ABSTRACT
Balance of relationships (BoR) makes up a universal system, even though not all states explicitly or consciously adopt relational sensibilities. We show how BoR is an intellectually accessible resource to all states, insofar as proper drivers are present to generate a shift in their ontological imagination. We enlist the Kyoto School of Philosophy and its concept of nothingness to show how BoR, together with the postcolonial and nothingness schools, integrates an aversion to the practice and theorization of IR, as embedded in a rule-based order. Moreover, a rising power that lacks a fixed conception of world order and a declining hegemonic power lacking the ability to enforce it are inclined to implement bilateralism. With shifts among ontologies discursively possible, a cyclical perspective on history becomes a plausible substitute for a teleological view. The Kyoto School is particularly sensitive to the re-emergence of long-silenced perspectives. We argue that those perspectives offering ready critical views on hegemonic powers are more easily called into service. We use the performance of China, Japan and Taiwan on the East China Sea territorial dispute as three representative examples to show the three philosophical approaches to IR.
