C o n s t r u c t i v i s m a nd R e a l i s m ( I . R .

Constructivism

C
onstructivism in International Relations (IR) became prominent after the end of the
Cold War, an event that traditional theories like realism and liberalism could not
adequately explain. These theories focus mainly on states as self-interested actors
competing for power, emphasizing the balance of power in an unequal international system.
Because of this state-centric approach, they overlook the role of individuals and society.
In contrast, constructivism argues that the international system is socially constructed—
that is, it is shaped by human ideas, beliefs, and interactions (Onuf, 1989). It highlights that not
only states but also individuals, leaders, and groups play an active role in shaping global politics.
For example, the end of the Cold War can be understood as a result of collective human actions
and changing ideas, rather than just state decisions. Thus, constructivism provides a more flexible
and human-centered way of understanding international relations.

❑ Th e basics of c ons truc ti vism

Constructivism argues that both the world and our understanding of it are socially constructed ,
meaning reality is shaped by shared ideas, beliefs, and meanings rather than only by physical
conditions. This approach relates to ontology (the nature of reality ) and epistemology
(the nature of knowledge ) in research. Alexander Wendt (1995) illustrates this idea with a
clear example: 500 British nuclear weapons are considered less threatening to the
United States than five North Korean nuclear weapons . The difference in perception
is not due to the weapons themselves as material objects, but because of the meanings and
interpretations attached to them . In other words, it is the ideational structure
(beliefs, identities, and perceptions ) rather than the material structure that shapes how
threats are understood. This example also highlights the importance of intersubjectivity,
meaning that states share common understandings of each other. The United States views

1
 C o n s t r u c t i v i s m a nd R e a l i s m ( I . R . )

Britain as an ally and North Korea as an adversary, and this shared perception shapes their
international interactions. Nuclear weapons, therefore, do not carry fixed meaning on their own;
their significance depends on the social and political context in which they exist.
Constructivists further argue that world politics is influenced not only by material factors but also
by ideas, beliefs, and identities. As a result, reality is not fixed; it is continuously
constructed and reconstructed over time . This means meanings can change when ideas
and perceptions change, creating the possibility for transformation in international relations.
Constructivists emphasize that agency and structure are mutually constituted ,
meaning they shape and influence each other. Agency refers to the capacity of actors (such as
states) to make choices and act, while structure refers to the international system, which includes
both material conditions and shared ideas or beliefs. Using Wendt’s example, the
hostile relationship between the United States and North Korea represents an intersubjective
structure, based on shared perceptions of enmity. In this context, both states are agents with
the ability to either maintain or transform this relationship. The continuation of hostility or a
possible shift toward friendship depends on the ideas, identities , and beliefs held by the
actors involved. If these perceptions change, the structure of the relationship can also change. This
view contrasts with realism, which argues that the anarchic structure of the international
system determines state behaviour in a fixed way. Constructivists reject this determinism
and instead argue that “anarchy is what states make of it ” (Wendt 1992). In other words,
anarchy does not have a single fixed meaning; its effects depend on how states interpret and
understand it, showing that international politics is shaped by both structure and human
interpretation.
Constructivists place strong emphasis on identities and interests, arguing that these
are not fixed but are socially constructed through interaction with other actors . An
identity refers to how a state understands itself—its sense of “who it is”—and this understanding
helps shape its interests and behaviour. From this perspective, identity and interests are
closely linked, because a state’s identity defines what it considers important or desirable. For
example, a small state is likely to prioritize survival and security, while a large and
powerful state may focus more on influencing or dominating global political, economic, and

