Debates over relations between civilizations have profoundly shaped discourses in international politics, oscillating between visions of inevitable clash and aspirations for inter-civilizational dialogue. On one side, realist scholars like Samuel Huntington warn of civilizational conflicts rooted in irreducible cultural divides [1]. But on the other, cosmopolitan thinkers advocate cross-cultural exchange and ethical universalism as antidotes to civilizational polarization [2].
This article analyzes how civilizational conceptions influence global order, from theoretical perspectives to practical statecraft. It assesses pessimistic clash narratives and more hopeful dialogue agendas, including hybrid positions acknowledging both cooperative and competitive civilizational dynamics. The analysis suggests that while cultural divides harbinger risks, robust inter-societal engagement supported by cosmopolitan norms remains vital for advancing pluralism in international affairs.
Theorizing Civilizations in Global Politics
Discourse on civilizations in global politics intensified after the Cold War as relations between cultural groupings supplanted ideological bipolarity [3]. Scholars defined civilizations as encompassing shared histories, languages, values, institutions, and self-identification distinct from other cultural configurations [4]. Most theorists posit at least seven or eight major contemporary civilizations demarcated broadly by religious heritage and geography, centered on the West, Latin America, Islam, India, China, and others [5].
Thinkers diverge on how interactions between these civilizational blocs shape world order. Pessimists like Huntington stress civilizational clashes, while optimists emphasize dialogue. But hybrid views acknowledging both competitive and cooperative dynamics have also emerged.
The Clash of Civilizations Thesis
The “clash of civilizations” thesis was most prominently espoused by political scientist Samuel Huntington [1]. He argued conflicts would increasingly transpire between culturally defined civilizations as the prime axis of global tensions rather than material ideologies. Huntington posited civilizations possess fundamentally contrasting value systems and worldviews breeding external mistrust and violence, especially between the Muslim world and the West.
Huntington saw civilizational commonalities as the strongest source of cohesion and identity in the post-Cold War era. He highlighted civilizational clashes throughout history from Ancient wars between Persia and Greece to the medieval Crusades, implying historical inevitability. And he cited contemporary conflicts like Yugoslavia’s ethnic warfare as evidencing enduring civilizational animosities [6].
Huntington acknowledged partial overlap between civilizational values, interests within civilizations, and fluidity at the margins. But he insisted core differences would outweigh cooperation, dooming visions of universal harmony. Instead a “multi-civilizational” global order was envisioned, where relations between societies remained tenuous and competitive [1].
Huntington’s thesis gained traction especially after the September 11, 2001 Al-Qaeda terror attacks, which seemed to exemplify civilizationally grounded conflicts. His ideas remain influential, aligning with nationalist and realist paradigms emphasizing cultural divides [7].
Critiques of Clash Claims
However, Huntington’s clash thesis draws extensive criticism:
- It understates intra-civilizational differences that often exceed inter-civilizational divides [8]. For instance, conflict within the Muslim world, as between Shia Iran and Sunni-majority states, belies monolithic blocs.
- Peaceful exchanges and hybridization have long occurred across civilizational boundaries, undermining notions of immutable estrangement [9].
- Affinities over interests like markets and development bridge civilizations and foster global integration [10].
- Violence overwhelmingly still occurs within rather than between civilizations, contrary to dire predictions [11].
- Problematic essentialist assumptions of static and internally uniform cultures underpin the clash narrative [12]. In truth, identities and values are continually reconstructed.
In sum, predictions of neat civilizational fault lines inexorably generating external conflicts have not materialized as envisioned. But neither have utopian visions of seamless convergence. The reality remains complex. Next we examine more cooperative perspectives.
Dialogue of Civilizations Paradigm
In contrast to clash forecasts, the “dialogue of civilizations” school stresses communication over conflict between societal groupings [13]. This normative approach advocates transcending divisions through intercultural understanding.
Exemplified by Iranian President Mohammad Khatami’s proposal for a UN “Dialogue Among Civilizations” in 2001, this paradigm rejects portrayals of enduring enmity between peoples [14]. It posits shared humanistic values that override differences. While acknowledging disagreements, a faith is placed in reconciling varied worldviews peacefully through exchange.
