Chapter One:

Understanding International Relations

1
1.1. Conceptualizing Nationalism, Nations and Sates
 The words nation, state and country are often used interchangeably
but it is incorrect to do so

• Nations: historical entities that evolve organically out of more similar

ethnic communities and they reveal themselves in myths, legends
and songs
• Nationalism: the most influential force in international affairs
– Caused out break of revolutions and wars;
– considered as a factor for the collapse of age old empires,
– maker for new borders, powerful component for the emergence of new
states
– Used to reshape and reinforce regimes in history
• Nationalism’s triumph (success): the coming of nation-state as key
actors in world politics
– (nation-states: political entities accepted as ultimate, legitimate)
• Nationalism: doctrine that asserts the nation as the basic political2
• State: patch of land with a sovereign government
– Towards the end of the 18th C, radical transformation of the ‘nation’
occurred: the state was combined with a nation= Nation-state
• Nation: contrary to state, constitutes a community of people
joined by a shared identity and by common social practices.
• Communities for the first time became a political concern
(with the emergence of Nation-states).
– Nationalist leaders started arguing the nation should take over the
state; use the institutional structures of the state to further the
nation's end
• The nation added an interior life to the state;
– Nation- a soul added to the body of the early modern state
machinery
• Revolutions in USA, France became a model for other
nationalists to follow
3
• The Congress of Vienna (1815) was supposed to have returned Europe to
its pre-revolutionary ways. But nationalist sentiments were growing
across the continent and they constantly threatened to undermine the
agreement in the congress of Vienna.
– National communities in all over Europe demanded to be included in to politics of
their respective countries.
• In the 1st part of the 19th C, nationalism was a liberal sentiment concerning
self determination
– This idea of self determination undermined the political legitimacy of Europe’s
empires.
• 1848, nationalism uprisings spread across Europe and people everywhere
in Europe demanded the right to rule themselves
• The nationalist revolutions were defeated by the political establishment
but the sentiments of the revolution (self determination) were impossible
to control.
– Prosperous middle-class demanded inclusion into the political system and their
demands were expressed through the language of nationalism
• Self determination was acknowledged as a right only after 1918 (end of
WWI); after the WWI, most people in Europe formed their own nation-4
• As a result of the nationalist revolutions, the
European international system became for the firs
time truly ‘inter-national’
– The term ‘international’ coined by Jermy Bentham in
1783
• The Westphalian system concern relations
between states; thus world affairs in the 19th
century was concerned with relations between
nation-states. And in most respects the
international system continued to operate in
much the same manner as the Westphalian inter-
state system
5
• In international politics, implication of
nationalism and its essence is highly
questioned
– Especially currently, nation states are put under the
pressure; and their role in world politics is
significantly challenged.
• However, emerging narratives stating a revival
of nationalism is happening across the world
with the post cold-war assertions of religion,
culture and ethnicity as potent forces in world
politics.
6
1.2. Understanding International Relations
• The current feature of the world is explained in terms of
inter-connectedness in terms of geography, intellectual
and social aspects

• IR: impacts the integral aspect of our everyday lives in

tremendous ways
– EG: watching foreign movies- makes you learn about the culture
of the foreign state and enables you to participate in a culture
different from yours.
– Flying from one country to another- you become subject to
international air space agreements; you contribute to global
warming
– Working in any kind of organization- there are inevitable
international dimensions to the functioning of the company
• (the company operates under international employment laws; tax laws;
7
 Why is it important to study IR?
• Studying IR enables students and professionals
to better comprehend (understand) the
information we receive daily from
newspapers, television and radio.
– People have to be aware of their rights and
responsibilities equally as members of this world
community;
– they should be capable of engaging in important
debates concerning the major issues facing the
modern international community

