International relations theory, perspectives from India

References

• Acharya, A. (2018). “Imagining a Global IR Out of India” In ORF ISSUE BRIEF, January Issue No. 224.
   Google Scholar
• Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (2007). Why is there no non-western international relations theory? An introduction. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 7(3), 287–312. doi:10.1093/irap/lcm012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alejandro, A. (2018). Western dominance in international relations? The internationalisation of IR in Brazil and India. Brazil: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Alejandro, A. (2019). Western dominance in international relations? The internationalisation of IR in Brazil and India. Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge
   Google Scholar
• Bajpai, K. (2005). International Studies in India: Bringing Theory (Back) home. In K. Bajpai & S. Mallavarapu (Eds.), International Relations in India: Bringing Theory Back home (pp. 17–38). New Delhi: Orient Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Barkawi, T. (2017). Soldiers of empire: Indian and British armies in World War II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Behera, N. C. (2007). Re-imagining IR in India. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 7(3), 341–368. doi:10.1093/irap/lcm014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. New York: Routledge. 1–338
   Google Scholar
• Bhambra, K. G. (2014). Connected sociologies. London: Bloomsbury Academic. 1–178.
   Google Scholar
• Bilgin, P. (2016a). “Contrapuntal reading” as a method, an ethos, and a metaphor for Global IR. International Studies Review, Volume 18(Issue 1), 134–146. doi:10.1093/isr/viv018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bilgin, P. (2016b). How to remedy Eurocentrism in IR? A complement and a challenge for the Global transformation. International Theory, 8(3), 492–501. doi:10.1017/S1752971916000178
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biswas, S. (2014). Nuclear desire: Power and the postcolonial order. University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boesche, R. (2003). The First great political realist: Kautilya and his arthashashtra. London: Lexington Books.
   Google Scholar
• Booth, K., & Smith, S. (1995). International relations theory today. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bryman, A. (2008). The End of the paradigm wars? In P. Alasuutari, L. Bickman, & J. Brannen (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social research methods (pp. 13–26). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Buzan, B., & Lawson, G. (2014). Capitalism and the emergent world order. International Affairs, 90(1), 71–91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capan, Z. G. (2018). https://www.e-ir.info/2018/06/eurocentrism-and-the-construction-of-the-non-west/
   Google Scholar
• Castr, F. L. (2011) Does International Relations theory privilege Western ways of thinking and acting? https://www.e-ir.info/2018/06/
   Google Scholar
• Cox, W. R. (1981). Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond International relations. Millennium - Journal of International Studies, 10(2), 126–155. doi:10.1177/03058298810100020501
   Google Scholar
• Crawford, R. M. A., & Jarvis, D. S. L. (2001). International relations—still an American social science? Toward diversity in International thought. Alybany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Çapan, Z. G. (2017). Writing International Relations from the invisible side of the abyssal line. Review of International Studies, 43(4), 602–611. doi:10.1017/S0260210517000341
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Carvalho, B., Leira, H., & Hobson, J. M. (2011). The Big Bangs of IR: The myths that your teachers still tell you about 1648 and 1919. Millennium-Journal of International Studies, 39(3), 735–758. doi:10.1177/0305829811401459
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunne, T. (2013). “The end of International relations theory” special issue. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 405–425. doi:10.1177/1354066113495485
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eren, D. (2020). Against Eurocentric and Anti-Eurocentrism: International Relations, Historical Sociology and Political Marxism. Journal of International Relations and Development, 23, 285–307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Go, J., & Lawson, G. (2017). Introduction: for a global historical sociology. In J. Go & G. Lawson (Eds.), Global Historical sociology. Lawson: Cambridge University press.
   Google Scholar
• Grovogui, S. (2006). Beyond Eurocentrism and anarchy US. Palgrave, New York: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Hazbun, W., & Valbjorn, M. (2018). The making of IR in the Middle East: Critical perspectives on scholarship and teaching in the region. In APSA-MENA Newsletter, No. 5 (fall) (pp. 5–9).