Theories of inter-civilizational dialogue draw on cosmopolitan ethics stressing universal human dignity over national or religious particularity [15]. All cultures are seen as holding some commonality as ethical communities. Through openness, empathy and mutual recognition, a dialogical global community can emerge.
This perspective also critiques power politics between states and superficial tolerance that avoids engaging meaningfully across cultures [16]. Genuine sustained dialogue is advocated to foster cooperative civilizational relations. Communication scholar Mihai Coman describes this as transforming “multiculturalism to interculturalism” [17].
Dialogue ideals are institutionalized in UNESCO programs promoting inclusive cultural preservation and events like the Baku Process for intercultural rapprochement [18]. Regional cooperation bodies also cultivate inter-societal links across frontiers. However, critics argueaspirations frequently exceed practical achievements.
Hybridity: Clash and Dialogue
Other analysts contend neither polarized clash nor universal dialogue fully captures variable and contingent civilizational relations [19]. Hybrid approaches integrate both competitive and cooperative dimensions, analyzing how they interact case-by-case.
This recognizes that civilizations are not immutable givens but constantly reconstructed through exchanges with external influences. Their boundaries and identities shift continually [20]. Contemporary societies exhibit both internal pluralism and selective external engagement. Connections often coexist with divisions.
From this view, civilizations should not be reified as either wholly antagonistic or harmonious. Their relations encompass multifaceted interdependencies, exchanges, tensions, and conflicts depending on contexts and issues [21]. Actors transnationally connect across cultures on shared interests. But civilizational discourses still arise fleetingly in contests over status and ideology.
Neither clash nor dialogue is an inevitability. Possibilities exist between poles. This demands nuanced statecraft and paradiplomacy attuned to complex inter-societal relations that are simultaneously competitive in some domains and cooperative in others [22]. There are opportunities to temper both animosities and utopianism.
In examining major international issues, the role of cultural factors remains salient but defies one-dimensional categorization. We next survey the complex interplay between civilizations and foreign affairs.
Civilizational Diplomacy in Theory and Practice
The question of how states navigate international engagement with cultural considerations looms large for policymakers. Civilization has become a frame of reference in strategic discourse and public diplomacy. But translating this into practical statecraft involves dilemmas.
Constructing diplomatic partnerships along civilizational lines risks essentializing cultures and exacerbating perceived divides [23]. However, ignoring civilizational sensitivities entirely forfeits opportunities for deepened cooperation on shared norms. Here we examine attempted approaches.
Samuel Huntington’s “Core State” Concept
Huntington proposed the notion of “core states” leading their respective civilizations in geopolitics [1]. He suggested major powers like the US and China should consolidate blocs of culturally-aligned nations. However, this risks misrepresenting fluid state interests within vaguely bounded civilizations. It also potentially sacrifices universalist ethics to ethnic particularism [24].
Resultantly, while civilizations form rhetorical rallying points in public messaging, core state strategies have gained limited policy traction. Regional aggregations like the African Union seem more pragmatic than abstract civilizational blocs given divergent priorities within communities.
Still, labeling US-led actions as part of the “West” containing Chinese or Islamic ambitions retains salience even if operational utility remains uncertain [25]. Civilization continues providing a vocabulary for symbolically framing relations between major powers in both cooperation and competition.
Alliance of Civilizations: Normative Vision of Cooperation
Conversely, the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations initiative expresses aspirational inter-civilizational collaboration [26]. Launched in 2005 by Spain and Turkey, it defines a mission of “promoting understanding and respect among nations across cultures and religions.” Through global forums and grassroots projects, it seeks to build networks and counter polarization.
However, critics argue the Alliance offers a weak normative vision but little substantive impact on conflicts with religious or cultural dimensions [27]. It provides a platform for dialogue without teeth absent political will. While well-intentioned, operationalizing cooperation remains challenging.
Its consensual character also risks avoiding issues like normalization of relations with stigmatized groups that may spark tensions. Resolving policy dilemmas sometimes requires confronting rather than circumventing divisions through open debate [28]. So ideals must be tempered by practicalities.
Selective Value Partnerships: Issue-Based Coalitions
A pragmatic middle path is attempted “selective value partnerships” between actors sharing norms and interests on specific issues irrespective of civilizational identity [29]. This entails ad hoc cooperation not tied to an ideal of overarching harmony.
