Again, no one denies that existing IRT is too narrow – that is, that is leaves
out non-Western voices and the distinctive features of non-Western relationships.
But there is a sense that existing IRT can address this distinctiveness (which can
be overstated in an era of globalization). Thus, G. John Ikenberry and Michael
Mastanduno argue that while international dynamics in Asia might have had some
distinctive features historically, this distinctiveness had been diluted by the progressive
integration of the region into the modern international system. The international
relations of Asia has acquired the behavioral norms and attributes associated
with the modern inter-state system which originated from Europe and still retains
much of the features of the Westphalian model. Hence, the core concepts of IRT
such as hegemony, the distribution of power, international institutions, and political
identity, are as relevant in the Asian context as anywhere else.4
Unlike Ikenberry and Mastanduno, Jack Snyder accepts China’s claim to a distinctive
strategic culture. But in offering some sensible points of caution (to be
discussed later) against the development of a “distinctively Chinese approach to
international relations theory,” Snyder argues that China’s undeniably distinctive
situation does not have to be analyzed by the use of a distinctive theory.” Instead,
this distinctiveness can be the basis for “gaining deeper insight into more general