Scholars building a bridge of books connecting Europe with the rest of the world.

Global Affairs: Why Europe's Role in International Relations is Overlooked

Beau Callahan in Global Affairs August 2025 • 4 min read.

"Is Eurocentrism blinding us to the valuable contributions of European scholars?"

In the ever-evolving sphere of International Relations (IR), scholars have long emphasized the dynamics that shape global discipline diversity. However, this emphasis has predominantly focused on the dichotomy between ‘American’ and ‘non-Western’ IR, often sidelining the unique voices, perspectives, and practices of scholars within Europe. This oversight raises critical questions about the identity dynamics at play and the subtle marginalization of European cases in broader discussions about global diversity and hegemony.

This article delves into the heart of this matter, questioning why European contributions are often overlooked in the global IR discourse. By employing anthropological and sociological tools, it seeks to unravel the postcolonial and eurocentric narratives that contribute to this situation. It proposes that assuming a balanced ethnocentric stance is vital for fostering a relational model that truly promotes pluralism, advocating for a more inclusive and representative global dialogue.

The discussion begins with the premise that works focusing on Europe are often marginalized in conversations about the diversity and circulation of knowledge in International Relations. While American parochialism and eurocentrism are frequently cited as hindrances to a genuinely global IR, the concrete manifestations of contemporary eurocentrism among European scholars remain largely unexplored. This article bridges this gap, calling for a re-evaluation of Europe's role in international scholarship.

Why Are European Perspectives Often Overlooked?

Scholars building a bridge of books connecting Europe with the rest of the world.

Despite the significant number of scholars contributing to IR in Europe and the region’s potential for institutionalizing IR at a regional level, studies specifically focusing on ‘IR in Europe’ are scarce compared to other geographical areas. This marginalization doesn’t imply a lack of cognitive or identity cohesion among European scholars; rather, ‘IR in Europe’ is often used as an implied framework for comparing different national IR situations within the continent.

The notion of distinct European schools of thought, such as the Copenhagen School or the English School, further illustrates this tendency. Certain groups of European countries (e.g., Nordic countries or Western Europe) are sometimes considered to share a regional dynamic, reinforcing the idea of a cohesive ‘IR in Europe.’ However, the continuing debate about the cohesiveness of European IR scholars highlights the complexities and nuances within this category.

Historical Context: Europe's colonial past and historical dominance may create a perception that European perspectives are inherently biased or hegemonic.
Focus on US and 'Non-Western' IR: The academic discourse tends to prioritize the US and 'non-Western' perspectives, leaving less space for European voices.
Internal Divisions: Fragmentation and lack of cohesion among European IR scholars may undermine the perception of a unified European perspective.

The implicit presence of Europe is evident in literature addressing diversity and hegemony in IR, often through the distinction between ‘Western’ and ‘non-Western’ IR. By highlighting the lack of visibility of ‘non-Western’ IR and promoting its alternatives, ‘IR in Europe’ (as a sub-unit of ‘the West’) is implicitly cast as an entity to be resisted. This fluidity between ‘Europe’ and ‘the West’ illustrates the complex dynamics at play in the global IR discourse.

Transforming the Narrative: Embracing Ethnocentrism

Ultimately, the key to unlocking Europe's potential contribution to global IR diversity lies in transforming the narrative. This requires moving beyond the mindset of resistance against American IR and feelings of guilt about Europe's historical colonial dominance. By fostering a space of confident creation, European IR scholars can join their American counterparts in denaturalizing their perspectives and promoting a more balanced and inclusive global dialogue.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

This article is based on research published under:

DOI-LINK: 10.3224/eris.v4i1.01, Alternate LINK

Title: Eurocentrism, Ethnocentrism, And Misery Of Position: International Relations In Europe – A Problematic Oversight

Subject: Automotive Engineering

Journal: European Review of International Studies

Publisher: Brill

Authors: Audrey Alejandro

Published: 2017-12-17

Everything You Need To Know

Why are European perspectives often marginalized in International Relations (IR) studies?

The marginalization of European perspectives in International Relations studies stems from a combination of factors. The text highlights that works focusing specifically on 'IR in Europe' are less prevalent compared to those focused on the US or 'non-Western' perspectives. This is despite a significant number of European scholars contributing to the field and the potential for institutionalizing IR at a regional level within Europe. Historical context plays a role, with Europe's colonial past leading to perceptions of bias. The academic discourse's focus on the US and 'non-Western' IR further sidelines European voices. Internal divisions and a lack of cohesion among European IR scholars also contribute to this issue, undermining the perception of a unified European perspective.

How does the article propose to transform the narrative surrounding Europe's role in global IR?

The article suggests that the key to unlocking Europe's potential lies in transforming the narrative. This involves moving beyond a mindset of resistance against American IR and overcoming feelings of guilt related to Europe's historical colonial dominance. The text proposes that by fostering a space of confident creation, European IR scholars can join their American counterparts in denaturalizing their perspectives and promoting a more balanced and inclusive global dialogue. The article promotes the use of anthropological and sociological tools to unravel postcolonial and eurocentric narratives that contribute to the marginalization of European perspectives. It advocates for a more balanced ethnocentric stance to foster a relational model that truly promotes pluralism in the global IR discourse.

What is the significance of the distinction between 'Western' and 'non-Western' IR in the context of European contributions?

The distinction between 'Western' and 'non-Western' IR often implicitly positions 'IR in Europe' as a sub-unit of 'the West.' This framing can lead to the marginalization of European perspectives. The article suggests that by highlighting the lack of visibility of 'non-Western' IR and promoting its alternatives, 'IR in Europe' is sometimes implicitly cast as an entity to be resisted. This fluidity between 'Europe' and 'the West' underscores the complex dynamics at play in the global IR discourse. The article calls for re-evaluating Europe's role, moving away from the idea of 'the West' as a monolithic entity, and acknowledging the diversity within Europe itself to foster a more inclusive global dialogue.

How do distinct European schools of thought, like the Copenhagen School or the English School, relate to the discussion of European perspectives in IR?

The existence of distinct European schools of thought, such as the Copenhagen School and the English School, further illustrates the complexities and nuances within 'IR in Europe.' These schools represent different approaches to understanding international relations, often sharing a regional dynamic among certain groups of European countries (e.g., Nordic countries or Western Europe). However, the continuing debate about the cohesiveness of European IR scholars highlights the challenges in defining a unified European perspective. While these schools contribute valuable insights, they are often viewed within the broader context of 'the West,' sometimes leading to their perspectives being overlooked or marginalized compared to other geographical areas. Acknowledging the internal diversity within Europe is crucial to accurately representing and valuing its contributions to global IR discourse.

What is the role of Eurocentrism and ethnocentrism in the context of the article's arguments?

The article uses the concepts of Eurocentrism and ethnocentrism to explore the marginalization of European perspectives in International Relations. The text suggests that Eurocentrism, as well as American parochialism, can hinder a truly global IR. To move forward, the article calls for embracing a balanced ethnocentric stance. This means acknowledging and understanding one's own cultural perspective, while also being open to and valuing other perspectives. The goal is to create a relational model that promotes pluralism. The article suggests moving beyond both Eurocentrism and resistance to American IR to foster a more balanced and inclusive global dialogue, where all perspectives, including those from Europe, are recognized and valued.