Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
constructivism international relations theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: constructivism international relations theory
Although there are some benefits that derive from an analysis based on the third image, it is arguable that all the three levels of analysis (individual, state and system levels) are strongly interconnected. Therefore, when analysing the international system or an international issue, it seems almost impossible to think merely at the system level, without even considering the domestic and the individual ones. This essay will expand that thesis firstly by giving a brief explanation of the concept of level of analysis and in particular the structural one; secondly by listing the benefits of focusing on the structural level of analysis; thirdly by highlighting the weaknesses inherent in the third image and finally by reporting a case study (the …show more content…
Firstly, the assumption that states are the only actors within the international system (Mearsheimer 2010) seems to be out-dated. In a globalized world based on interdependence and with the decline of sovereign states, it appears almost impossible to exclude organisations such as NGOs, multinational corporations and also terroristic groups from what happens in the international system and the deriving behaviours of states. A remarkable example might be the recent terroristic attack in Paris on 13th November 2015: this event has threatened not only global security, but also unity among western countries and has affected the international decisions (such as on the immigration issue) of different states. Then, it can be acknowledged that states do not only act as security-seekers that reach the balance of power after having regulated both the security dilemma and national interest. Indeed, the importance of statesmen and ideology in the decision-making process cannot be denied, as it may have a deep influence on foreign and international policies. Moreover, national interest has not a unique meaning and it could be manipulated in order to either hide the desire of power and hegemony or justify war. Therefore, it does not seem to be a valid reason for explaining the behaviours of states. Finally, the structural level of analysis does not take into account the relevance of social practices in the way states behave: both interaction and interdependence among states could affect their decisions (Copeland 2000). Indeed, constructivists argue that ‘Anarchy is what states make of it’ (Wendt 1992), meaning that the structure of the international system is a tangible effect of all the decision made by different states. This idea is an evident challenge to the deterministic orientation of events
When exploring the relationships between nations, a number of conceptual models exist. Each model purports to explain and predict the interactions between international actors. Three of these schools of thought were initially enumerated in The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory. (K. J. Holsti, 1985) These schools were the “Classical Paradigm”, “Theory of Global Society”, and the “Neo-Marxist” conceptual models. This paper will explore each of Kalevi Holsti’s three schools of thought and the unique advantages and disadvantages of each. Through the exploration of each, this paper will determine which model provides the most accurate conceptual framework for understanding and interpreting the current reality of international relations.
In no field other than politics does the justification for action often come from a noteworthy event and the true cause stays hidden behind the headlines. The United States’ transformation from a new state to a global superpower has been a methodical journey molded by international conditions (the global terrain for statecraft), the role of institutions and their programmed actions, and ultimately, the interests of actors (the protection of participants in making policy’s items and i...
“Realism emphasizes the constraints on politics imposed by human nature and the absence of international government. Together, they make international relations largely a realm of power and interest” (Donnelly 2000, 9). This concentration on power and lack of international government puts the focus on the States and their relation to each other. This is often summed up as the three Ss: Statism, Survival, and Self-Help (Lamy, et al. 2011, 66-67). States are considered the primary and only real players in the global arena and in International Relations themselves. It is assumed that these states will act only on their best interests and to perpetuate their own survival. Very few if any domestic issues actually impact the global level of international politics based on this theory. As Peter J. Katzenstein is quoted, for Realists, “culture and identity are, at best, derivative of the distribution of capabilities and have no independent explanatory power” (van Ham 2010, 46). Instead the global system structure is considered the prime and nearly only force that determines the state of politics and the actions available.
Although UN faces myriad challenges when get states together to follow UN’s norms and “blueprints”, it becomes progressively geared towards its ‘utopian’ goal ,during the time that the UN struggle to coordinate the states’ action and keep the international community in peace. Neo-liberalists are also argued that the international organisations like UN represent a liberal self-understanding and a liberal vision of the role which has shaped the international order in terms of decolonisation, human rights, environmental protection and international law. Neo-liberalists highlighted the significance of the cooperation between UN and regional organizations, as these regional organisations become inseparable in the process of international diplomatic predicting, “the international community will increasingly direct itself towards combined action of the universal Organization with regional bodies.” (Cassese: 2005: 338) This Link can be found between the UN and other regional organizations such as the European Union, Association of South East Asian Nations, the African Union, the Arab League and so on. This is widely regarded by neon-liberalists as they believe IOs are able to reformulate the behaviour of States. It is also proved the failure of neorealism that who underestimate the utility and wide influence of international organizations,. Further discussion about their motivations to how IOs influence States conduct by both promoting cooperation amongst members whilst at the same time putting the leash on those with non-cooperative behaviours, like trade sanctions. Navari argue that once cooperation amongst States is institutionalised, States would be cautious to leave it, because they fear of the uncertain consequences. (Navari: 2009: 39) European Union is a good example, as once European countries take part in the formal membership they have been
In conclusion realist and liberalist theories provide contrasting views on goals and instruments of international affairs. Each theory offers reasons why state and people behave the way they do when confronted with questions such as power, anarchy, state interests and the cause of war. Realists have a pessimistic view about human nature and they see international relations as driven by a states self preservation and suggest that the primary objective of every state is to promote its national interest and that power is gained through war or the threat of military action. Liberalism on the other hand has an optimistic view about human nature and focuses on democracy and individual rights and that economic independence is achieved through cooperation among states and power is gained through lasting alliances and state interdependence.