For instance, the U.S. and India enhance ties on democracy and technology despite obvious civilizational contrasts [30]. Selective convergence is pursued around mutually-beneficial spaces [31]. Holistic reconciliation is deprioritized over limited but substantive collaboration.
Some argue this best leverages opportunities within existing realities of global cultural diversity [32]. Temporaryaffective communities arise around shared objectives and dissipate thereafter. However, critics contend eschewing deep engagement fails to address root causes of mistrust.
In sum, civilizational lenses impact statecraft but in varied, unsettled ways. Theories outpace policy formulations. But cultural affinities and identities remain embedded in how diplomatic partnerships and rivalries are conceived and legitimized, even where concrete strategies exhibit more cross-cutting interests. Normative and realist calculations around civilizational dynamics coexist uneasily.
We now turn to examining more deeply how civilizational factors interact with major spheres of global affairs.
Civilizations and Geopolitics
Realist foreign policy traditions posit states as coherent unitary actors pursuing objective national interests defined in terms of power and security [33]. However, constructivist scholars argue states also enact culturally-grounded roles and identities in geopolitics rooted in civilizational affiliations [34]. State interests are partially intersubjective constructs.
From this view, Russia shows a proclivity for asserting leadership of pan-Orthodox Slavic peoples, Turkey for representing the Turkic world, and Iran for commanding the global Shia community. Despite risks of over-extrapolating unity, civilizational imaginaries reinforce solidarity between ethnically-aligned nations against perceived external threats. They help legitimize state ambitions [35].
Meanwhile, opponents position countervailing activities as defending their own civilizational turf, like NATO expanding to protect Western spheres from Russian encroachment or containing Iranian influence among Arab states. Discourses legitimizing policy in civilizational terms increase but also mirror existing geopolitical competitions for dominance [36].
Some instances show more direct civilizational motivations like India’s tensions with Pakistan centrally reflecting Hindu-Muslim enmity. But generally civilizational frames serve to justify state interests rather than wholly defining them. Cultural antagonisms overlay but only partially shape geopolitical contests for power and security [37]. Civilization remains a fluctuating analytical lens applied differently across contexts.
Civilizations and Identity Politics
Constructivist international relations scholarship also illuminates how ‘civilizational’ identities shape domestic politics in heterogeneous societies [38]. Leaders invoke imagined communities of ethnic, religious or ideological compatriots abroad for nationalist consolidation and legitimation [39]. External civilizational conflicts, threats or dialogues help constitute internal political dynamics.
For instance, Hindu nationalists in India combine civic nationalism with appeals to transnational Hindu civilizational identity against imagined Muslim antitheses [40]. Islamist political movements similarly mobilize the ummah in Turkey, Pakistan or Egypt against Western values, linking external and internal identity constructions [41]. Notions of enlightening inferior civilizations underpin Western liberal interventionism.
But some research suggests civilizational appeals are losing resonance to pluralistic identities as inter-societal engagements proliferate and nationalist discourses are discredited [42]. Certainly civilizational identities vary in politicization by context. However, they provide rhetorical power for affirming symbolic boundaries between ‘the nation’ and outsiders in ways intertwining domestic and foreign affairs [43]. Material and intersubjective logics interact so ‘civilization’ remains a flexible resource.
This illustrates how civilizational conceptions are harnessed to advance political agendas and build complex nationalist solidarities. Shared heritage and identity is not just ‘discovered’ but actively constructed and contested. Both conflict and dialogue frameworks represent resources in cultural identity politics.
Civilizations and International Political Economy
Classical realism portrays global economics as a competitive zero-sum struggle for influence between states [44]. But scholars argue transnational cultural affinities also enable non-state economic coordination constituting a “civilizational form of capitalism” [45]. Shared religious values, customs and social networks underpin trade diaspora and investment across civilizational groups.
For example, the Chinese bamboo network of overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia bridges culture and economics [46]. Islamic finance links Muslim communities worldwide [47]. Jewish and Indian business elites built cross-border ties transcending state boundaries. Civilizational bonds substitute for absent political institutions enabling transnational business in contexts of uncertainty [48]. Economic globalization also disseminates cultural values and lifestyles worldwide, as with American fast food chains [49].
