Post-Structuralism in International Relations emerged as a radical intellectual intervention that fundamentally questions the possibility of objective truth, the neutrality of knowledge, and the stability of concepts that traditional IR theories have long taken for granted. This intellectual move, deeply influenced by the works of Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Judith Butler, Richard K. Ashley, David Campbell, Jenny Edkins, and R.B.J. Walker, carries profound implications for both IR theory and research methodology. At its core, Post-Structuralism argues that the world of international politics is not a fixed reality “out there” waiting to be discovered through scientific inquiry, but is instead constituted through discourse, historical contingencies, and relations of power. The rejection of objective truth therefore destabilizes the epistemological foundations of mainstream IR, such as Realism, Liberalism, and even some strands of Constructivism, which rely on the assumption that the world is empirically accessible, materially grounded, and discoverable through rational frameworks. Post-Structuralism replaces this assumption with a radical skepticism toward fixed meanings and identities, insisting that international politics is intelligible only through an examination of how languages, narratives, and representational practices produce what we call “truth.”

The rejection of objective truth in Post-Structuralist IR begins with a critique of representation—the idea that language or theory reflects reality. Drawing upon Derrida’s notion of différance, Post-Structuralists argue that language is inherently unstable and that meanings constantly defer to other meanings, making final or foundational truths impossible. When applied to IR, this argument implies that central categories—such as state, sovereignty, security, anarchy, identity, and national interest—are not given entities but discursive constructs whose meanings are contingent and historically situated. The implication of this position is that IR theory cannot aspire to universal laws or timeless explanations. Instead, theory becomes an interpretive practice that uncovers how certain regimes of meaning come to dominate and shape international life. Foucault’s concept of power/knowledge is critical here, as it shows how claims to truth are embedded in power relations that privilege certain discourses over others. Thus, what mainstream IR calls “objective knowledge” is interpreted by Post-Structuralists as a politically consequential discourse that legitimizes specific forms of domination and marginalisation.

The insistence that truths are discursively produced has major implications for IR theory itself. Traditional theories such as Realism assume that states behave rationally in an anarchic system, and that international politics is governed by material power relations. Liberalism, similarly, presumes that cooperation, institutions, and norms can modify behaviour in predictable ways. Post-Structuralism challenges these traditions by arguing that both anarchy and national interest are not ontological facts but discursive products. Ashley famously argues that Realism’s “anarchy problematique” is not an objective condition but a narrative device that produces a particular understanding of world politics. Likewise, David Campbell argues that the identity of the state is constructed through discourses of danger and insecurity, making national interest less a rational calculation and more a performative practice. This shift away from objectivity forces IR theory to rethink what counts as explanation. Instead of explaining behaviour through causal laws, Post-Structuralism urges scholars to examine how discourses shape what states perceive as threats, interests, and possibilities for action. Thus, international politics becomes a field of discursive struggle, where competing narratives fight to establish dominant interpretations.

Rejecting objective truth also destabilizes the ontological foundation of IR, especially the assumption that the state is the basic unit of analysis. Post-Structuralists argue that the state is not a pre-given entity but a product of representational practices, rituals, and discourses that continually reproduce its boundaries and identities. Scholars such as R.B.J. Walker emphasize how the modern state system is built on binary oppositions—inside/outside, order/anarchy, self/other—that sustain the illusion of a stable international order. By exposing the contingent nature of these binaries, Post-Structuralism opens space for alternative ontologies that challenge the dominance of state-centric thinking. This has significant implications for IR theory because it collapses the distinction between domestic and international politics, reveals the fragility of geopolitical categories, and demonstrates how theoretical claims in IR help maintain the existing global order. Instead of universal theories, Post-Structuralism pushes IR toward a critical, reflexive, and deconstructive mode of engagement with world politics.

The methodological implications of rejecting objective truth are equally profound. Post-Structuralism opposes the positivist methodologies that dominate mainstream IR, such as hypothesis testing, statistical analysis, and rational-choice modelling, because these methods assume that social reality is measurable, stable, and accessible through scientific procedures. Instead, Post-Structuralism promotes interpretive, discursive, genealogical, and deconstructive methodologies that focus on the contingent and power-saturated nature of knowledge production. Drawing again on Foucault, genealogical methods uncover how particular truths become institutionalized through practices, institutions, and discourses. This enables researchers to trace how concepts like security, development, or terrorism are historically constituted and politically mobilized. The methodology thus shifts from seeking causal explanation to examining how specific discourses shape and organize political possibilities. This shift has the implication that IR scholars must take responsibility for how their own work contributes to the reproduction of particular power relations.

Because Post-Structuralism denies the existence of objective truth, it rejects not just positivist methods but the entire scientific/empirical ideal that shapes much of IR research. Instead of claiming neutrality, Post-Structuralist methodology foregrounds reflexivity—the idea that scholars must remain aware of their own positionality and the power implications of their knowledge production. This methodological perspective transforms research from a technical activity into an ethical-political practice. Scholars such as Jenny Edkins and James Der Derian argue that IR theory should expose, rather than mask, the violence embedded in dominant discourses of security, humanitarianism, and intervention. For example, Edkins’ work on famine and humanitarianism reveals how certain discourses depoliticize suffering and exclude alternative perspectives. The implication is that research must not only analyse world politics but also interrogate how academic discourse participates in legitimizing or resisting structures of violence and exclusion.