2
 C o n s t r u c t i v i s m a nd R e a l i s m ( I . R . )

military affairs. Thus, different identities produce different sets of interests. Constructivists also
argue that a state’s actions must remain consistent with its identity. If a state behaves in a way that
contradicts its established identity, it can undermine or challenge that identity itself. This helps
explain historical cases such as Germany after the Second World War. Despite becoming a major
economic power, Germany did not develop a strong military role in the same way as other great
powers. This shift is linked to a transformation in its political identity from militarism to
pacifism, shaped by the historical experience of Nazi aggression and the Second World War.
Overall, constructivists show that state behaviour is shaped not only by power or
material factors but also by evolving identities formed through history and
social interaction.
Constructivism also highlights the importance of social norms, which are understood as
standards of appropriate behaviour for actors with a specific identity (Katzenstein
1996). These norms guide how states are expected to act, meaning that certain behaviours are seen
as more acceptable than others depending on shared social expectations. This idea is captured in
the “logic of appropriateness ”, where actors behave in certain ways because they believe
such behaviour is socially and morally appropriate, rather than simply because it is useful
or powerful (March and Olsen 1998). Norms help shape what states consider the “right” course
of action. Constructivists further distinguish between three types of norms. Regulative norms
control and limit behaviour, constitutive norms help create new identities, actors, or categories
of action, and prescriptive norms promote specific standards of behaviour as desirable or
correct. Norms also develop through a “lifecycle”, meaning they must gradually be adopted and
internalized by a critical number of actors before they become widely accepted expectations. Once
this happens, they shape regular state behaviour. For example, constructivists argue that global
climate change policies have emerged as a norm because many states now view
environmental protection as the responsible course of action for humanity’s survival. Over time,
through diplomacy and advocacy, this expectation has become widely accepted among
governments and citizens. This view contrasts with other theories. Liberals may prioritize
economic growth and technological solutions over strict environmental commitments, while
realists may reject strong climate policies if they appear to weaken short-term national interests.

3
 C o n s t r u c t i v i s m a nd R e a l i s m ( I . R . )

Constructivists, however, focus on how shared norms and evolving social expectations
shape what states consider appropriate behaviour in international politics .
Although constructivists share core ideas about socially constructed reality ,
identities, norms, and interests, there is significant variation within the theory.
Conventional constructivists focus on “what” questions, such as what causes actors to
behave in certain ways. They aim to explain international relations in causal terms, examining
the relationships between actors, identities, interests, and social norms. They assume that states
generally act according to their identities and try to identify when and how these identities become
visible or change. When identity shifts occur, conventional constructivists investigate the factors
that produce those changes . In contrast, critical constructivists focus on “how”
questions, especially how actors come to develop or believe in certain identities. Rather than
studying the effects of identity, they seek to deconstruct and reconstruct identities ,
exploring their underlying components. They emphasize that identities are formed through
language, communication, and discourse , arguing that language plays a central role in
shaping and transforming social reality. Most constructivists, however, do not fully belong to
either extreme. Instead, they position themselves between conventional and critical
approaches, combining attention to both explanation and interpretation in understanding
international relations.

❑ C ons truc ti vism and Bh utan’s nati onal i nteres ts

Bhutan is a small Buddhist kingdom in the Himalayas with a population of about 745,000 and a
territory of 38,394 square kilometres. It has a weak economy and a limited military capacity.
Geographically, it is situated between two major powers—China in the north and India in
the south—making it a strategic buffer state in a region marked by rivalry. Bhutan’s external
environment has long been shaped by tensions with its neighbours. China has historically claimed
that Bhutan’s territory was part of Tibet after its annexation in the 1950s, and there have been
ongoing border disputes and reported military incursions. At the same time, Bhutan’s relationship
with India has been closely shaped by the 1949 India–Bhutan Friendship Treaty, which stated that

