Abstract

This paper offers an alternative theoretical outlook informed by empirical findings. It suggests the need for a ‘Grand Theory’ in response to critiques as to whether the International Relations discipline is able to explain the contemporary global order. Existing theories and their strands, along with critical meta-theories, might have proved valuable as tools for approaching specific phenomena. Yet, the main schools of thought appear neither to give adequate coverage –empirically or theoretically –of the state-non-state interactions, nor between non-state entities. The merging of the internal and the external, the intensification of globalization, and the diffusion of power to multiple actors have made it clear that I.R. theory no longer concerns only interstate relations. The study suggests that I.R. needs to go beyond the existing paradigms that are either agent- or structure-oriented and find its remedy first in the identification of the ontology as the basis on which a holistic approach could be developed. While the international relations system remains traditionally state-centric, this work argues that non-state actors also contribute to its shaping and can stand as powers in their own right. Therefore, the paper builds on comparative studies, with a focus on the Kurdish case as a useful multidimensional exemplar.