M.I. Franklin, “Geeta Chowdhry & Sheila Nair (eds.), Power, Postcolonialism and International Relations: Reading Race, Gender and Class; L. H. M. Ling, Postcolonial International Relations: Conquest and Desire between Asia and the West”, Book Review in Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 33, No. 2, 2004: 443-46; DOI:10.1177/03058298040330020916 Geeta Chowdhry and Sheila Nair (eds.), Power, Postcolonialism and International Relations: Reading Race, Gender and Class (London and New York: Routledge, 2004, 324 pp., pbk.). L. H. M. Ling, Postcolonial International Relations: Conquest and Desire Between Asia and the West (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002, 269 pp., hbk.). Judging by the last few conferences of the International Studies Association (ISA) a recognisable body of research is developing questions of gender, race/ethnicity and class as integral elements of International Relations/International Political Economy (IR/IPE). These two books are both timely and groundbreaking in this regard. Emerging from the ‘Third Debate’, and laying the groundwork for a possible fourth one, these authors take up the gauntlet thrown down by Susan Strange in 1995 when she suggested that feminist/critical IR should ‘stop the whining and just get on with it’. Ling, Chowdhry and Nair, and their contributors show how they have indeed ‘got on with it’ in the meantime. These books contain a wealth of sophisticated and systematic investigations of precisely how, where, and when IR/IPE ‘ elides the racialised, gendered and class processes that underwrite global hierarchies’ in a post-colonial, capitalist world (Chowdhry and Nair, p. 1). Their project is to introduce the eclectic conceptual and historical terrain of postcolonial theory into discourses of IR/IPE. In Postcolonial International Relations: Conquest and Desire Between Asia and the West, Ling introduces ‘postcolonial IR’ as both an alternative model of ‘world order’ and as a more culturally inclusive research method. She achieves this from two theoretical entry points. First, she develops Nicholas Onuf’s constructivist model of ‘rules and rule’ into a tripartite template for tracing any world order through its daily rules and broader ‘orders of rule’. This includes orders such as hegemony, hierarchy, and heteronomy (p. 24). Second, through this ‘alternative model of subjectivity ’ (p. 58, original emphasis), Ling addresses the ‘methodological shortcomings’ of postmodern, neo-Gramscian and feminist IR/ IPE. The hybrid that ensues is a ‘postcolonial IR’ which