How (not) to advance Global IR: a rejoinder

Abstract

In this rejoinder, we engage with the recent International Theory symposium on Global IR, situating it within the broader literature and outlining intellectual pathways for advancing Global IR's agenda. We explore how the main critiques identified by the symposium - namely, essentialism, geo-epistemologies, disciplinary reformism, and ahistoricism - have been and can be further addressed through recent developments in Global IR. This rejoinder is not an attempt to prioritise one version of Global IR over another; rather, it emphasises that Global IR comes in multiple versions, and these versions should continue to be a collective work in progress. Our engagement with the evolving debates in Global IR seeks to fulfil the promise of a more global and diverse discipline.