East and West in International Relations Theory

In light of the growing geopolitical competition between the United States and China, scholars on both sides of the Pacific are engaged in efforts to theorize the relationship between the two superpowers and articulate their differences. Western international relations (IR) theory has long been hegemonic and, frankly, has not changed much when applied to the rise of China. In the most simple “realist” version of Western theory, one could easily replace Athens and Sparta, Britain and Germany, and the United States and Soviet Union with the United States and China—and nothing much would change. It is axiomatic that great powers struggle for power and competition is inevitable. The United States should prepare for a Cold War, and maybe worse. This view has certainly taken hold in policy circles in the United States, with the Trump-Biden-Trump administrations plunging into a new Cold War with Beijing.

In this essay, IGCC senior fellow and UC San Diego distinguished professor David Lake describes how, over the last several decades, there have been new efforts to develop a Chinese school of IR as an alternative to Western theory. It is only recently that these efforts have begun to receive attention in Western academia with the publication of major works in English and the rise of English-language peer-reviewed Chinese journals like the Chinese Journal of International Politics. Lake asserts that it is time to start taking the Chinese school seriously, as it has important implications for how we think about great power competition.

He describes Western IR theory—that is, scholarly works produced in English by academics in North America and Europe—as very heterogeneous; divided by paradigm, levels of analysis, and methods. Chinese IR theory also contains many competing strains, and there is little reason to expect it to be more homogenous than its Western counterpart. At the risk of essentializing differences and creating a binary where multiple continua exist, there does appear to be a deep philosophical difference about human nature and society in Western and Chinese IR theory that has not been brought to the fore. Lake posits that this difference is worth highlighting both for scholars and policymakers.