However, national economic interests still dominate over diffuse civilizational ties.States restrict foreign involvement in sectors deemed nationally strategic like energy. Competing versions of capitalism – Anglo-American, East Asian, Islamic – only partially merge with overarching civilizations given divergent development models and societal priorities [50]. Civilization helps construct but does not determine corporate strategies and state policies.
In the economic sphere, non-state transnational exchange communities built on trust beyond formal contracts provide an alternative narrative to state-centric clashes. But statist development policies also utilize civilizational branding, as with China casting its Belt and Road Initiative as reviving ancient Silk Road linkages. In practice different configurations emerge mixing state and civic actors.
Civilizations and International Law
Relations between international law, governance and civilizations involve complex debates [51]. Universalist interpretations argue global legal principles supersede cultural particularities. This echoes cosmopolitan aspirations of shared ethics and dialogue between value systems [52]. The liberal international order is seen as diminishing civilizational sources of conflicts.
But critical scholars argue hegemonic Western civilizational biases shape the foundations and practice of international law [53]. Calls emerge for global legal pluralism recognizing diverse cultural approaches to disputes, rights and justice [54]. Developing states advocate “reforming the civilization origins of international law” to reflect non-Western traditions and post-colonial realities [55].
Pragmatically, legal conventions are often deliberately crafted via constructive ambiguity and silence allowing flexible interpretation accommodating diversity in deference to state sovereignty [56]. Intercivilizational export and adaptation of legal norms also frequently occurs, as with Japan selectively integrating Western international law norms [57].
In practice, stark dichotomies between universalist and culturally relativist legal approaches dissolve into selective, contingent combinations. But debates persist on reconciling plural identities and worldviews through open-ended legal processes versus constraints requiring formalization. Civilizations discourse colors these contested visions of lawful global order.
Civilizations, Religion and Culture
Religion and culture arguably constitute the core substance of civilizations [1]. Scholars observe soft power derives from cultures, shaping perceptions and preferences [58]. Exports like Hollywood films, anime, yoga or halal products project influence. Shared religions forge transnational communities through rituals and ethics.
Cultural commonalities enable dialogue. But inflamed historical memories, fundamentalist demagoguery and securitized discourses also foment civilizational hostilities along religious and ethnic lines [59]. Restrictions on cultural rights become conflict flashpoints. Ideological struggles for minds and hearts underpin overt geopolitics.
In reality, cultures dynamically evolve through contact, exchange and hybridity, not essentialized separation [60]. Local contextual adaptations occur of seemingly globalized cultural imports like fast food [61]. Syncretism and creativity generate rich intra-civilizational diversity. Civilizations should thus be understood as eclectic “repertoires of options” and fluid symbolic repertoires, not enclosed cultures [62]. This nuance means relations range from harmony to tense co-existence to episodic hostility as cultural politics unfolds.
Global Policy Challenges at Civilizational Intersections
As intersections between societies multiply in a globalizing world, several crucial policy domains face dilemmas at civilizational junctures demanding nuanced governance. Here we survey key areas and debates.
Migration and Integration
Mass migration creates inter-civilizational encounters within societies through diversity of religions, customs, dress, and languages [63]. In pluralistic contexts like the United Arab Emirates or Singapore, pragmatic accommodations enable diversity under illiberal political constraints [64]. But contentious issues of immigrant integration like the Muslim headscarf in France reveal tensions between liberal secularism and multiculturalism.
Failures of accommodation risk alienation and radicalism among minority groups. Violent extremism leverages perceived civilizational injustices. But multicultural policies recognising group rights garner accusations of excessive moral relativism from nationalists [65]. Constructively channeling civilizational diversity around shared citizenship remains an enduring policy challenge.
Information Technology and Values
The global diffusion of information technology and social media also raises dilemmas regarding cultural values. Debates occur on regulating sensitive content like hate speech or pornography that offend certain cultural sensibilities but may be protected elsewhere as free expression [66]. Questions arise over platforms dominantly encoding Western norms.
However, stark cultural relativism risks authoritarian moral policing. Instead, legal scholar Sarah Joseph advocates transnationalActorsoft ‘inter-civilizational deliberation’ to negotiate collective rules bridging divergent principles [67]. The search continues for inclusive digital governance amidst multiplicity.
