ABSTRACT
This chapter looks at state-centrism in three major Western international relations (IR) theories, namely realism, liberalism and constructivism, while summarising each theory's key tenets. It takes issue with mainstream, problem-solving theories' state-centrism in light of critical IR theory. Going beyond Western-originated theory, the chapter investigates the extent to which recent attempts by scholars in China and Japan to develop a distinctive Chinoiserie' or Japonaiserie' theory are driven by their respective national identity needs, which may end up with reinforcing the familiar state-centric trope. It also focuses on the possibility of building alternative IR theory by re-examining the aforementioned home-grown concepts in East Asia. The pitfalls in the recent development of non-Western IR theory in East Asia as discussed above indicate the enormous difficulty of alternative theorising. Critical IR theory takes the view that the state cannot exist of its own accord, for it has no ontological underpinning aside from the many practices of self /other that bring it into being.