The old understanding of security underlines the constant role of sovereign territorial nation states in international relations, despite the fact that it ignores the emergence of non-state actors and terrorist groups. Realism assumes that security is enforced by the use of power which is measured in terms of military capabilities. Therefore, state is the subject of security in the eyes of realists. However, after Cold War, there established a new understanding of security which accounts international associations, global health issues and concepts like migration and environment as a part of the international system, and as a part of the global security issues.Therefore, security is now have a broader meaning and it is not only about interstate conflicts anymore. In the traditional sense of security, states were to provide preservation and they were to solve problems through their military power; however, state is not a homogenous entity and it is part of a problem now.
Level of analysis discloses three different ways of understanding international relations. The System-level analysis considers "top-down" approach to study world politics (Rourke, 2007, p. 91). It emphasises that international actors, countries, operate in a global social-political-economic-geographic environment and the explicit characteristics of the system outlines the mode of interaction among the actors. The State-level analysis stresses the national states and their domestic practices such as national interests, interest groups, government, and domestic economy as the key determinants of the state of world affairs (Mingst, 2008). The Individual-level of analysis examines human actors on the global stage. It focuses on the human nature, which defines the primary human characteristics that influence decisions; organizational behaviour that describes human interaction within organized settings, e.g. decision-making group; and personal behaviour that investigates the effect of the uniqueness of individual decision makers on foreign policy (Rourke, 2007, p. 65).
Kenneth N. Waltz in his book Theory of International Politics, compares states in the international system to firms in a domestic economy that are only aimed at surviving. “Internationally, the environment of states' actions, or the structure of their system, is set by the fact that some states prefer survival over other ends obtainable in the short run and act with relative efficiency to achieve that end” (93).
As the "principal actor" in the international system the state is primarily concerned with its own survival in a hostile and anarchic world. The state will attempt to amass as many resources as possible to build up its strength. This help ensure that it remains sovereign, and "promotes" the interests of its supporters who are the individuals who make up the state. This is like the quote where a ruler will amass as much power as possible to both stay in power and stay relevant to their supporters by promoting the interests of their supporters. Since a state is basically a group of people the ruler is also a person, however because they are the decision maker of the state they function as a rational actor promoting the interest of the state. Niccolo Machiavelli had this in mind when he argued that a ruler must be prepared to undertake any action that lead to the preservation of the state. This usually means the ruler tries to stay in power so that they can ensure the sovereignty of the state. While there is an international system above the state the most that system can do is to influence the state to act towards its own best interest within that system of other nations and organizations. The state does not act for the system above it, it acts for itself. Lastly, domestic political arrangements are largely irrelevant at the level of the state even if they play a significant part in
In the realm of international relations, there are many theories that propose a framework for analysis of the happenings of international relations. One of the predominant theories is the realist theory. The state centric Realist theory, rooted in ancient western philosophy is one of those theories that have been proven effective after centuries of use. The early 20th century however, marked the beginning of a time that would require advocates of realism to reevaluate its approach to international relations. Some events do not fit in the realist framework; as such some have questioned its validity in the current state of affairs. Predominantly, one of the forces at play is that of international non-governmental organizations or NGOs. The coalition to ban landmines, for example, was a joint effort on behalf of many actors and NGOs that eventually led to the policy changes of numerous countries worldwide. Through the use of NGOs women’s rights movements have also been successful at influencing governments in recent years with direct and indirect pressures on government. Consequently, through the effort of NGOs awareness has been brought to problems otherwise overlooked. Increased awareness on issues could lead to a widespread change in party preferences, if the government fails to act. Conformity may be the government’s only choice when faced with these pressures. Though the state centric realist approach to international relations has been widely accepted, this paper will illustrate how the realist framework falls short in explaining some of the dynamics of global politics today. This will be done through the analysis NGOs, the Ottawa Convention, and the Wom...
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
The reason that the states seek self-interest is because the pessimistic view of human nature (Heywood 2011: 54). According to Morgenthau (1985), he claims that human beings lust for power (Jackson, Sorensen 2013: 66). Besides, Hobbes (1651) claims that humans are affected by many appetites, especially power (Heywood 2011: 55). As human beings are selfish and competing for power, conflicts can happen amongst them (Heywood 2011: 57). A state is composed of the selfish people, therefore, human egoism leads to many conflicts in international relations, ‘state egoism’ – different states may be opposed (Heywood 2011: 57). But Waltz argues that wars happened because of the anarchical system (Jackson, Sorensen 2013: 80).
First, both liberals and realists agree that international system is anarchic and survival of the state is the primary interests (Marten 9/19/2011). Contrary to liberalism, realists believe that international anarchy encourages states to concern about relative gains and distribution of power given the fungible nature of power (Jervis 2011: 335). However, thinking of international relations as a zero-sum game does not necessitate mindless offensive actions. Instead, just as Mearsheimer suggests, states “think carefully about the balance of power and about how other states will react to their moves” (35). As a result of these power considerations, the balance of...
Globalization and the increasing role of non-state actors have shifted the position of states, the traditional “main players” in global governance. However, whether this change undermines states is debatable. In one sense, states’ roles have somewhat diminished: Non-governmental entities – namely transnational corporations (TNC), but also global non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and others – have an increasing voice in global policy debates, which may lessen states’ influence in governmental affairs. But in several other key ways, states’ retain their powerful role. For example, states remain the key negotiators and entities in major global governance entities. Additionally, states retain compulsory power over their subjects or constituents, a form of control that new players in global governments have generally not obtained.
The international system is an anarchical system which means that, unlike the states, there is no over ruling, governing body that enforces laws and regulations that all states must abide by. The International System in today’s society has become highly influential from a number of significant factors. Some of these factors that will be discussed are Power held by the state, major Wars that have been fought out in recent history and international organisations such as the U.N, NATO and the W.T.O. Each of these factors, have a great influence over the international system and as a result, the states abilities to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development”.