4
 C o n s t r u c t i v i s m a nd R e a l i s m ( I . R . )

Bhutan would be guided by India in its foreign affairs, although this influence was later revised in
2007 and still remains significant in practice.
From a realist perspective, Bhutan appears structurally weak and vulnerable due to its
location and limited capabilities. Its survival is seen as dependent on the balance of power between
China and India. However, a constructivist perspective argues that these material conditions
do not fully determine Bhutan’s behaviour. Instead, the meanings and perceptions
attached to these conditions are crucial . For example, after China annexed Tibet, Bhutan
interpreted the situation as a threat and responded by closing its northern border and strengthening
ties with India. As a result, China came to be viewed as a potential adversary, while India was seen
as a friendly partner. These relationships reflect an ideational structure, shaped by shared
understandings rather than material factors alone. Constructivists also emphasize that these
perceptions are not fixed. If China and Bhutan were to resolve their border dispute, their
relationship could change significantly, possibly leading to formal cooperation and a more friendly
association. This demonstrates that international relationships are socially
constructed and can evolve over time , depending on changing ideas, beliefs, and
interactions between states.
Bhutan has developed a distinct national identity that sets it apart from its larger
neighbours. It presents itself as “the last surviving independent Mahayana Buddhist
kingdom in the world ”, where the idea of independence directly reflects its core national
interest: the protection of sovereignty and autonomy. This identity has been socially
constructed through a process known as “Bhutanisation,” which began in the 1980s under the
fourth king’s “One Nation, One People ” policy. This policy introduced a code of conduct
called Driglam Namzhag, which emphasizes strict social and cultural rules. These include
loyalty within families, respect for elders and authority, and cooperation between rulers and
citizens. It also enforced the wearing of national dress—gho for men and kira for women—and
established Dzongkha as the national language, all of which helped strengthen a unified cultural
identity.
From a constructivist perspective, Driglam Namzhag functions as a regulative norm,
meaning it guides and restricts behaviour to produce social order. While Bhutan promotes the idea
of a culturally unified nation, in reality it is ethnically, religiously, and linguistically

5
 C o n s t r u c t i v i s m a nd R e a l i s m ( I . R . )

diverse, consisting mainly of the Ngalongs, Sharchhops, and Lhotshampas. The first two groups
are largely Buddhist, while the Lhotshampas are mostly Nepali-speaking Hindus. The policy had
serious consequences for the Lhotshampa community. Nepali was removed from schools, and
individuals unable to prove residency before 1958 were classified as non-nationals. As a result,
many Lhotshampas were expelled in the 1990s. Overall, these policies show how the Bhutanese
state used norms, language, and cultural regulation to construct a unified national
identity. At the same time, they also demonstrate how identity-building can shape inclusion and
exclusion within a society.
Norms, according to constructivism, develop through a “lifecycle” before they become
fully established in society. In Bhutan’s case, this process can be clearly seen in the development
of the Driglam Namzhag system. The first stage, norm emergence, occurred when
Bhutanese authorities created this code of conduct. The second stage, norm acceptance,
involved citizens adopting practices such as wearing national dress and using Dzongkha as the
official language. Over time, these practices became fully internalised, meaning they shaped
everyday behaviour in a lasting way. Once internalised, norms begin to structure and limit
how citizens behave, showing their constitutive nature—they help create a shared
identity of what it means to be a Bhutanese citizen. Even today, these norms are enforced in public
life, such as requiring national dress during official events, in schools, and in workplaces. This
reflects both their regulative function , as they guide behaviour, and their prescriptive
nature, since the state presents them as desirable and morally appropriate standards.
In addition to cultural identity, Bhutan has also promoted a second identity based on Gross
National Happiness (GNH). This development philosophy challenges the traditional Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) model by arguing that economic growth alone is insufficient. Instead,
GNH emphasizes a balance between material well-being and spiritual, emotional, and
social well-being. This approach has been integrated into Bhutan’s domestic policies and
promoted internationally, especially through the United Nations, which later adopted Resolution
65/309 acknowledging the importance of happiness and the limitations of GDP as a measure of
human well-being. Through both its cultural identity as a distinct Buddhist kingdom and its
global identity as a leader in holistic development , Bhutan’s authorities are able to reinforce
the country’s image as an independent and sovereign state. At the same time, these identities

6
 C o n s t r u c t i v i s m a nd R e a l i s m ( I . R . )

increase Bhutan’s international visibility and diplomatic relevance, particularly in a

