Where is the ICIRMW 2026 being held?

The conference will be held in Tokyo, JPN.

International Conference on International Relations in the Modern World (ICIRMW) 2026

Name: International Conference on International Relations in the Modern World (ICIRMW) 2026
Start: 2026-09-09T00:00:00Z
End: 2026-09-10T00:00:00Z
Location: Tokyo

Sep 9–10, 2026Tokyo, JapanIn-person

Registration open

The International Conference on International Relations in the Modern World (ICIRMW) convenes in Tokyo, JPN, to address the evolving landscape of global affairs. This academic gathering provides a forum for researchers, scholars, and practitioners to present and discuss contemporary challenges and theoretical advancements in international relations. The conference emphasizes interdisciplinary approaches to understanding the complexities of the modern world order.

Committees & topics

Topics
International Relations and Foreign Policy · Theories of International Relations and Their Reflections · Levels of Analysis and Applications to Real-World Problems · Institutions in International Relations · Regional Studies in International Relations · Asymmetric Threats and State Security · Effects of Non-Governmental Actors on the International System · Humanitarian Intervention and Sovereignty

Why it matters

In an era characterized by rapid geopolitical shifts, technological advancements, and interconnected global challenges, understanding international relations is more critical than ever. Events like the ICIRMW offer a vital platform for dissecting these dynamics, fostering dialogue, and generating new insights. The discussions held here contribute to a deeper comprehension of state and non-state actor behaviors, the efficacy of international institutions, and the pathways to global cooperation or conflict.

The conference's focus on the 'modern world' implies an examination of current events and emerging trends, moving beyond traditional paradigms to incorporate new variables such as cyber warfare, climate migration, and the rise of new economic powers. This forward-looking perspective is essential for policymakers and academics alike, as it helps anticipate future challenges and formulate effective responses. The insights shared can inform strategic planning and diplomatic efforts across various international bodies and national governments.

How to prepare

Delegates preparing for the ICIRMW should focus on developing a robust understanding of current international relations theories and their applicability to contemporary global issues. A strong grasp of concepts such as those discussed in the lesson on "Dynamic Analysis" will be beneficial for interpreting complex geopolitical situations. Consider how various theoretical frameworks explain recent events and potential future trajectories.

Furthermore, participants should engage in thorough stakeholder analysis, drawing on lessons like "What Is Stakeholder Mapping?" and "The Power-Interest Grid." Identifying key state and non-state actors, understanding their motivations, and mapping their relationships will be crucial for contributing meaningfully to discussions. This includes examining the roles of countries like USA, CHN, RUS, and the EU member states FRA and DEU, as well as emerging powers such as IND and BRA, in shaping global discourse and policy. Understanding the nuances of these actors' interests, as detailed in "Understanding Motivations" and "Mapping Relationships," will allow for more informed and impactful participation.

Country perspectives

Where the most-relevant 4 countries stand on the core issues in play. Click through for the full country profile.

Japan

As the host nation, JPN is positioned to facilitate discussions on regional security, economic diplomacy, and multilateral cooperation in Asia, particularly concerning its relationships with neighboring powers.

Role in topic

JPN, as a major economic power and a key player in Asian security, often champions multilateralism and a rules-based international order. Its perspective will likely emphasize the importance of international law, economic interdependence, and technological innovation in shaping modern international relations. JPN's experiences with regional tensions and global economic shifts provide a unique lens through which to view the conference's themes.

United States

The USA will likely advocate for democratic values, free markets, and its role in maintaining global security and stability, while also addressing challenges to its hegemonic position.

Role in topic

The USA's perspective is central to discussions on international relations, given its historical and ongoing influence on global governance, security alliances, and economic systems. Its engagement will highlight issues such as great power competition, the future of alliances, and the impact of technological disruption on international norms. The USA's approach to global challenges often sets the tone for broader international responses.

China

CHN will emphasize its growing global influence, advocate for a multipolar world order, and promote its development model, while navigating complex relationships with established powers.

Role in topic

CHN's rising economic and military power makes its perspective indispensable. Discussions will likely revolve around its Belt and Road Initiative, its role in international institutions, and its approach to sovereignty and non-interference. CHN's views on global governance and its strategic competition with the USA will be a significant point of analysis at the conference.

Russia

RUS will likely focus on its national security interests, its role as a major energy supplier, and its efforts to challenge the unipolar international system, particularly in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

Role in topic

RUS's foreign policy, characterized by a focus on strategic autonomy and a reassertion of its influence in its near abroad, offers a crucial counterpoint to Western perspectives. Its engagement will shed light on issues of energy security, arms control, and the dynamics of regional conflicts, particularly in light of recent events involving UKR and other neighboring states.