   Google Scholar
• Hobson, J. (2007). Is critical theory always for the white West and for Western imperialism? Beyond Westphilian towards a post-racist critical IR. Review of International Studies, 33(S1), 91–116. doi:10.1017/S0260210507007413
   Google Scholar
• Hoffmann, S. (1977). An American social science: International relations. Daedalus, 106(3), 41–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inoguchi, T. (2007). Are there any theories of International Relations in Japan. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 7(3), 369–390. doi:10.1093/irap/lcm015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katzenstein J. P., & Sil, R. (2010). Beyond Paradigms: Analytic Eclecticism in the study of World Politics. London: Palgrave, Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Kayaoglu, T. (2010). Westphalian Eurocentrism in international relations theory. International Studies Review, 12(2), 193–217. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2486.2010.00928.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krepon, M. (2004). Nuclear risk reduction in South Asia. New York: Palgrave, Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Kristensen, M. (2015). Revisiting the “American Social Science”- mapping the geography of international relations. International Relations Perspectives, 16(3), 246–269.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lacatus, C., Schade, A., & Yao, Y. (2015). Quo Vadis IR: method methodology and innovation. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 43(3), 767–768. doi:10.1177/0305829815587822
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maliniak, D., Peterson, S., Powers, R., & Tierney, M. J. (2014). TRIP 2014 faculty survey. Williamsburg, VA: Institute for the Theory and Practice of International Relations. Available online at https://trip.wm.edu/charts/.
   Google Scholar
• Mallavarapu, S. (2010). Development of international relations theory in India traditions, contemporary perspectives and trajectories. International Studies, 46(1), 165–183.
   Google Scholar
• Mattoo, A. (2009). The state of international studies in India. International Studies, 46(1-2), 37–48.
   Google Scholar
• Narain, S, (2020). International Relations Theory: Still a White Man's Burden, May 29,2020, E-International Relations https://www.e-ir.info/2020/05/29/international-relations-theory-still-a-white-mans-burden/
   Google Scholar
• Odoom, I., & Andrews, N. (2016). What/Who is still missing in International Relations scholarship? Situating Africa as an agent in IR theorising. Third World Quarterly, 38(1), 42–60. doi:10.1080/01436597.2016.1153416
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ole, W. (2005). Figures of International Thought: introducing persons instead of paradigms. In X. Neuman & X. Waever (Eds.), The Future of International Relations (pp. 1–41). London, NY: Francis & Taylor, Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Paul, T. V. (2017). Indian International Relations studies: The need for integration with Global scholarship” ORF issue brief, 219.
   Google Scholar
• Puchala, D. J. (1997). Some non-western perspectives on International relations. Journal of Peace Research, 34(2), 129–134. doi:10.1177/0022343397034002001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sagan, D. S., & Waltz, K. (1995). The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate. Norton.
   Google Scholar
• Saha, A. (2018). Decolonizing the ‘great debates’ in International Relations theory: A perspective on history, Approaches and methods. Journal of Political Sciences and Public Affairs, 6(4), 1–4.
   Google Scholar
• Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. Pantheon Books.
   Google Scholar
• Shahi, D. (2014). The eclectic face of kautilya. Economic &Political Weekly, 49, 41.
   Google Scholar
• Siddiqui, M. (2019). “Assessing the claim that the development of International theory is over”. e-ir.info
   Google Scholar
• Sil, R., & Katzenstein, J. P., (2010). Beyond paradigms; Analytic eclecticism in the study of world politics. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave, Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, S. (2002). The United States and the discipline of international relations: Hegemonic country, hegemonic discipline. International Studies Review, 4, 67–85. doi:10.1111/1521-9488.00255
   Google Scholar
• Spivak, C. G. (1988). Can the Subaltern speak. In Nelson & Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture (pp. 271–313). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
   Google Scholar
• Subrahmanyam, S. (1997). Connected histories: Notes towards a reconfiguration of early modern Eurasia. Modern Asian Studies, 31(3), 735–762. doi:10.1017/S0026749X00017133
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang, S. (2016). Practical concerns and power considerations. International Studies Review, 18(1), 162–163. doi:10.1093/isr/viv035
   Google Scholar
• Voskressenski, A. D. (2017). In: Non-Western theories of International relations. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Wæver, O. (1998). The Sociology of a Not So International discipline. American and European developments in International relations. International Organization, 52(4), 687–727. doi:10.1162/002081898550725
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wight, M. (1960). Why is there no international theory? International Relations, 2(1), 35–48. doi:10.1177/004711786000200104
   Google Scholar
• Witt, A. (2020). Problematizing the Global in Global IR. Millennium Journal of International Studies, 49(1), 32–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar