Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:41:42.581Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The emergence and evolution of International Relations studies in postcolonial South Korea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2021

Jungmin Seo Open the ORCID record for Jungmin Seo [Opens in a new window]  and
Young Chul Cho
Jungmin Seo
Affiliation:
Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea
Young Chul Cho*
Affiliation:
Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju, South Korea
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates how International Relations (IR) as an academic discipline emerged and evolved in South Korea, focusing on the country's peculiar colonial and postcolonial experiences. In the process, it examines why South Korean IR has been so state-centric and positivist (American-centric), while also disclosing the ways in which international history has shaped the current state of IR in South Korea, institutionally and intellectually. It is argued that IR intellectuals in South Korea have largely reflected the political arrangement of their time, rather than demonstrate academic independence or leadership for its government and/or civil society, as they have navigated difficult power structures in world politics. Related to this, it reveals South Korean IR's twisted postcoloniality, which is the absence – or weakness – of non-Western Japanese colonial legacies in its knowledge production/system, while its embracing the West/America as an ideal and better model of modernity for South Korea's security and development. It also reveals that South Korean IR's recent quest for building a Korean School of IR to overcome its Western dependency appears to be in operation within a colonial mentality towards mainstream American IR.

Keywords

International Relations (IR) ScholarshipIR HistoriographySouth KoreaColonialismWestern-Centrism
Type
Special Issue Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 47 , Special Issue 5: The Multiple Origins of IR , December 2021 , pp. 619 - 636
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the British International Studies Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 South Korea is a vibrant democracy with over fifty million people, whose economy ranked tenth in the world in 2020 and whose GDP per capita is over US $30,00. Its cultural power is on the rise, such as K-pop boyband BTS, K-movie Parasite (2019), and K-drama Kingdom (2019) on Netflix. It is also a member of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). It has realised the so-called ‘compressed modernity’. See Chang, Kyung-Sup, ‘Compressed modernity: Constitutive dimensions, manifesting units, and historical conditions’, in Kim, Youna (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Korean Culture and Society (London, UK: Routledge, 2016), pp. 31–47Google Scholar.

2 A rare exception is Eun's recent writings. See Yong-Soo Eun, ‘“Marginalized” IR theory and Korea's international political issue: Revisiting IR and Korea through postcolonialism’ [in Korean], Gukjejeongchinonchong [The Korean Journal of International Studies], 56:3 (2016), pp. 51–88; Yong-Soo Eun, ‘Hybrid coloniality: Questioning South Korean foreign and security policy from postcolonial theory’ [in Korean], Gukjejeongchinonchong, 60:1 (2020), pp. 7–61.

3 Fanon, Frantz, The Wretched of the Earth (New York, NY: Grove Press, 1963), p. 2Google Scholar.

4 Chen, Kuan-Hsing, Asia as Method: Toward Deimperialization (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010), p. 3Google Scholar.

5 Ibid., p. 15.

6 Acharya, Amitav, ‘Global International Relations (IR) and regional worlds: A new agenda for international studies’, International Studies Quarterly, 58:4 (2014), pp. 647–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Acharya, Amitav and Buzan, Barry, The Making of Global International Relations: Origins and Evolution of IR as Its Centenary (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hobson, John M., The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western International Theory, 1760–2010 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Darby, Phillip (ed.), From International Relations to Relations International: Postcolonial Essays (London, UK: Routledge, 2016)Google Scholar; Jones, Branwen Gruffydd (ed.), Decolonizing International Relations (London, UK: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006)Google Scholar; Kavalski, Emilian, ‘The guanxi of relational international affairs’, Chinese Political Science Review, 3 (2018), pp. 233–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ling, L. H. M., The Dao of World Politics: Towards a Post-Westphalian, Worldist International Relations (London, UK: Routledge, 2014)Google Scholar; Nayak, Meghana and Selbin, Erick, Decentering International Relations (London, UK: Zen Books, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shih, Chih-yu and Hwang, Yih-Jye, ‘Re-worlding the “West” in post-Western IR: The reception of Sun Zi's the art of war in the Anglosphere’, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 18:3 (2018), pp. 421–48Google Scholar; Shimizu, Kosuke (ed.), Critical International Theories in East Asia: Relationality, Subjectivity, and Pragmatism (New York, NY: Routledge, 2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tickner, J. Ann, ‘Dealing with difference: Problems and possibilities for dialogue in International Relations’, Millenium, 39:3 (2011), pp. 607–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tickner, Arlene B. and Blaney, David L. (eds), Thinking International Relations Differently (London, UK: Routledge, 2012)Google Scholar.

7 Yih-Je Hwang, ‘The births of international studies in China’, Review of International Relations (forthcoming), pp. 1–21 (p. 3).

8 Kavalski, Emilian and Cho, Young Chul, ‘Worlding the study of normative power: Assessing European and Chinese definitions of the “normal”’, Uluslararasl Ilskiler, 15 (2018), pp. 49–65Google Scholar.

9 Nugent, David, ‘Knowledge and empire: The social sciences and United States imperial expansion’, Identities, 17:1 (2010), pp. 2–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mignolo, Walter, ‘Geopolitics of sensing and knowing: On (de)coloniality, border thinking and epistemic disobedience’, Postcolonial Studies, 14:3 (2011), pp. 273–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Chun, Chaesung, ‘Why is there no non-Western International Relations theory? Reflections on and from Korea’, in Acharya, Amitav and Buzan, Barry (eds), Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and Beyond Asia (New York, NY: Routledge, 2010), pp. 69–91Google Scholar.

11 Jung In Kang and Sangik Lee, ‘Confucian international order: Its ideal and contemporary implication’ [in Korean], Hankukchulhaknonjib [Korean Philosophy Research], 47 (2015), pp. 171–206.

12 Jungmin Seo, ‘Diagnosing Korea-Japan relations through thick description: Revisiting the national identity formation process’, Third World Quarterly (forthcoming).

13 Tanaka, Stefen, Japan's Orient: Rendering Pasts into History (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1995)Google Scholar; Tanaka, Stefen, New Times in Modern Japan (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Harootunian, Harry, Overcome by Modernity: History, Culture, and Community in Interwar Japan (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000)Google Scholar; Shimizu, Kosuke, ‘Materializing the “non-Western”: Two stories of Japanese philosophers on culture and politics in the inter-war period’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 28:1 (2015), pp. 3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Jean Comaroff and John Comaroff, Of Revelation and Revolution, Vol. 1: Christianity, Colonialism, and Consciousness in South Africa (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1991), p. 30.

16 Shin, Giwook, Ethnic Nationalism in Korea: Genealogy, Politics, and Legacy (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2006)Google Scholar; Young Soo Kim, ‘A critical review on the thought and practice of the greater East Asia co-prosperity sphere: Focus on the criticism of Dekeuchi Yoshimi and Maruyama Masao’ [in Korean], Sahoegwahanknonchong [Social Science Research], 17 (2015), pp. 61–87; Samsung Lee, ‘Empire and empire in a colony: The conceptual functions of the term empire in Japan and Korea in the first half of the twentieth century’ [in Korean], Gukjejeongchinonchong [The Korean Journal of International Studies], 52:4 (2012), pp. 7–40; To understand the Japanese empire from the vantage point of its colonies such as Korea and Taiwan, see Myers, Ramon H. and Peattie, Mark R. (eds), The Japanese Colonial Empire, 1895–1945 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Yeon Sik Choi, ‘Changes of tribute system and development of “serving the great” ideology in Choson dynasty’ [in Korean], Hangukjeongchihakhoebo [Korean Political Science Review], 41:1 (2007), pp. 101–21.

18 Eckert, Carter J., Park Chung Hee and Modern Korea: The Roots of Militarism, 1866–1945 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cumings, Bruce, Place in the Sun: A Modern History (New York, NY: W. W. Norton, 2005), pp. 121–2Google Scholar; Schmid, Andre, Korea Between Empires, 1895–1919 (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2002), pp. 103–13Google Scholar.

19 Young, Louise, Japanese Total Empire: Manchuria and the Culture of Wartime Imperialism (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999)Google Scholar; Uchida, Jun, Brokers of Empire: Japanese Settler Colonialism in Korea, 1876–1945 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014)Google Scholar.

20 Lynn, Hyung Gu, ‘Malthusian dreams, colonial imaginary: The Oriental development company and Japanese emigration to Korea’, in Elkins, Caroline and Pedersen, Susan (eds), Settler Colonialism in the Twentieth Century: Projects, Practices, Legacies (New York, NY: Routledge, 2005), p. 31Google Scholar.

21 Ohhyun Kwon, ‘The alteration of history education in the Japanese imperialism period (1938–45)’ [in Korean], Sahoegwagyoyugyeongu [Research in Social Studies Education], 18:1 (2011), pp. 1–13.

22 Dae-seok Yun, ‘A study on the nationalization/colonization movement and time & body administrated by nation-state/imperialism in Chosun during the first half of the 1940s’ [in Korean], Hangukhyeondaemunhakyeongu [Korean Contemporary Literature Research], 13 (2003), pp. 79–100; Japanese imperialization of the subjects was also under way in Taiwan which was a colony of Japan from 1895 to 1945. See Leo T. S. Ching, Becoming Japanese: Colonial Taiwan and the Politics of Identity Formation (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2001).

23 Caprio, Mark E., ‘Janus-faced colonial policy: Making sense of the contradictions in Japanese administrative rhetoric and practice in Korea’, Sungkyun Journal of East Asian Studies, 17:2 (2017), pp. 125–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Uchida, Brokers of Empire.

24 Choi, Jang Jip, ‘Political cleavages in South Korea’, in Koo, Hagen (ed.), State and Society in Contemporary Korea (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993), pp. 13–50Google Scholar.

25 Kyeong-bae Min, Hanguk gidok gyohoesa [History of Korean Christian Churches] (Seoul, South Korea: Yonsei Universtiy Press, 1993), pp. 20–1; Donald N. Clark, ‘Surely God will work out their salvation: Protestant missionaries in the March First movement’, Korean Studies, xiii (1989), pp. 42–75; Chi-jun Roh, Ilje ha Hanguk gidokgyo minjok undong yeongu [A Study on the Nationalist Movements of Korean Christianity under the Japanese Colonial Rule] (Seoul, South Korea: Hanguk gidokgyo yeoksa yeongu, 1993).

26 Jungmin Seo, ‘Colonial and post-colonial legacies of the intellectual history of China studies in Korea: Discontinuity, fragmentation and forgetfulness’, in Chih-Yu Shih, Prapin Manomaivibool, and Mariko Tanigaki (eds), Colonial Legacies and Contemporary Studies of China and Chineseness: Unlearning Binaries, Strategizing Self (Singapore: World Scientific, 2020), p. 153.

27 Oh, Seng-Cheol and Kim, Ki-Seok, ‘Expansion of elementary schooling under colonialism: Top down or bottom up?’, in Lee, Hong Yung, Ha, Yong-Chool, and Sorensen, Clark W. (eds), Colonial Rule and Social Change in Korea, 1910–1945 (Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 2013), pp. 114–39Google Scholar; Song, Seok Won, ‘The Japanese imperial mentality: Cultural imperialism as colonial control – Chosun as exemplar’, Pacific Focus, 33:2 (2018), pp. 308–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Jun Young Jeong, ‘Keijo Imperial University and Colonial Hegemony’ (PhD dissertation, Seoul National University, 2009).

29 You Jung Ki, ‘The political class in a Keijo Imperial University and its implication in a colonial Chosun: Focusing on the thought of Tozawa Tetsuhiko and Okudaira Takehiko’ [in Korean], The Dong Bang Hak Chi, 163 (2013), pp. 211–38.

30 Ibid., p. 212.

31 Michel Foucault, ‘Truth and power’, in Paul Rabinow (ed.), The Foucault Reader (New York, NY: Pantheon Books, 1984), p. 74.

32 Cumings, Korea's Place in the Sun: A Modern History; Oberdorfer, Don, The Two Koreas: A Contemporary History (Indianapolis, IN: Basic Books, 2001)Google Scholar; Kim, Samuel S., The Two Koreas and the Great Powers (New York, NY: Cambridge. 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Jae-Suck Sohn, ‘Recent trends in the research and teaching of international relations in Korea’ [in Korean], HangukJeongchihakhoebo [Korean Political Science Review], 2 (1967), pp. 102–11.

34 Gi-Seok Shin, Geundae Oegyosa [Modern Diplomatic History] (Seoul, South Korea: Munseongdang, 1953).

35 You Jung Ki, ‘The politics of a modern Korean and the logic of an academic transition: The focusing of the transition of an instruction to politics and the analysis of its discourses in the 1950–1960s’ [in Korean], Jeongchisasangyeongu [The Korean Review of Political Thought], 20:1 (2014), pp. 9–36 (p. 15).

36 Hyung Kook Kim, ‘Research of international politics in Korea: retrospect and prospects’ [in Korean], Gukjejeongchinonchong [The Korean Journal of International Studies], 46:5 (2007), pp. 7–35 (p. 12).

37 KAIS (Korean Association of International Studies), 50 Years History: 1956–2006 [in Korean] (Seoul, South Korea: Korean Association of International Studies, 2006), p. 76.

38 Cho, Hyowon, International Politics [in Korean] (Seoul, South Korea: Munjongsa, 1954)Google Scholar.

39 Yonghui Lee, Principles of International Politics [in Korean] (Seoul, South Korea: Jangwangsa, 1955); also see Lee, Yonghui, General International Politics (Seoul, South Korea: Parkyoungsa, 1962)Google Scholar.

40 Cho, International Politics.

41 Ibid.; Chang-joon Ok, ‘Lee Yong-hee as “bricoleur”: The birth of “international politics” in 1950s Korea’ [in Korean], SAI, 22 (2017), pp. 89–131 (p. 118).

42 Lee, Principles of International Politics.

43 Sangseop Park, ‘Studies on international politics in Korea and introduction of foreign theories’ [in Korean], Gukjejeongchinonchong [The Korean Journal of International Studies], 28:1 (1988), pp. 22–33 (p. 27).

44 Shin, Modern Diplomatic History; Sang-un Gang, Geundae Oegyosa [Modern Diplomatic History] (Seoul, South Korea: Minjungseogwan, 1954).

45 Wonwoo Lee, Introduction to the United Nation [in Korean] (Seoul, South Korea: Shinchang, 1953).

46 Wi-Young Yoon, Introduction to International Organization [in Korean] (Seoul, South Korea: Yangmunsa, 1955).

47 Yonggu Kim, ‘History of study of international politics’ [in Korean], in Korean Political Association (ed.), The Fifty Year's History of Korean Political Science Association (Seoul, South Korea: Korean Political Science Association, 2003), p. 290.

48 Jungmin Seo and Hwanbi Lee, ‘Indigenization of International Relation theories in Korea and China: Tails of two essentialisms’, in Shimizu (ed.), Critical International Relations Theories in East Asia, p. 52.

49 Kim, ‘History of study of international politics’.

50 Sangwoo Lee, ‘For the establishment of Korean International Relation theories: Directions for development and confirming the tasks’ [in Korean], HangukJeongchihakhoebo [Korean Political Science Review], 12 (1978), pp. 137–48 (p. 139).

51 Jong Gook Baek, ‘The dilemmas of indigenization of imported scholarship and their solution’, HangukJeongchihakhoebo [Korean Political Science Review], 50:1 (2016), pp. 5–21 (p. 7).

52 Kim, Hyung Kook and Cho, Yun Young, ‘International Relations studies in Korea: Retrospects and prospects’, Pacific Focus, 24:3 (2009), pp. 402–21Google Scholar.

53 Shih, Chih-yu, Hon, Tze-ki, and Chan, Hok Yin, ‘Introduction: The Cold War and decolonization in East Asia’, Asian Perspective, 44 (2020), pp. 171–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 In the mid- and late twentieth century, country (nara), state (gukga), and nation (minjok) were used interchangeably in South Korea, due to the unquestioned belief of Korean homogeneity.

55 Lee, Principles of International Politics, p. 4.

56 Chen, Asia as Method: Toward Deimperialization, p. 8; Interestingly, like the case of South Korean IR, Taiwanese mainstream IR, whose country was a non-Western Japanese colony, has been Western/American-centric, too. See Shih, Chih-yu, ‘China rise syndromes? Drafting national schools of International Relations in Asia’, Intercultural Communication Studies, XXII (2013), pp. 9–25; Hwang, ‘The births of international studies in China’.

57 Sungin Bae, ‘The commercialization of universities and the privatization of scholarship and knowledge’ [in Korean], Hwanghaemunhwa [Hwanhae Literature], March (2017), pp. 29–49; Chae-Hong Lim, ‘Neo-liberalistic higher education policy and the public education’ [in Korean], Minjubeobhak [Democratic Legal Studies], 24 (2003), pp. 171–206.

58 Myungkoo Kang, ‘How do we evaluate faculty performances: Knowledge production and university ranking’ [in Korean], Communication Iron [Communication Theory], 10 (2014), pp. 127–68.

59 Seo and Lee, ‘Indigenization of IR theories in Korea and China’, p. 52.

60 Kang, Jung In, Western-Centrism and Contemporary Korean Political Thought (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2015)Google Scholar; Young Chul Cho, ‘Western-centrism and “doing research” in South Korea’ [in Korean], Munhwawa Jeongchi [Culture and Politics], 7 (2020), pp. 213–38.

61 Seo and Lee, ‘Indigenization of IR theories in Korea and China’, pp. 52–3.

62 Jongyoung Kim, A Ruler under the Hegemonic Ruler: Study in America and the Birth of South Korean Elites [in Korean] (Paju, South Korea: Dolbege, 2015).

63 Seo and Lee, ‘Indigenization of IR theories in Korea and China’, p. 52.

64 Ibid.

65 Kang, Jung In, ‘Academic dependency: Western-centrism in Korean political science’, Korea Journal, 46:4 (2006), pp. 115–35 (pp. 120–6)Google Scholar.

66 Chaesung Chun and Jun Young Park, ‘Reflections on international relations theories in Korea: In search of alternatives’ [in Korean], Gukjejeongchinonchong [The Korean Journal of International Studies], 42:4 (2002), pp. 7–26; Young-sun Ha and Yong-ho Kim, ‘Korean diplomatic history and International Relations studies: The correct establishment of Korean International Relations studies’ [in Korean], in Young-sun Ha, Young-ho Kim, and Myongsob Kim (eds), Korean Diplomatic History and International Relations Studies (Seoul, South Korea: Sungshin Women's University Press, 2005), pp. 9–24; Kim and Cho, ‘International Relations studies in Korea: Retrospects and prospects’; Yong-Jae Lee and Chul-Soon Lee, ‘A bibliographical study on the decolonization discourse in the political science of Korea’ [in Korean], Hangungmunheonjeongbohakoeji [Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society], 37:1 (2006), pp. 83–107; Chul-Koo Woo, ‘The quest for Korean identity of International Relations studies’ [in Korean], in Chul-Koo Woo and Kun Young Park (eds), Contemporary International Relations Theory and Korea (Seoul, South Korea: Saheopyongron, 2004), pp. 9–18; Chun Hee Yang, ‘International Relations as an American social science and academic freedom: A need for an expansion of research programmes and the discussion of taboo subjects in international relations’ [in Korean], Ataeyeongu [Journal of Asia–Pacific Studies], 17:2 (2010), pp. 127–48.

67 Chen, Ching-Chang and Cho, Young Chul, ‘Theory’, in Mhurchu, Aoileann Ni and Shindo, Reiko (eds), Critical Imaginations in International Relations (London, UK: Routledge, 2016), pp. 245–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Qin, Yaqing, ‘Why is there no Chinese International Relations theory?’, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 7 (2007), pp. 313–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Inoguchi, Takashi, ‘Are there any theories of International Relations in Japan?’, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 7 (2007), pp. 369–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

68 Cho, Young Chul, ‘Colonialism and imperialism in the quest for a universalist Korean-style International Relations theory’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 28:4 (2015), pp. 680–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 Jong Kun Choi, ‘Theorizing East Asian international relations in Korea’, Asian Perspective, 32:1 (2008), pp. 193–216; Kim and Cho, ‘International relations studies in Korea’; YoungMyung Kim, From Discourse to Action: In Search of Political Science with Korean Identity [in Korean] (Gyunggido, South Korea: Hankukhaksuljungbo, 2010).

70 Cho, International Politics, p. 1.

71 Lee, Principles of International Politics.

72 Quoted in Ok, ‘Lee Yong-hee as “bricoleur”’, p. 117.

73 Choi, ‘Theorizing East Asian International Relations’, p. 205.

74 Chaesung Chun, ‘Future tasks for developing the field of international relations in South Korea’ [in Korean], Gukjejeongchinonchong [The Korean Journal of International Studies], 46:S (2007), pp. 227–49 (p. 235); Kim, From Discourse to Action, pp. 10, 121–3.

75 Seo and Lee, ‘Indigenization of IR theories in Korea and China’, p. 56.

76 Cho, ‘Colonialism and imperialism’.

77 Byoung Won Min, ‘International Relations theories and Korea: A critical review and some suggestions’ [in Korean], Gukjejeongchinonchong [The Korean Journal of International Studies], 46:S (2007), pp. 37–66; Min, Byoung Won, ‘Not so universal? The search for indigenous International Relations theories in South Korea’, The Korean Journal of International Studies, 14:3 (2016), pp. 461–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

78 Smith, Steve, ‘The United States and the discipline of International Relations: “Hegemonic country, hegemonic discipline”’, International Studies Review, 4:2 (2002), pp. 67–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Smith, Steve, ‘Singing our world into existence: International Relations theory and September 11’, International Studies Quarterly, 48:3 (2004), pp. 499–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

79 Cho, Young Chul, ‘Conventional and critical constructivist approaches to national security: An analytical survey’, The Korean Journal of International Studies, 7:1 (2009), pp. 75–102Google Scholar; Cho, Young Chul, ‘State identity formation in constructivist security studies: A suggestive essay’, Japanese Journal of Political Science, 13 (2012), pp. 299–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

80 Min, ‘International Relations theories and Korea’, pp. 43, 50; Min, ‘Not so universal?’.

81 Woosang Kim, Korea's Security Strategy in East Asia [in Korean] (Seoul, South Korea: Nanam, 2007), p. 285.

82 Choi, ‘Theorizing East Asian International Relations’, p. 215.

83 Bois, W. E. B. Du, The Souls of Black Folk (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 8Google Scholar.

84 Fanon, Frantz, Black Skin White Masks (London, UK: Pluto Press, 2008)Google Scholar.

85 Hobson, Eurocentric Conception of World Politics.

86 Jung, Hwa Yol, ‘Transversality and what “Global Asia” means in an age of hyphens and hybrids’, Global Asia, 5:4 (2010), pp. 88–97 (p. 96)Google Scholar.

87 Choi, ‘Theorizing East Asian International Relations, p. 193.

88 Shih, Chih-yu, Civilization, Nation and Modernity in East Asia (New York, NY: Routledge, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

89 Cho, ‘Colonialism and imperialism’.

90 Ibid.

91 Kim and Cho, ‘International Relations studies in Korea’, pp. 419–20.

92 Seongmin Hong, ‘Knowledge and international politics: Democratization of Korea and task of scholarship’ [in Korean], in Seongmin Hong (ed.), Knowledge and International Politics: Political Power Permeated in Scholarship (Paju, South Korea: Hanul, 2008), pp. 19–59 (p. 51).

93 Cho, ‘Colonialism and imperialism’, p. 692.

94 Cho, ‘Colonialism and imperialism’.

95 This is informed by the leading postwar Japanese intellectual Takeuchi Yoshimi's of the master–slave dynamic, which was derived from the great Chinese writer Lu Xun. See Calichman, Richard F. (ed.), What Is Modernity? Writings of Takeuchi Yoshimi (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2005)Google Scholar.

96 Cho, ‘Colonialism and imperialism’, p. 693.

97 Ibid., p. 680.

98 Mignolo, Walter D. and Escobar, Arturo (eds), Globalization and the Decolonial Option (Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

99 Eun, Yong-Soo, ‘An intellectual confession from a member of the “non-white” IR community: A friendly reply to David Lake's “white man's IR”’, PS: Political Science & Politics, 52 (2019), pp. 78–84 (p. 82)Google Scholar.

100 Chen, Asia as Method, p. 3.