Environmental Cooperation
Climate change similarly necessitates reconciling conflicting ecological approaches between civilizations [68]. Cosmopolitan sustainable development models foregrounding individual eco-responsibility differ from collectivist and growth-centric
Environmental Cooperation
Climate change similarly necessitates reconciling conflicting ecological approaches between civilizations [68]. Cosmopolitan sustainable development models foregrounding individual eco-responsibility differ from collectivist and growth-centric paradigms [69]. Spiritual interpretations of environmental ethics also vary between indigenous, Abrahamic and Dharmic religions [70].
Yet shared risks necessitate cooperating across difference. Identifying common values of conservation while tolerating diversity in practices allows polycentric climate governance [71]. Accommodating plural ecological worldviews remains imperative for viable global environmental solutions.
Peacekeeping and State-building
Attempting to construct functional governance and security institutions also faces civilizational challenges in divided societies. External intervention and state-building guided by liberal templates of individual rights and market democracy often founder in incompatible sociocultural settings [72]. Imposing universalist vision provokes resistance.
But abandoning local parties to pursue illiberal ‘authentic’ solutions risks instability and conflict as occurred with de-Baathification in Iraq [73]. Mediating internationally-supported development and indigenous traditions is required [74]. A Hippocratic oath of ‘doing no civilizational harm’ should guide peacekeepers and state-builders navigating fragile contexts [75].
Global Health Governance
The COVID-19 pandemic likewise revealed tensions between public health policies and traditional cultural practices [76]. Quarantines restricting religious gatherings and rituals to contain contagion provoked objections. Medical safety measures contested local values. Again dilemmas arose balancing infection control with cultural sensitivities.
Creating statewide centralized health systems also clashes with community-based health provision norms in parts of the developing world [77]. Public health intervention doncivilizational nuance.
These cases highlight the unavoidable dilemmas policymakers confront at civilizational intersections domestically and internationally. Managing pluralism across ethical worldviews requires delicacy absent simple universalist or relativist formulas. Listen
Conclusion: Towards Global Ethics Between Clash and Dialogue
In an interconnected world, engagement between diverse identities is inherent. This article has surveyed how civilizational conceptions color these encounters theoretically and practically. Interpretations vary from pessimistic visions of immutable civilizational rivalry to optimistic cosmopolitan faith in universal dialogue and community. Reality lies somewhere between.
While Huntingtonian forecasts of deterministic clash now appear overstated, neither are utopian narratives of harmony. Civilizations exhibit plural identities and complex inter-relations that defy singular logic. Their interactions span cooperation, engagement and tensions simultaneously in mutable patterns. Cultural commonalities facilitate bonds across borders, but differences persist.
No ideal civilizational partnership template exists given varied issues and contexts. Policies must pragmatically navigate ethical diversity around interests and values. Opportunities for positive inter-civilizational collaboration exist through moral imagination and skillful communication. But success is not guaranteed absent sustained effort.
At both societal and state levels, strengthening capacities for appreciating contrasting worldviews helps build intersubjective foundations for coexistence. Interpretive charity should supplement competitive nationalism and ideological dogma. Cosmopolitan ethics centered on universal human dignity can guide this process.
Overall, advancing just and sustainable global order requires avoiding stereotypes of alien civilizations. Clash is not inevitable, nor unity assumed. Therein lies the promise and difficulty of true civilizational encounters – navigating difference through ethical solidarity and mutual understanding in a multicultural world.
References
[1] Huntington, S. P. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. Penguin Books India.
[2] Khatami, M., & Steenbrink, K. (2002). Islam, dialogue and civil society. Centre for the Study of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations.
[3] Lewis, B. (1990). The roots of Muslim rage. The Atlantic, 266(3), 47-60.
[4] Katzenstein, P. J. (2010). Civilizations in world politics: plural and pluralist perspectives. Routledge.
[5] Wilkinson, D. (1995). Civilizations, world systems, and hegemony. Journal of World-Systems Research, 1(17), 204-210.
[6] Huntington, S. P. (1993). The clash of civilizations?. Foreign affairs, 22-49.
[7] Halliday, F. (1996). Islam and the myth of confrontation: religion and politics in the Middle East. IB Tauris.
[8] Ajami, F. (1993). The summoning: ‘But they said, we will not hearken’. Foreign Affairs, 72(4), 2-9.
