Conference Agenda

The history of European integration requires a broader perspective that includes international organizations beyond the immediate predecessors of the European Union and ‘core Europe.’ This paper therefore examines early proposals for European unification developed by a commission within the League of Nations and the Pan-European Union during the interwar period. These proposals emerged in a geopolitical context deeply shaped by imperialist worldviews, raising questions about the role of colonial ideologies in fostering European unity. While some argue that shared imperial challenges and colonial ideologies provided common ground among European powers, others go even further by claiming that this was the main catalyst for European unification. However, such claims remain highly contestable. I argue that even within the Pan-European movement, national imperial ideologies coexisted, and were often more crucial for the propagaters of European integration. By applying the concept of "personae" to key advocates of European unity, this paper demonstrates that Europeanist rhetoric often served national agendas, with international platforms merely providing a stage for ideas palatable to their audiences. Through a case study of Dutch Prime Minister Hendrikus Colijn—an interwar statesman with colonial experience and internationalist engagements—this paper shows that notions of imperial exceptionalism persisted even among proponents of pan-Europeanism and European co-imperialism. While imperialism and whiteness played a role in justifying colonial rule within a European framework, national imperial attachments ultimately complicate interpretations of European unity as an outgrowth of imperialism or racial worldviews.

The contemporary global polycrisis—manifesting as climate change, economic inequality, migration crises, and the rise of populist movements—reveals the fragility of the liberal international order and the persistence of structural hierarchies rooted in imperialism. This paper argues that British imperialism, as a foundational force in shaping the modern international system, continues to underpin these interconnected crises through entrenched systems of exploitation and inequality. Yet, the discipline of International Relations (IR) has largely failed to critically engage with these imperial legacies, often naturalising the hierarchies it seeks to study.

This paper advocates for the establishment of a Truth-Telling Commission on British Imperialism as a vital intervention in both IR and global governance. Drawing on comparative lessons from truth-telling mechanisms in Australia and Canada, it examines how such a commission could address the structural injustices embedded in global hierarchies, challenge the power dynamics perpetuating inequality, and provide a foundation for systemic reform. Truth-telling is conceptualised not only as a process of uncovering historical facts but as a transformative tool to connect past exploitation with present inequities and to reimagine governance structures. Employing a historical-materialist methodology, the paper traces the enduring impact of British imperialism on global trade, labour systems, and resource extraction. It integrates insights from critical IR, postcolonial studies, and transitional justice to develop a framework for addressing the systemic injustices that fuel the polycrisis. By foregrounding the role of historical accountability, the paper bridges a significant gap in IR, challenging the discipline’s methodological nationalism and its neglect of empire’s foundational role in global hierarchies. This paper makes two key contributions: it incorporates truth-telling into IR's analyses of power and hierarchy, and offers a practical framework for implementing a Truth-Telling Commission on British Imperialism. The findings highlight the transformative potential of truth-telling for rethinking international governance and addressing the structural inequities that perpetuate global crises.

The enterprise of international law, in both its classical and modern forms were, in essence, an enterprise to expand and entrench the hegemonical narrative. One cannot divorce the conceptualisation and understanding of the authoritative institution from its colonial history. Insofar as the present available literature has provided conceptualisations on how the European colonial powers have structured global governance, this dissertation attempts to be an aperture through which the hermeneutics of the traditions of the Eurologocentrism – that is, the logic of Western European thought, which includes a Greco-Roman and the JudeoChristian tradition – and international law intersect. In this dissertation, I problematise the conceptual framework of modern international law in examining the normative vocabularies which gives structure to the law of nations. A major contention of this dissertation is that prior examinations have obscured important, if not necessary, factors which are relevant to producing alternative approaches to the discipline. In neglecting the historiographies and genealogy of thought, one inadvertently succumbs to the essentialist representations of Western Europe and the Orient. By employing a deconstructive hermeneutical genealogy approach, I provincialize the colonial historiography to invert the continuous narratives and demonstrate the diverse conditions in which imperial settings had operated and continues to persist. Given the historical context, a fundamental element to be found in Eurologocentrism is a Judeo-Christian tradition. In my attempt at reconciling the body of international law with the Sinosphere, I will elucidate many parallels between ancient China and early modern Europe. Hence, contrary to mainstream scholarly perspectives, I contend that a reconciliation with the Sinosphere is feasible. I conclude with policy recommendations to generalise the international legal body to even wider applicability.

How can we comprehend and make sense of the epistemic space and ‘grey zone’ between the traditional understandings of the ‘Global North’ and ‘Global South’ through relational approaches? Various concepts have emerged in the last years to frame post-soviet lived experiences – Eurasia, Global East, Central- and Eastern Europe, Transperipheral –, but so far none of them seem to be widely accepted. Why is it so particularly difficult/challenging to address this epistemic 'grey space'? How can we explore and understand the spaces opened by the sudden rupture caused by the fall of the Soviet world? This chapter examines the challenges of addressing the legacy left by the disintegration of the former Second World through a relational approach to imperiality within postcolonial and decolonial contexts. It explores the temporal, spatial, and epistemic dimensions of understanding the former ‘Second World’, focusing on the potential links between (post)socialist, (post)communist, and (post)colonial perspectives. By situating these approaches within the concepts of global easts and imperiality, it highlights the ways coloniality and imperiality are interconnected through mutual influences and reciprocal dynamics, revealing how they shape contemporary identities, knowledge systems, and geopolitical relations. As a main contribution, the chapter discusses how a relational contextualisation of imperiality and an epistemology of global easts can contribute to and deepen decolonial and deimperial thought and praxis, enriching our understanding of a shared global history that continues to inform current structures of power.