❑ C onc lusion

Constructivism is sometimes criticized for stating something seemingly obvious: that actions,
interactions, and perceptions shape reality . This idea is at the core of the theory,
suggesting that international relations are not simply given, but are constructed through
human thought and behaviour . However, when developed as a theoretical approach, this
simple idea has important implications for understanding world politics. Constructivism enriches
the study of International Relations by addressing aspects often overlooked by mainstream
theories, particularly realism. While realism focuses mainly on material factors such as power,
wealth, and geography, constructivism argues that ideas, identities, and norms are
equally important in shaping state behaviour . It also emphasizes that reality is not fixed
or permanent. Instead, it is constantly shaped and reshaped through social
interaction and shared meanings . In this way, constructivism offers alternative
explanations for global events and highlights how international relations are influenced not only
by material conditions but also by evolving social and ideational factors .

7
 C o n s t r u c t i v i s m a nd R e a l i s m ( I . R . )

Realism

R
ealism in International Relations (IR) is a theoretical approach that highlights the
competitive and conflict -driven nature of world politics . It focuses on how
states operate in an environment where struggle for power and security is central.
Although realism as a formal theory developed in the twentieth century, its intellectual roots are
often traced back to ancient writings, especially Thucydides’ account of the Peloponnesian War
(431–404 BCE). Thucydides himself was not a realist in the modern sense, since IR theory did
not yet exist, but his work is seen as reflecting similar patterns of power politics and state behaviour
that later realists identified. Modern scholars later revisited such historical texts and recognized
recurring themes of competition, fear, and power struggles across different eras. From this
perspective, they argued that these patterns suggest a timeless logic of international
politics, which came to be known as realism.

❑ Th e basics of reali sm

Realism in International Relations is based on several key assumptions about how states behave.
First, it argues that the nation-state is the main actor in international politics. While
individuals and organizations exist, their influence is limited compared to states. Second, realism
views the state as a unitary actor, meaning it acts as a single body. In important situations,
especially during war, different parts of the state are expected to act together in line with a shared
national interest. Third, realists assume that decision-makers behave rationally, meaning
they make choices aimed at protecting and strengthening the state. Actions that weaken or expose
the state to danger are considered irrational. Leaders, regardless of ideology, are seen as guided by
the need to ensure state survival in a competitive environment . Finally, realism
emphasizes that the international system is characterized by anarchy, meaning there is no
central authority above states . Unlike domestic politics, where institutions like police,

8
 C o n s t r u c t i v i s m a nd R e a l i s m ( I . R . )

courts, and governments maintain order, there is no global authority to intervene in crises. As a
result, states cannot rely on others for protection and must ultimately depend on their own
power and resources.
Realism often draws on historical examples to argue that international politics is shaped by
repetitive patterns rooted in human nature . A key assumption is that humans are
generally self-interested, power -seeking, and unable to fully trust others . Realists
believe these traits lead to predictable outcomes in politics, including frequent conflict and war
throughout history. Because individuals make up states, this human nature is reflected in
state behaviour. Thinkers like Niccolò Machiavelli emphasized this connection by showing
how basic human characteristics affect the security and survival of the state . In
The Prince (1532), Machiavelli argued that a ruler’s main responsibility is to protect the
state. To do this effectively, leaders must be both strong and strategic, combining the
qualities of a “lion” (force and power) and a “fox” (deception and cunning ). Machiavelli
also argued that political leaders operate under an “ethics of responsibility ”, which differs
from ordinary moral rules. While citizens may follow conventional religious or ethical standards,
rulers must prioritize the survival of the state, even if that requires the use of violence or
deception when necessary.
After the Second World War, Hans Morgenthau (1948) developed a systematic theory of
international politics based on the idea that political behaviour is shaped by laws rooted in
human nature. He aimed to explain how interest and morality interact in global
politics, drawing inspiration from thinkers like Thucydides and Machiavelli. Unlike idealists,
who believed international tensions could be solved through cooperation and moral dialogue,
Morgenthau argued that power is the central driving force in politic s. In his view,
morality should not guide foreign policy , because decisions based on idealism can
weaken states and make them vulnerable. Therefore, pursuing the national interest is
“amoral,” focused on survival and power rather than ethical considerations. Later, Kenneth
Waltz (1979) developed a modified version of realism known as neorealism or structural
realism. He shifted attention away from human nature and instead focused on the structure of
the international system . Waltz argued that state behaviour is shaped by two main factors:
first, the condition of international anarchy, meaning there is no central authority above