[9] Bull, H. (1977). The anarchical society: a study of order in world politics. Columbia University Press.
[10] Barber, B. R. (1996). Jihad vs. McWorld: How globalism and tribalism are reshaping the world. Ballantine Books.
[11] Shenkman, R. (2011). Just how inevitable is a clash of civilizations?. The Christian Science Monitor.
[12] Said, E. W. (2001). The clash of ignorance. The Nation, 273(12), 11-13.
[13] Tehranian, M. (2004). Civilization: a pathway to peace?. Global society, 18(1), 7-35.
[14] Khatami, M. (2001). Dialogue among civilizations. UN Chronicle.
[15] Dallmayr, F. (2003). Dialogue among civilizations: some exemplary voices. Palgrave Macmillan.
[16] Panikkar, R. (1999). Is the notion of human rights a Western concept?. Diogenes, 47(120), 75-102.
[17] Coman, M. (2007). Cultural anthropology journal. Cultural Anthropology, 5(2).
[18] Murden S. (2009) Culture in world affairs. In: Cooper A.F., Heine J., Thakur R. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy.
[19] Lewis, R. (2006). Misunderstanding the Middle East: What liberals get wrong. Foreign Policy, (144), 48-49.
[20] Katzenstein, P. J. (2010). Civilizations in world politics: plural and pluralist perspectives. Routledge.
[21] Telhami, S. (2002). Kenneth Waltz, Neorealism, and foreign policy. Security Studies, 11(3), 158-170.
[22] Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (Eds.). (2010). Non-Western international relations theory: Perspectives on and beyond Asia (Vol. 106). Taylor & Francis.
[23] Murphy, C. (2001). The civilizational politics of Europe. International Studies Review, 3(3), 23-35.
[24] Halliday, F. (1994). ‘The west and Islam’-five years on. World Affairs, 157(1), 18-22.
[25] Bottici, C., & Challand, B. (2006). Rethinking political myth: The clash of civilizations as a self-fulfilling prophecy. European journal of social theory, 9(3), 315-336.
[26] https://www.unaoc.org/who-we-are/
[27] MacDonald, F. (2008). Towards a Dialogue of Cultures and Civilizations: Arab–Muslim Cultures and the West. International Journal, 174-192.
[28] Asani, A. (2002). So that you may know one another: A Muslim American reflects on pluralism and Islam. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 588(1), 40-51.
[29] Acharya, A. (2017). After liberal hegemony: the advent of a multiplex world order. Ethics & International Affairs, 31(3), 271-285.
[30] Garnett, J. (2001). Strategic perspectives on US–India relations in the Asia-Pacific region. The Pacific Review, 14(2), 189-210.
[31] Fox, J. (2008). A world survey of religion and the state. Cambridge University Press.
[32] Mishra, P. (2017). Age of anger: A history of the present. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
[33] Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics (Vol. 5). McGraw-Hill.
[34] Milliken, J. (1999). The study of discourse in international relations: A critique of research and methods. European journal of international relations, 5(2), 225-254.
[35] Prizel, I. (1998). National identity and foreign policy: nationalism and leadership in Poland, Russia and Ukraine. Cambridge University Press.
[36] Bottici, C., & Challand, B. (2013). Civilization, civilizationism, and civilizational processes. Constellations, 20(4), 553-567.
[37] Lapid, Y. (1996). Culture’s ship: Returns and departures in International Relations theory. The return of culture and identity in IR theory, 3-20.
[38] Adler, E. (1997). Seizing the middle ground: constructivism in world politics. European journal of international relations, 3(3), 319-363.
[39] Said, E. (1978). Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
[40] Varshney, A. (2019). The Modi-led government has failed India’s minorities, and the voters. Foreign Policy.
[41] Roy, O. (2004). Globalized Islam: The search for a new ummah. Columbia University Press.
[42] Huntington, S. P. (2004). Who are we? The challenges to America’s national identity. Simon and Schuster.
[43] Bilgin, P., & Morton, A. D. (2002). Historicising representations of ‘failed states’: beyond the cold-war annexation of the social sciences?. Third world quarterly, 23(1), 55-80.
[44] Waltz, K. N. (2000). Structural realism after the Cold War. International security, 25(1), 5-41.
