Beckmann, N. A.Erpul, Onur2025-02-182025-02-182024-01-242146-7757https://hdl.handle.net/11693/116382Since the numerous calls for developing a truly global and plural IR discipline,a growing spate of IR studies have sought to contextualize and critique theEuro-centeredness of the field. One of the most significant problems scholarshave pointed out is the hegemonic status of Anglo-American IR theories, whichseemingly assert an ontological preeminence and universality at the expense oflocal knowledge and homegrown theories. While the present article shares manyof global IR’s concerns, it nevertheless proposes that in our quest to teach IRand develop homegrown theories, we should not lose sight of the importanceof traditional contributions to the field. Our argument is based on a series ofreflections about the relevance of realist scholarship for the developing world.Through an analysis of the major criticisms of classical IR theories, we seek toshow that classical and, to a lesser extent, structural and neoclassical realismcontain several and diverse arguments that speak directly to audiences inthe global South. Classical realism, in particular, shares some interestingcommonalities with postcolonial theory, which could pave the way for a moresystematic engagement between the two approaches. Therefore, we argue thata global IR founded primarily on critiquing classical theories would be animpoverished IR, and “the thousand small steps” to a globalized discipline oughtnot neglect the valuable insights and reflections of traditional theory.EnglishIR theoryGlobal IRRealismPostcolonialismArticle10.20991/allazimuth.1413433