The rejection of objective truth in Post-Structuralism also introduces a new understanding of security. While mainstream IR defines security as an objective condition that states pursue, Post-Structuralists argue that security is a discursive practice that produces threats, identities, and exclusions. The work of Ole Wæver, though rooted in the Copenhagen School, resonates strongly with Post-Structuralist insights by showing how “securitization” is a speech act that constructs threats. Building on this, Post-Structuralists suggest that discourses of terrorism, migration, or humanitarian intervention often normalize violence by depicting certain groups as inherently threatening or inferior. The implication is that IR research must focus not on whether threats objectively exist but on how threats are constructed, who constructs them, and with what consequences. This reorientation changes the purpose of research from predicting behaviour to uncovering the political work performed by security discourse.

Furthermore, Post-Structuralism’s rejection of objective truth produces a more pluralistic and inclusive IR by opening space for marginalized voices and alternative narratives. If no discourse can claim universal truth, then dominant Western-centric frameworks lose their epistemological privilege. This allows scholars to incorporate subaltern perspectives, postcolonial critiques, feminist approaches, and indigenous knowledge systems into the study of international politics. Derridean deconstruction plays a key role here by exposing how dominant discourses silence alternative meanings. The implication is that IR becomes a field of contestation in which multiple, conflicting truths coexist. Instead of striving for theoretical consensus, Post-Structuralism celebrates epistemic plurality, thereby challenging hierarchical knowledge structures in the discipline.

However, this radical stance is not without criticism, and these criticisms themselves further highlight the implications of rejecting objective truth. Critics argue that Post-Structuralism’s emphasis on discourse leads to excessive relativism, undermining the ability of scholars to make normative or empirical claims about global politics. If all truths are discursively produced, can scholars meaningfully condemn war, genocide, or oppression? Post-Structuralists respond by emphasizing the ethical dimension of their approach: rather than claiming universal validity, they foreground the violence inherent in attempts to impose universal truths. Scholars such as David Campbell and Judith Butler argue that ethical responsibility arises precisely from acknowledging the instability of identities and the contingency of meaning. This argument shifts the basis of ethical judgement from universal principles to contextualized, reflective critique, fundamentally transforming normative theorizing in IR.

Another implication of the Post-Structuralist rejection of objective truth is the transformation of IR from a predictive to a problematizing discipline. Instead of seeking to explain why states behave as they do, Post-Structuralists ask how certain behaviours become thinkable and legitimate within specific discursive frameworks. This approach broadens the scope of IR research by encouraging scholars to investigate everyday practices, symbols, metaphors, and representations that shape global politics. For instance, the discourse of “failed states” produces policy responses that justify intervention. Studying such discourses requires close textual and contextual analysis rather than quantitative measurement. As a result, IR scholarship becomes more interdisciplinary, engaging with literary theory, cultural studies, anthropology, and philosophy, which enriches the analytical tools available to researchers but also challenges the disciplinary boundaries of IR.

The implications also include a shift toward analysing visuality and aesthetics in global politics. Post-Structuralist scholars such as Nicholas Mirzoeff and William Callahan argue that images, performances, films, and spectacles play an increasingly central role in constructing geopolitical narratives. Since there is no objective truth behind these representations, IR research must examine how visual practices shape public perceptions of war, migration, climate change, and diplomacy. This broadens the methodological terrain of IR beyond documents and statistics to include visual ethnography, discourse analysis of images, and aesthetic critique. By doing so, Post-Structuralism pushes IR to reconsider what counts as legitimate evidence and how political realities are mediated through visual technologies.

The methodological impact of rejecting objective truth also manifests in a preference for genealogical and archaeological methods that trace the historical evolution of dominant discourses. For example, the concept of sovereignty can be analysed not as a universal doctrine but as a historically contingent discourse shaped by colonialism, religious conflict, and modern state formation. This approach reveals how contemporary political categories are constructed through historical struggles and exclusions. It shifts research from seeking timeless insights to uncovering the contingency and power dynamics inherent in political concepts. The implication is that IR theory becomes a mode of historical critique rather than a search for universal laws.

In rejecting objective truth, Post-Structuralism also encourages methodological innovation. Scholars experiment with autoethnography, narrative analysis, and even creative forms of writing to reflect the instability of meaning and the role of the researcher in knowledge production. This methodological pluralism can appear destabilizing to traditional IR, but it also enriches the discipline by revealing the political stakes embedded in academic representation. Instead of naturalizing the state system or security apparatus, Post-Structuralist methodologies seek to expose their constructed and contested nature.

Ultimately, the rejection of objective truth has the implication that IR becomes a site of critical epistemological reflection. Instead of assuming that the purpose of IR theory is to reflect reality, Post-Structuralists argue that theory plays an active role in shaping what we understand as reality. This reflexive stance transforms both theory and methodology, encouraging scholars to question their assumptions, examine their positionality, and be attentive to the effects of their work. In this way, Post-Structuralism positions IR as a discipline deeply entangled with global power structures and challenges scholars to act responsibly in their production of knowledge.

In conclusion, Post-Structuralism’s rejection of objective truth carries far-reaching implications for IR theory and research methodology. It challenges the epistemological and ontological foundations of mainstream IR, destabilizes taken-for-granted categories, exposes the power relations embedded in knowledge production, and introduces reflexive, interpretive, and deconstructive methodologies. It transforms IR from a discipline seeking objective explanations to one engaged in critical, ethical, and political critique. Although often criticized for its relativism, Post-Structuralism opens space for pluralism, marginalized perspectives, and alternative narratives, making IR a more dynamic, inclusive, and critical field. By insisting that knowledge is always partial, contingent, and politically situated, Post-Structuralism compels scholars to rethink the purpose and practice of IR theory, ultimately redefining what it means to study and understand the international.