[45] Katzenstein, P. J., Keohane, R. O., & Krasner, S. D. (1998). International organization and the study of world politics. International organization, 52(4), 645-685.
[46] Weidenbaum, M., & Hughes, S. (1996). The bamboo network: How expatriate Chinese entrepreneurs are creating a new economic superpower in Asia. Simon and Schuster.
[47] Abedifar, P., Molyneux, P., & Tarazi, A. (2013). Risk in Islamic banking. Review of Finance, 17(6), 2035-2096.
[48] Abdelal, R. (2009). The promise and peril of Russia’s resurgent state. Harvard Int’l Rev., 31, 48.
[49] Pieterse, J. N. (2022). Globalization and culture: Global mélange. Rowman & Littlefield.
[50] Dirlik, A. (1997). Critical reflections on “Chinese Capitalism” as paradigm. Identities, 3(3), 303-330.
[51] Ruskola, T. (2013). Legal orientalism. Mich. L. Rev., 101, 179.
[52] Linklater, A. (1998). The transformation of political community: ethical foundations of the post-Westphalian era. University of South Carolina Press.
[53] Anghie, A. (2004). Imperialism, sovereignty and the making of international law (Vol. 37). Cambridge University Press.
[54] Berman, P. S. (2007). Global legal pluralism. S. Cal. L. Rev., 80, 1155.
[55] Gathii, J. T. (2011). TWAIL: A brief history of its origins, its decentralized network, and a tentative bibliography. Trade L. & Dev., 3, 26.
[56] Binder, G. (1999). Cultural relativism and cultural imperialism in human rights law. Buffalo Human Rights Law Review, 5, 211.
[57] Tanaka, H. (2015). The Role of Law in Japanese International Relations. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 16(3), 356–372.
[58] Nye, J. S. (2008). Public diplomacy and soft power. The annals of the American academy of political and social science, 616(1), 94-109.
[59] Eisenstadt, S. N. (2000). Multiple modernities. Daedalus, 129(1), 1-30.
[60] Tomlinson, J. (2018). Cultural imperialism. Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, 1-3.
[61] Pieterse, J. N. (2009). Globalization and culture: Global mélange. Rowman & Littlefield.
[62] Hannerz, U. (1990). Cosmopolitans and locals in world culture. Theory, culture & society, 7(2), 237-251.
[63] Favell, A. (1998). Philosophies of integration: Immigration and the idea of citizenship in France and Britain (Vol. 35). Macmillan Press.
[64] Kuru, A. T. (2009). Secularism and state policies toward religion. Cambridge University Press.
[65] Grillo, R. D. (2007). Betwixt and between: Trajectories and projects of transmigration. Journal of ethnic and migration studies, 33(2), 199-217.
[66] Schechner, S. (2022). How Countries Regulate Speech Online. Council on Foreign Relations.
[67] Joseph, S. (2007). Corporations and transnational human rights litigation. Oxford University Press.
[68] Harris, P. G. (Ed.). (2016). Routledge handbook of global environmental politics. Routledge.
[69] Shiva, V. (1993). Monocultures of the mind: Biodiversity, biotechnology and the Third World. Penang: Third World Network.
[70] Hamilton, L. (2006). Simplicity and complexity in human/nature interaction: Mixed methods approach to environmental values. Journal of Religion & Society, 8.
[71] O’Brien, K., & Sygna, L. (2013). Responding to climate change: The three spheres of transformation. Proceedings of Transformation in a Changing Climate.
[72] Richmond, O. P. (2011). A post-liberal peace. Routledge.
[73] Dodge, T. (2006). Iraq: the contradictions of exogenous state building in historical perspective. Third World Quarterly, 27(1), 187-200.
[74] Donini, A. (2012). Between a rock and a hard place: integration or independence of humanitarian action?. International Review of the Red Cross, 94(888), 141-157.
[75] Gordon, S. (2011). Winning hearts and minds? Examining the relationship between aid and security in Afghanistan’s Helmand province. Feinstein International Center.
[76] Kowitt, S. D., Schmidt, A. M., Hannapel, E., & Mildenberger, M. (2021). Religious exemption policy advocacy during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS One, 16(3), e0246832.
[77] Jaffrelot, C. (2015). The Pakistan paradox: instability and resilience. Oxford University Press.