Topics & background

The background behind each topic and the actors that shape it.

International Relations and Foreign Policy

The modern study of international relations emerged from the wreckage of the First World War, when scholars and statesmen sought systematic explanations for why states cooperate, compete, and go to war. The interwar idealism embodied in the League of Nations gave way after 1945 to a bipolar Cold War order shaped by superpower rivalry, nuclear deterrence, and the construction of the United Nations system. Foreign policy in this period was largely understood as the external projection of national interest, mediated by alliances such as NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Since 1991, the discipline has had to absorb unipolar dominance by the United States, the rise of China, Russia's revisionist turn, and the diffusion of power to middle powers and non-state actors. Globalization, transnational terrorism, climate change, and digital interdependence have stretched the traditional toolkit of diplomacy, defense, trade, and intelligence. Today's foreign policy debates revolve around whether the liberal international order can be reformed, replaced, or merely managed in an increasingly multipolar environment.

Key players

Theories of International Relations and Their Reflections

IR theory crystallized in the twentieth century around competing paradigms. Classical realism, articulated by Morgenthau after 1945, and later neorealism by Waltz, emphasized anarchy, power, and the security dilemma. Liberalism, drawing on Kant and Wilson and refined by Keohane and Nye, stressed institutions, interdependence, and democratic peace. Constructivism, advanced by Wendt and others in the 1990s, argued that identities and norms shape state behavior as much as material capabilities. These theories have been tested against successive crises: the end of the Cold War surprised realists, the resilience of the WTO and EU vindicated institutionalists, and the spread of human rights norms gave constructivists empirical traction. Critical traditions — Marxist, feminist, postcolonial, and Global IR — have challenged the Western, state-centric assumptions of mainstream theory. Contemporary debates over the war in Ukraine, U.S.–China competition, and climate governance show that no single paradigm captures the full complexity of a system in which material power, institutions, and ideas all matter.

Key players

Levels of Analysis and Applications to Real-World Problems

The levels-of-analysis framework, formalized by Kenneth Waltz in 'Man, the State, and War' (1959) and refined by J. David Singer, distinguishes systemic, state, and individual sources of international behavior. Systemic analysis examines the distribution of power and structural constraints; state-level analysis looks at regime type, bureaucratic politics, and domestic coalitions; individual analysis focuses on the perceptions, psychology, and decisions of leaders. Applying these lenses clarifies real-world puzzles. The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine can be read systemically as NATO–Russia rivalry, domestically as the consolidation of authoritarian rule in Moscow, or individually through Vladimir Putin's strategic worldview. Similarly, U.S.–China competition over Taiwan, the Iran nuclear file, and climate negotiations all invite multi-level explanation. The current challenge for analysts is integrating these levels without reductionism, particularly as transnational issues like pandemics and AI governance blur the boundaries between domestic and international politics.

Key players

Institutions in International Relations

International institutions, from the Concert of Europe to the League of Nations, gained their modern form with the 1945 founding of the United Nations and the Bretton Woods system (IMF, World Bank, and what became the WTO in 1995). These bodies were designed to manage security, finance, trade, and development through rule-based cooperation, reflecting both U.S. hegemonic preferences and broader interwar lessons about the costs of institutional failure. Over the past two decades, institutions have faced legitimacy and effectiveness crises. The UN Security Council remains paralyzed by P5 vetoes on Syria, Ukraine, and Gaza; the WTO's Appellate Body has been disabled since 2019; and reform debates over the IMF and World Bank reflect demands from emerging economies for greater voice. Parallel institutions — the BRICS New Development Bank, the AIIB, and the SCO — challenge but do not replace the Bretton Woods order. The central question today is whether existing institutions can adapt to a multipolar distribution of power or whether the system will fragment into competing institutional blocs.

Key players

Regional Studies in International Relations

Regional analysis examines how geography, shared history, and dense patterns of interaction produce distinctive security and economic complexes. Barry Buzan's regional security complex theory and the literature on comparative regionalism have shown that the EU, ASEAN, the African Union, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and Mercosur each follow different logics of integration and conflict management. Some regions, like Western Europe after 1957, achieved deep institutional integration; others, like South Asia, remain marked by enduring rivalry despite formal bodies such as SAARC. The contemporary agenda is shaped by overlapping regional flashpoints: the war in Ukraine and European security, the South China Sea and Indo-Pacific competition, the post–Arab Spring Middle East, the Sahel's cascading coups and jihadist insurgencies, and Latin America's renewed political volatility. Regional powers increasingly act as system-shapers in their own neighborhoods, while extra-regional engagement by the U.S., China, and Russia complicates local dynamics. Understanding regions on their own terms — not merely as sub-units of the global system — is essential for accurate analysis and effective policy.

Key players

Asymmetric Threats and State Security

Asymmetric warfare — in which weaker actors exploit unconventional means against stronger adversaries — has shaped security thinking since at least the Vietnam War, but became central after the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. Insurgency, terrorism, hybrid warfare, cyber operations, drone strikes, and information manipulation now sit alongside conventional military planning. Russia's operations in Crimea in 2014, Iranian proxy networks across the Middle East, and the use of commercial drones in Ukraine and the Red Sea have demonstrated how asymmetric tools can deliver strategic effects at low cost. For states, the policy challenge is that traditional deterrence frameworks, designed for symmetrical great-power competition, often fail against actors operating below the threshold of armed conflict or through deniable proxies. Critical infrastructure — energy grids, undersea cables, financial systems — has become a primary target, blurring civilian and military domains. Recent UN OEWG discussions on responsible state behavior in cyberspace and CCW debates on emerging weapons reflect attempts to extend international law to these new modalities, but consensus remains elusive.

Key players

Effects of Non-Governmental Actors on the International System

While the Westphalian system formally privileges states, non-governmental actors have always shaped international outcomes — from the East India companies of the seventeenth century to the ICRC's role in codifying the laws of war. The post-1945 era saw an explosion of NGOs, multinational corporations, transnational advocacy networks, and intergovernmental-adjacent bodies. Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye's work on complex interdependence in the 1970s captured this shift, and the post–Cold War decades amplified it with the rise of global civil society around human rights, environment, and development. Today, non-state actors exert influence across every domain. Technology firms such as Microsoft, Google, and SpaceX shape cyber defense, AI governance, and even battlefield communications in Ukraine. Climate negotiations rely on coalitions of NGOs, cities, and businesses alongside states. At the harder end of the spectrum, armed non-state actors — Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, the Wagner Group, and various Sahelian jihadist factions — challenge state monopolies on violence. The central debate is how international law and institutions, designed around state consent, can effectively regulate, harness, or constrain these actors.

Key players

Humanitarian Intervention and Sovereignty

The tension between state sovereignty, enshrined in Article 2(7) of the UN Charter, and the international community's responsibility to halt mass atrocities has been one of the defining normative debates of the post–Cold War era. NATO's 1999 Kosovo intervention, undertaken without UNSC authorization, exposed the gap between legality and legitimacy. In response, the 2001 ICISS report and the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document articulated the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), holding that sovereignty entails a duty to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. R2P's application has been deeply contested. The 2011 NATO-led intervention in Libya under Resolution 1973 was initially hailed as a model but became a cautionary tale after regime change and state collapse, hardening Russian and Chinese opposition to subsequent authorizations on Syria. Ongoing crises in Sudan, Myanmar, Ethiopia, and Gaza continue to test the doctrine, with critics arguing it is selectively applied and defenders insisting it remains an essential normative anchor. The committee must grapple with whether and how the international system can authorize protection without weaponizing humanitarianism.

Key players

Resources

News, lessons, and country profiles to prep for International Conference on International Relations in the Modern World (ICIRMW) 2026.

Recent reporting to ground your prep

US Job Openings at 6.7M

Trump's Economic Reset

Trump's Impact on GOP

Mejia vs. Hathaway

Lessons

Bite-sized lessons to build the basics

Hidden Stakeholders

Dynamic Analysis

What Is Stakeholder Mapping?

The Power-Interest Grid

Courses

Guided courses that go deeper on the topic

Policy Brief Writing

Media & Press Relations

Advanced Negotiation

Multilateral Negotiation

The states in play, with the data that shapes their stance

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

By committee

Frequently asked questions

International Conference on International Relations in the Modern World (ICIRMW) 2026

Sep 9–10, 2026Tokyo, JapanIn-person

Registration open

Committees & topics

Topics
International Relations and Foreign Policy · Theories of International Relations and Their Reflections · Levels of Analysis and Applications to Real-World Problems · Institutions in International Relations · Regional Studies in International Relations · Asymmetric Threats and State Security · Effects of Non-Governmental Actors on the International System · Humanitarian Intervention and Sovereignty

Why it matters

How to prepare

Country perspectives

Where the most-relevant 4 countries stand on the core issues in play. Click through for the full country profile.

Japan

Role in topic

United States

The USA will likely advocate for democratic values, free markets, and its role in maintaining global security and stability, while also addressing challenges to its hegemonic position.

Role in topic

China

CHN will emphasize its growing global influence, advocate for a multipolar world order, and promote its development model, while navigating complex relationships with established powers.

Role in topic

Russia

Role in topic