Eurocentrism and epistemic governance in the genealogy of international relations in Taiwan

Why does Taiwan remain marginal to International Relations (IR) theory despite its geopolitical salience? This article answers that question through a genealogical analysis of IR’s formation in Taiwan. It argues that IR in Taiwan emerged not as an autonomous discipline, but as an apparatus of epistemic governance shaped by colonial rule, Cold War authoritarianism, and post-authoritarian academic restructuring. Across these three conjunctures, the field sought legitimacy through externally authorised standards, from imperial models of legal–political knowledge to US-centred security frameworks and Anglo-American publication metrics. Taiwan’s IR, however, was not simply derivative. Its development also involved strategic appropriation, translation, and adaptation under unequal epistemic conditions. The article, therefore, reframes Taiwan not merely as an empirical case for existing theory but as a site from which the global hierarchies of disciplinary knowledge can be interrogated. In doing so, it contributes to debates on decolonising IR by showing how epistemic marginality is historically produced and institutionally reproduced, even where intellectual agency persists.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Political Studies Review
Published
2026-05-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299261452540
Primary Topic
International Relations and Foreign Policy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Eurocentrism and epistemic governance in the genealogy of international relations in Taiwan

Yih-Jye Hwang
Political Studies Review
International Relations and Foreign Policy
article

Eurocentrism and epistemic governance in the genealogy of international relations in Taiwan

Yih-Jye Hwang
article en

Abstract

Why does Taiwan remain marginal to International Relations (IR) theory despite its geopolitical salience? This article answers that question through a genealogical analysis of IR’s formation in Taiwan. It argues that IR in Taiwan emerged not as an autonomous discipline, but as an apparatus of epistemic governance shaped by colonial rule, Cold War authoritarianism, and post-authoritarian academic restructuring. Across these three conjunctures, the field sought legitimacy through externally authorised standards, from imperial models of legal–political knowledge to US-centred security frameworks and Anglo-American publication metrics. Taiwan’s IR, however, was not simply derivative. Its development also involved strategic appropriation, translation, and adaptation under unequal epistemic conditions. The article, therefore, reframes Taiwan not merely as an empirical case for existing theory but as a site from which the global hierarchies of disciplinary knowledge can be interrogated. In doing so, it contributes to debates on decolonising IR by showing how epistemic marginality is historically produced and institutionally reproduced, even where intellectual agency persists.

Political Studies Review
Leiden University (NL), University of Applied Sciences Leiden (NL)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
International Relations and Foreign Policy
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.