Abstract
Building upon Cynthia Enloe’s critique (2004) of the normative assumptions underlying orthodox International Relations (IR) theories, this article examines the epistemological and ontological foundations of these theories in the context of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) uprising following the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). By integrating critical theory perspectives, it investigates how the valuation of epistemologies within orthodox IR and the perceived immutability of central-peripheral dynamics contribute to political invisibility imposed on peripheral actors. The article contextualizes the relationship between NAFTA and Zapatismo, demonstrating how the neoliberal policies embodied in NAFTA exacerbated Indigenous marginalization, thereby catalyzing the EZLN uprising. Employing Enloe’s evaluation of the EZLN case study, alongside the works of adjacent critical theorists, it demonstrates how critical theory can challenge problem-solving theories’ ontological and epistemological assumptions. It concludes that these assumptions synthesize to impose political invisibility onto peripheral actors, which, if exploited properly, can paradoxically emancipate these actors.
References
Buzan, B., & Little, R. (2001). Why international relations has failed as an intellectual project and what to do about it. Millennium, 30(1), 19–39.
Çapan, Z. G. (2017). Decolonising international relations? Third World Quarterly, 38(1),1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2016.1245100
Cox, R. W. (1981). Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond international relations theory. Millennium, 10(2), 126–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298810100020501
Enloe, C. (2004). Margins, silences and bottom rungs: How to overcome the underestimation of power in the study of international relations. In The Curious Feminist: Searching for women in a new age of empire (pp. 19–42). University of California Press. [e-book].
Harman, C. (1986). Base and superstructure. International Socialism, 2(32), 3–44.
Hoffman, S. (1987). Janus and Minerva: Essays in the theory and practice of international politics (pp. 3–24). Routledge. [e-book].
Hollis, M., & Smith, S. (1990). Explaining and understanding international relations (pp.45–91). Clarendon Press.
Krishna, S. (2021). On the pitfalls of geo-cultural pluralism in IR. International Politics Reviews.
Walt, S. M. (1998). International relations: One world, many theories. Foreign Policy, 110, 29–32, 34–46.
Wight, M. (1960). Why is there no international theory? International Politics, 2(1), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/004711786000200104
Zalewski, M. (1996). ‘All these theories yet the bodies keep piling up’: Theories, theorists, theorising. In S. Smith, K. Booth, & M. Zalewski (Eds.), International theory: Positivism and beyond (pp. 340–353). Cambridge University Press.
Zvobgo, K. K., & Loken, M. (2020). Why race matters in international relations. Foreign Policy.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 Political Observer | Revista Portuguesa de Ciência Política (Portuguese Journal of Political Science)