9
 C o n s t r u c t i v i s m a nd R e a l i s m ( I . R . )

states; and second, the distribution of power among states . According to this view, states
act based on their relative power positions within the system rather than innate human traits. This
approach made realism more systematic and empirically oriented , as it emphasized
observable factors like power and structure, rather than abstract ideas such as human nature. In
doing so, Waltz helped move International Relations theory toward more scientific and
measurable analysis of global politics.
Realists argue that their theory closely reflects how practitioners of statecraft
actually understand world politics . Because of this practical orientation, realism is widely
used in policymaking and is often compared to Machiavelli’s idea of providing a guidebook for
political leaders. It emphasizes how states operate in a world shaped by power, competition,
and security concerns. However, critics argue that realism may also reinforce the very
conflictual behaviour it describes . By assuming that humans are naturally self-
interested and that the international system lacks central authority, realism encourages
leaders to rely on suspicion, power, and force. In this sense, it can become a self-fulfilling
prophecy, where expecting conflict contributes to producing it. Critics also describe realism as
overly pessimistic because it treats conflict as unavoidable. Realists respond by arguing that
they are not pessimistic but pragmatic, since leaders must act within the real constraints
of international politics . From this perspective, relying on idealistic expectations of harmony
is seen as unrealistic and dangerous. Realism has also been criticized for its limited ability to
explain major changes, such as the end of the Cold War in 1991, which marked a sudden shift
in global politics and increased expectations for cooperation. Critics argue that realism failed to
anticipate this transformation and therefore cannot fully explain such systemic change. In addition,
realism is often said to focus too heavily on the state as a single, unified actor , ignoring
the role of individuals, domestic movements, and international organizations. For example, the
collapse of Soviet control in Eastern Europe was driven largely by popular resistance and
internal pressure, factors that realism tends to overlook. Realists respond by maintaining that
such events are exceptions rather than the rule , while the broader patterns of power politics
remain consistent. They often compare states to billiard balls, focusing on their interactions in
the international system rather than what happens inside them.

10
 C o n s t r u c t i v i s m a nd R e a l i s m ( I . R . )

A central idea in realism that is often criticized is the “balance of power .” This refers
to a situation where states constantly try to increase their own power while limiting the
power of others, creating an overall balance in the international system. The idea is that no
single state should become overwhelmingly dominant. According to realists, when a state becomes
too powerful—such as Nazi Germany in the 1930s—it triggers resistance from other states.
These states then form alliances to counter the rising power and restore balance, often
leading to war. In this way, the balance of power helps explain why the international system
remains anarchic, with no single authority able to control all states. Realism also highlights the
importance of flexible alliances , which are formed based on shared threats rather than
ideological or cultural similarities. States often cooperate with “the enemy of my enemy ” to
ensure their own survival. For example, during the Second World War (1939–1945), the
United States and the Soviet Union were allies because they both opposed Nazi Germany.
However, shortly after the war, they became rivals again, leading to shifting alliances and tensions
during the Cold War (1947–1991). While realists see the balance of power as a practical way
to manage insecurity, critics argue that it can also justify conflict and encourage
aggression. Despite these criticisms, realism remains a central theory in International Relations.
Many other approaches engage with realism directly, either by challenging or building on it, and
it continues to influence policy thinking and decision -making because of its focus on
practical tools of statecraft.

