Nations and Nationalism, 5(4), 465–484.
   Google Scholar
• Sylvester, C. (2007). Whither the international at the end of IR. Millennium, 35(3), 551–573.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tickner, J. A. (2011). Dealing with difference: Problems and possibilities for dialogue in international relations. Millennium, 39(3), 607–618.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tickner, A. B. (2013). Core, periphery and (neo)imperialist international relations. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 627–646.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tickner, J. A. (2016). Knowledge is power: Challenging IR's Eurocentric narrative. International Studies Review, 18(1), 157–159
   Google Scholar
• Tickner, A. B., &Waever, O. (Eds.). (2009). International relations scholarship around the World. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wan, M. (2012). Introduction: Chinese traditions in international relations. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 17(3), 105–109.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, Z. (2013). Perception gaps, identity clashes. In Arai, T. Goto S., & Wang Z. (Eds.), Clash of national identities: China, Japan and the China Sea territorial dispute (pp. 9–18). Washington, DC: Wilson Center.
   Google Scholar
• Weber, M. (1988[1919]). Science as a vocation. In Gerth H. H. and Mills C. W. (Eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wemheuer-Vogelaar, W. B.,Bell, N.,Morales, M. N. andTierney, M. J. (2016). The IR of the Beholder: Examining Global IR Using the 2014 TRIP Survey. International Studies Review, 18(1), 16–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wendt, A. (1994). Collective identity formation and the international state. American Political Science Review, 88(2), 384–396.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Xuetong, Y. (2011). Ancient Chinese thought, modern Chinese power. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Young, I. M. (1996). Communication and the other: Beyond deliberative democracy. In Benhabib S. (Ed.), Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zeng, J., &Breslin, S. (2016). China's ‘new type of great power relations’: A G2 with Chinese characteristics? International Affairs, 92(4), 773–794.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, F. (2012). “The Tsinghua approach” and the inception of Chinese theories of international relations. Chinese Journal of International Politics, 5, 73–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, Y., &Buzan, B. (2012). The tributary system as international society in theory and practice. Chinese Journal of International Politics, 5, 3–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar