Decolonial International Relations: A Discipline Struggles to Move Beyond Theory
International Relations (IR) as an academic discipline, founded in 1919 after World War I, has faced mounting scrutiny for its colonial roots, according to scholars like Saurin (2006) and Sen (2023). Despite the proliferation of decolonial IR scholarship over the past three decades, the field remains entangled in the very structures it seeks to dismantle, with calls for material action growing louder.
How Did International Relations Become a Colonial Project?
IR emerged alongside the post-WWI vision of “national self-determination,” yet it replicated colonial power dynamics, according to Saurin (2006). The discipline’s foundational concepts—such as sovereignty and statehood—were shaped by Western imperial logic, marginalizing non-Western perspectives. As Sen (2023) notes, IR was “purpose-built to forefront the perspectives of the metropole,” leaving non-Western knowledge systems sidelined.
Decolonial scholars argue that this exclusion stems from IR’s reliance on objectivity and generalizability as standards of validity. King, Keohane, and Verba (1994) emphasized universal theories, but recent empirical work by Bysan-Nagate et al. (2025) reveals that IR theories are overwhelmingly based on U.S.-centric data, perpetuating a “Western-dominated” framework.
Why Is Epistemological Decolonization Not Enough?
While epistemological decolonization—challenging Western-centric knowledge production—has gained traction, critics like Kapoor (2023) argue it risks becoming performative. “Decolonization cannot stop at diversifying ideas,” Kapoor writes. “It requires material redistribution of resources and epistemic authority.”
Non-Western scholars, such as Safi, Momand, and Safi (2025), advocate for integrating indigenous frameworks like Afghanistan’s Loya-Jirga to enrich IR theories. However, the field’s emphasis on “universal” theories often dismisses context-specific knowledge as “particular,” reinforcing hierarchies, per Anderl and Witt (2020).
What Are the Barriers to Material Decolonization?
Decolonial IR faces systemic obstacles, including the underpayment of scholars from the Global South. Kapoor (2023) highlights that “regional scholars often receive less for equivalent work than their Global North counterparts,” perpetuating exploitative knowledge production practices.
Activists like Two Convivial Thinkers (2024) warn that without addressing these material inequalities, decolonial efforts risk remaining “incomplete or performative.” The distinction between “support” and “solidarity” is critical: solidarity demands sustained commitment, not one-off gestures, as hooks (1984) emphasizes.
How Can IR Transform Its Knowledge Production?
Reforms such as mandatory positionality statements and reflexive methodologies are gaining traction, per Guillaume (2002) and Hamati-Ataya (2012). Yet these practices remain insufficient without systemic change. Simmons and Smith (2025) propose alternatives to generalizability, such as “translation” as a way to bridge contextual differences.
Ultimately, decolonizing IR requires more than academic exercises. As Sen (2023) observes, “Recognition of coloniality does not necessarily lead to reparative strategies.” The field must confront its material legacies—privatization, neoliberalism, and unequal resource distribution—to fulfill its promise of a more inclusive global discourse.