Challenging the Victor's Narrative : IR outside of the West

Traditional IR has long been the subject of criticism for its perceived Euro-US centricity which has been identified as a limitation of the field. The ontological and epistemological assumptions of the discipline continue to be structured around a binary distinction between Western “self" and non-Western "other" that has its origins in colonialism and war. The objective of this panel is to identify potential avenues for an alternative “post-western” or “non-Western” approach to IR that would enhance its global and diverse character without placing undue emphasis on the “local” and “regional” which is critiqued as a potential pitfall indigenizing or “nationalizing” IR.
This panel presents a discussion of the case of IR in Japan, introducing the concept of IR from the perspective of "the vanquished" to challenge the prevailing view of the "winner/ruler" and its concept of international order, including notions such as "victor's justice." Japan's case is distinctive in that, while it was a colonial power in the region, it subsequently found itself in a position of the vanquished in WWII. Consequently, postwar IRs have unfolded in a complex and multidimensional manner, involving citizens of neighboring countries demanding reparations for wartime atrocities. Even now, the Japanese government's self-criticism regarding its pre-war colonial policies remains incomplete, in part due to the country's strong political and military alliance with the US. This alliance is often justified from a perspective that considers Japan's defeat in the war.
The concept of "the vanquished" with multiple conflicting dimensions can be also applied to other cases with similar historical experiences, including those of Italy, Germany, the Ottoman Empire, and the Soviet Union. Therefore, it cannot be equated with a return to “civilizationalist” narratives accompanying the impending demise of the liberal international order. These will be critically examined before introducing the concept of “relational cosmologies.” Drawing on examples from South Asia, relational cosmologies challenge the prevailing, hegemonic iterations of geo-cultural difference in IR by interrogating the relationship between territory, culture, religion and identity. This has implications for the discipline of IR, which privileges territorialized conceptions of sovereignty dating back to the Peace of Westphalia.