Theories of International
Relations
Constructivism
Introduction




Neorealism and Neoliberal Institutionalism
dominated the 1980s and much of the 1990s too.
Both understand states as having interests or a
purpose, given by structure of anarchy.
Neoliberals thought states can mitigate anarchy
by creating institutions that would discourage
cheating and encourage cooperation for mutual
gain. Neorealists are doubtful about this.
Constructivism breaks with the ideas of mainstream
theories and argues that international relations
is a product of human action.
Challenging State-Centrism



Both neo-realism and neo-liberal
institutionalism assume that states have fixed
interests. Material forces such as distribution of
power constrain states to pursue those interests.
Constructivist scholars instead emphasized
ideational forces such as ideas, knowledge, norms,
and rules to understand the origins of state’s
interests
Constructivism is based on the belief that societies
shape the identities and interests of
individuals. Thus, it conceptualizes international
politics not as a system but as a society
Challenging State-Centrism





Neorealism does not accept that ideas and norms define
interests.Neoliberalism argues that states might willingly
construct norms and institutions to enhance their long-term
interests.
Neither neorealism nor neoliberalism accept that ideas
and norms construct how states define their interests.
Neorealism and Neoliberalism share idea that the actors
(states) are given. Their interests exist prior to
interaction with each other. Relations do not shape
interests.
The world is understood as a strategic space, not as
society. So states are rational, not socialized into norms or
ways of behaviour.
Any cooperation for mutual gain does not change the
identity or interests of states.
Challenging State-Centrism



Constructivists interested in the origins of
state interests or preferences, and the
idea that these change over time.
Variation in the identity of states is
crucial to them.
Hence, anarchy is not the automatic
mechanism as Neorealists and Neoliberals
argue.
For Constructivists, the sovereign state and
anarchy are something humans have
made.
John Ruggie challenges
Kenneth Waltz


Ruggie focused on the centrality of ideas
and norms in international politics. In his
review essay (1983) of Waltz’s ‘Theory of
International Politics’, Ruggie challenged
Walt’z argument that the structure of
the international system is anarchy.
He criticized that Waltz focused on selfhelp logic, distribution power and did
not differentiate between states. Ruggie
instead focused on differentiation.
Richard Ashley challenges
neorealism



He argued that neorealism is so focused on the
state that it cannot see a world composed of
non-state actors. It treats states as having fixed
interests and thus cannot see how their interests
are created.
It is committed to materialism that it constructs
an artificial view of society that is completely
devoid of ideas, beliefs, and rules.
It fails to see that basic concepts of international
relations such as sovereignty is socially and
culturally produced.
Alexander Wendt introduces
‘Structure and Agency’ problem




For Neoliberals and Neorealists, states pursue their
interests within the constraints of an anarchic
system.
Wendt questions this view of the relationship
between structure (the system) and agency
(states). For him, structures do not just
constrain pre-given agents. They also help to
give agents identities and interests, to ‘make’
them.
Agents not just subject to structures. Agents
can make and transform structures too.
The normative structures can create agents
and the agents can create and transform the
structure.
Friedrich Kratochwil




He offered one of the first systemic treatments of rules
and norms in IR.
He distinguished between regulative rules and constitutive
rules.
Regulative rules are those rules that regulate already existing
activities. Rules for the road determine how to drive or
WTO’s rules regulate trade.
Constitutive rules do not merely regulate but in fact
create the possibility for new activities. For instance, the
rules of sovereignty not only regulate state practices but also
make possible the very idea of a sovereign state. The important
point is how actors interpret and give meaning to these
rules.
The Rise of Constructivism: Nicholas
Onuf




Constructivism is a term coined by Nicholas Onuf in his book
‘The World of Our Making’ (1989).
Onuf criticized mainstream theories for not predicitng
the end of cold war. He argued that due to their commitment
to individualism and materialism, they failed to see the
revolutionary ideas to transform the organizations of
world politics and state identities.
For Onuf, the mainstream theories also would not predict
how the future international system would look like after
the end of cold war.
For him, the distribution power would not predict
whether the US would be a global hegemon or would
prefer multilateralism and cooperation with other
states.
End of the Cold war: who are
we?


Constructivists argue that states began to debate
their national identity (who are we, where do we
belong?) in order to determine their interests
and the desired international order.
The end of the cold war undermined the
prominence of traditional security themes and
thus neorealism’s dominant position in the
literature. The rise of non-security issues such
as human rights contributed to the
development of constructivism.
IR as a social construction



States, alliances or international institutions
are examples of social phenomenon in IR.
Social phenomena do not exist independent
of human meaning and action
Focus on change: Idea of social construction
suggests difference across context not a single
objective reality (e.g. end of Cold War
questioned regularities in world politics;
transition from conflict to cooperation)
Central themes


Social dimensions: Emphasis on norms, rules and
language and how material and ideational factors
combine in the construction of different possibilities
and outcomes. The focus is on the diffusion and
internationalization of norms (e.g. spread of
liberal democracy)
Processes of interaction: Actors make choices in
the process of interacting with others bringing
historically, culturally and politically distinct
‘realities’ into being (‘world of our making’)
Constructivism is a diverse
theory


Although constructivism is a diverse
theory, they are unified on the argument
that ideas define international structure
that constructs the identities, interests,
and foreign policy practices of states.
They also agree that non-state actors
reproduce that structure and transform
it.
Constructivism is about human
consciousness and its role in international
life.
Concrete facts and Social facts



Concrete facts such as flowers, oceans, exist
independent of human agreement or deny
their existence.
Social facts on the other hand are
dependent on human agreement.
Money, terrorism, human rights, and
sovereignty are social facts.
Social facts are ideas, norms, rules that we
hold collectively to be true.
Social Facts




Although social facts are dependent on
human agreement, we treat them as
objective facts and thus as constraints on our
action.
States are social facts for Constructivists. They
are ideas or mental structures.
Material facts matter, but human design and intent
shapes material objects and give specific meaning
and use within a context.
The social construction of reality influences
how we see the world and also how we see
what constitutes acceptable action.
Alternative explanation for
power



The fact that concepts such as sovereignty or human
rights are fixed through politics and that once these
meanings are fixed they have consequences for the
ability to determine the actions of people suggests an
alternative explanation for power.
Most IR theorists treat power as the ability of
one state to compel another state to do what it
otherwise would not. They assume that means of
power such as military technology and
economic power force states to alter their
behavior.
Constructivists argue that power is not just
material, but also ideational.
Alternative explanation for
power



When human rights activists ‘name and shame’, they
embrass law-breaking governments and try to change
their behavior by showing how their behavior is not
consistent with existing legal norms.
Moreover, the effects of power go beyond the ability to
change the behavior. Power also includes how
knowledge, fixing of meanings, and the construction of
identities allocate different rewards and capacities:
If development is defined as per capita income then states
and some activities namely industrialization are priviliged;
however if development is defined as basic needs, then
other actors namely peasants or women become
important.