Dr. Muhammad Akram Zaheer
The international relations in Latin America has historically been influenced by both global and regional theoretical currents. Historically, Latin America’s IR community developed in the shadow of dominant U.S. and European theories, often serving as consumers rather than producers of knowledge. However, this imbalance has gradually shifted as Latin American scholars have begun to assert their own theoretical contributions grounded in their unique historical, cultural, and geopolitical contexts. These contributions are not simply derivative of Western theories but offer original insights based on the continent’s colonial past, developmental challenges, and socio-political dynamics.
A major theme in the document is the critique of the Eurocentric nature of mainstream IR theory. Latin American scholars argue that traditional IR, with its emphasis on state-centric realism and liberalism, often fails to capture the complexities of Latin American experiences. For instance, issues such as dependency, imperialism, and the role of non-state actors are inadequately addressed by conventional theories. Consequently, scholars from the region advocate for theories that are more attuned to their realities, such as Dependency Theory, which emerged in the 1960s and 1970s as a response to modernization theory.
Dependency theorists, like Raúl Prebisch and Fernando Henrique Cardoso, argued that the structural imbalances of the global economy perpetuate underdevelopment in peripheral countries, including those in Latin America. Furthermore, Latin American IR scholars emphasize the importance of historical structuralism, which builds on Marxist and post-Marxist traditions to analyze the international system. This approach highlights how historical and material conditions shape international relations, particularly in post-colonial societies. The text points out that such frameworks allow for a better understanding of how colonial legacies, economic exploitation, and social hierarchies continue to influence contemporary global interactions.
These perspectives challenge the notion of a universal IR theory and instead promote the idea of “pluriversal” knowledge, where multiple epistemologies coexist and inform global understanding. Another significant contribution from Latin America is the development of postcolonial and decolonial approaches to IR. These approaches question the foundational assumptions of Western IR theories and call for the decolonization of knowledge. Scholars such as Walter Mignolo and Aníbal Quijano have argued that the global order is deeply rooted in coloniality a structure of power that continues to privilege Western ways of knowing and being. Decolonial IR therefore seeks to dismantle these hierarchies and elevate subaltern voices and perspectives.
This epistemic shift is not merely academic but also political, as it seeks to transform the way international relations are studied and practiced. The document also explores the methodological implications of adopting Latin American perspectives in IR. It critiques the positivist bias in mainstream IR and promotes more interpretive, reflexive, and critical methodologies. These methods emphasize context, meaning, and the agency of local actors, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of international phenomena. Ethnography, discourse analysis, and historical sociology are some of the tools recommended by Latin American scholars to better capture the complexity of international relations in the region. Institutional development is another area addressed in the text. While the academic infrastructure for IR in Latin America has historically been underdeveloped, there has been a recent surge in scholarly output and institutional support. Regional organizations, academic networks, and journals have played a crucial role in fostering indigenous IR research. Nevertheless, challenges persist, including limited funding, language barriers, and the continued dominance of English-language scholarship. Despite these obstacles, Latin American scholars have made significant strides in building a vibrant and autonomous IR community.
The document also examines the impact of regional integration processes on IR theory in Latin America. Initiatives such as MERCOSUR, UNASUR, and CELAC provide fertile ground for theoretical innovation by offering alternative models of regionalism that contrast with European integration. These models emphasize sovereignty, solidarity, and social inclusion, reflecting the region’s historical experiences and normative preferences. By studying these processes, Latin American scholars contribute to the global debate on regionalism and challenge the applicability of European models to other contexts. A recurring argument in the document is the need for dialogue and engagement between Latin American and other non-Western IR traditions. The rise of Global IR as a movement aligns with this vision by promoting a more inclusive discipline that values diverse perspectives.
Latin American scholars have been active participants in this movement, advocating for theoretical and methodological pluralism. This approach does not reject existing IR theories outright but seeks to complement and enrich them with alternative viewpoints. Such a stance fosters intellectual humility and openness, essential qualities for a truly global discipline. The document further highlights the pedagogical implications of incorporating Latin American perspectives into IR curricula. It argues that students should be exposed to a broader range of theories and case studies that reflect the diversity of global experiences.
This pedagogical shift can help deconstruct the implicit hierarchies in knowledge production and empower students from the Global South to see themselves as active contributors to the field. Decolonizing the curriculum is thus both an academic and political act, aimed at creating a more equitable and representative IR discipline. Lastly, the document concludes with a call to action for scholars, institutions, and policymakers. It urges greater investment in research and education in the Global South, stronger networks of collaboration among scholars from different regions, and the creation of platforms for disseminating non-Western scholarship.
It also calls for a reevaluation of the metrics used to assess academic excellence, advocating for criteria that recognize the value of local knowledge and impact. By taking these steps, the discipline of IR can move towards a more just and inclusive future.