❑ Realis m and th e Is lami c State Group

The Islamic State (also known as IS, ISIS, ISIL, or Daesh) is a militant group that follows
a fundamentalist interpretation of Sunni Islam . In 2014, it declared its leader, Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi, as “caliph,” claiming religious legitimacy and tracing his lineage to the Prophet
Muhammad. The group demanded allegiance from Muslims worldwide and pursued the creation
of a self-declared Islamic “caliphate”, aiming to establish political, territorial, and cultural
control. To achieve this goal, the group used extreme violence and terrorism , targeting
both regional states and Western cities such as Paris, Manchester, and Melbourne. These

11
 C o n s t r u c t i v i s m a nd R e a l i s m ( I . R . )

actions turned it into a global security issue. Although IS claimed to be a state, it was widely
rejected as such and was instead classified as a terrorist organization by most states and
international bodies, including condemnation from many Islamic leaders. Despite lacking formal
recognition, IS controlled and governed territory in Iraq and Syria for a period, showing some
features associated with state-like authority. In response, states used military strategies—
especially airstrikes and support for local allied forces —to retake territory and
weaken the group. This reflects a realist approach, where force and military power are seen
as the main tools for managing security threats. Overall, the rise of Islamic State shows that
although transnational terrorism is a relatively new challenge , states continue to rely
on traditional realist methods, such as military intervention and power balancing, to counter it and
protect international security.
Realists argue that states ultimately rely on self-help to ensure their security. In
managing insecurity, they mainly use two strategies: the balance of power and deterrence.
The balance of power involves forming flexible, shifting alliances to counter threats, while
deterrence relies on the threat or use of overwhelming military force to prevent
enemies from acting. Both strategies can be seen in the response to the rise of the Islamic State
(IS). A broad but loosely coordinated coalition—including the United States, Russia, and
France—worked alongside regional partners such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran. These
partnerships were often pragmatic and temporary, reflecting realist ideas about interest-
based alliances rather than stable cooperation. At the same time, international
organizations like the United Nations played a limited role, largely because global agreement
is difficult in a system marked by state rivalry. Deterrence was also central, as states used
airstrikes and superior military power to quickly weaken IS and retake territory. From a
realist perspective, this response reflects rational calculation, since IS was far weaker in
conventional military terms. Realism assumes that even non-state actors behave as rational
actors, weighing costs and benefits in their actions. However, IS’s behaviour can also be
interpreted through a realist lens as strategic rather than irrational. By using limited resources to
spread fear, the group aimed to weaken Western influence and destabilize states in Iraq
and Syria. Its attacks and propaganda may also have helped generate anti-Western
sentiment and recruitment opportunities, as violence and perceived injustice

12
 C o n s t r u c t i v i s m a nd R e a l i s m ( I . R . )

encouraged some individuals to join the group. Overall, this case illustrates how realism explains
both state responses and non-state threats through the concepts of power, deterrence,
alliances, and rational strategic behaviour.
However, realism also stresses that military power should be used with great caution,
especially in complex regions like the Middle East. It is often mistakenly seen as a war-
promoting theory, but realists actually warn against unnecessary intervention. For example,
most realists opposed the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, arguing it was unlikely to serve long-term
US interests and could generate blowback, instability, and resentment in the region. This
view is reinforced by the later rise of the Islamic State, which many analysts interpret as part of
the unintended consequences of the Iraq War, showing how interventions can reshape regional
power dynamics in unpredictable ways. Overall, realism sees war and force as sometimes
necessary tools of statecraft, but insists they must be used prudently and only when
national survival is at stake, since misuse can create greater insecurity rather than resolve
it.

❑ C onc lusion

Realism is a theory of International Relations that seeks to explain how global politics actually
works. It emphasizes two main constraints: human nature, which is seen as self-
interested, and the absence of a central authority above states (anarchy).
Together, these conditions shape how states behave in an uncertain and competitive world.
For realists, the most important goal in international politics is the survival of the state.
Because of this, state actions are judged not by moral standards, but by the ethics of
responsibility, meaning decisions are evaluated based on whether they protect national interest
and security. Although realism has been widely criticized for being overly pessimistic or limited
in scope, it remains one of the most influential theories in International Relations. Despite its
critics, it continues to offer important analytical tools for understanding state
behaviour and global politics, making it essential for students of the subject.

13