8
• The term IR, first used by Jermy Bentham in 1798.
– Originally it was largely seen as a branch of the study of
law, philosophy or history.
• There is no one accepted way of defining or
understanding IR;
– many individuals have established their own ways of
understanding IR
• IR could be used to describe a range of
interactions between:
– people, groups, firms, associations, parties, nations or
states or between these and governmental and non
governmental international organizations.
– The interactions usually take place between entities9
• Starting from personal and private interactions to hosting
international events may appear to lack any significant
international political agenda.
– But such activities could have direct or indirect implications for
political relations between groups, states or international
organizations.
• International conflict, international conferences on global
warming and international crime play a huge part in the study
of IR.
• Participation in IR or politics is inescapable.
– No individual or state can exist in complete isolation or be master of
its own fate.
 But no one, not even the giant superpower can compel everyone to
do its bidding (request) in IR. There is no common sovereign over
them
– The world is pluralistic and diverse where each state is a minority
among humankind; and every state or nation must take account of
foreigners 10
 There are legal, political and social differences between
domestic and international politics
– Domestic law: if not obeyed, the police and court enforce
sanctions; the government has a monopoly in the legitimate use
of force
– International law: no common enforcement; no one has
monopoly of force; international system is a realm of self-help.
• In international politics; divided people do not share the same loyalties;
people disagree about what seems just and legitimate; order and justice.
• This doesn’t mean agreements never happen in politics; but conflict or
disagreement lies at the heart of politics. But to be political the
disagreement has to be about public issues.
• Sometimes, matters that are once purely domestic and of no
great relevance internationally can feature very prominently
on the international political agendas
– EG: SARS; Corona Virus are examples of how domestic incidents
can become international and can lead to foreign policy changes
11
and commitments
• IR is too important to be ignored but too
complex to be understood at a glance
• Studying IR provides the necessary tools to
analyze events, to gain deeper comprehension
of some of the problems that policy-makers
confront and to understand the reasoning
behind their actions.

12
• There are disputes about the fundamental nature
of IR:
– Hobbesian vs Lockean state of nature (17th c)
– Realist Vs Idealist (20th C)
• Hobbes: state of society is in ‘continual fear, and
danger of violent death; and the life of man is
solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’
• Locke: sociability was the strongest bond between
men. Men were equal, social and free; but they
were not licentious (immoral/ wicked) because
they were governed by the laws of nature.
– Nature did not arm man against man; some degree of
society was possible even in the state preceding 13
 Even now in the 21st C; the differing perceptions and
assumptions concerning human nature that influenced Hobbes
and Locke are still able to divide approaches to the study of the
nature of IR.
– International politics is preeminently concerned with the art of
achieving group ends against the opposition of other groups.
• But this is limited by the will and ability of other groups to impose their
demands.
– International politics involves the delicate adjustment of power to
power.
– International politics is also about maintaining international order in
an anarchical (lawless) world.

 The arena of IR and politics seems to be continually expanding.

– Multiplication of independent states.
– In 1800, there were no int. organizations; now we have one for almost
every activity (governmental and non-governmental).
– UN charter signed by 51 states in 1945; it now has 192 members. 14
1.4. Actors in IR
1.4.1. State Actors
• Traditionally IR focused on interactions between
states; but over the years, IR has broadened to
include relationships between all kinds of political
entities (polities).
– The new additions include IOs, MNCs, societies and
citizens
• Themes of IR are very vast and may range from
growing inter-connectedness of people to old and
new forms of security, dialogue and conflict across
the world regarding different issues
• The no. of IR actors and IR issues can be 15
• There are around 195 states in the world; (International politics is
a world stage on which the states are the leading actors).
– all are very different but they are also similar in some important aspects:
• all states are located somewhere,
• they have a territorial extension;
• they have borders.
• All states have their own capitals, armies foreign ministries, flags and national
anthems;
• they all call themselves sovereign: claim exclusive right to govern their
respective territories in their own fashion
• International politics has come to be defined in terms of
interactions between states in an international system of states
(the states being sovereign entities, territorially bound and
independent of any external authority)
• The international is structurally differentiated from the domestic.
– According to the realist perspective, the international is defined as
anarchical and the domestic is hierarchical.
16
1.4.2. Non-State Actors
• Thinking in terms of capacity to make a difference, non-state actors have
got as much agency as that of states
– (EG: UN, Amnesty International)
• MNCs have their headquarters in one state and have operational capability
in many other states.
– they contribute significantly to international relations.
• There are other trans-governmental organizations; where the relations
between players are not controlled by the central foreign policy of the state
– (EG: the International money market)
• State remains the primary actors in Int. politics for many. The term ‘IR’ has
for centuries has referred to relations between nations; but it does not
have to remain so confined.
• Traditionalist realist view of IR focuses on the physical security and
protection of the territory of the state and its people; but this needs to
change in the current aspect and we need to look wider.
– State borders do not seem to accurately delimitate global affairs.
– Majority of global interactions no longer occur via state channels the way they
once did. 17
• The increased focus on non-state actors and cross-
border issues has marked a close-to-revolutionary turn
in IR.
– A shift away from the inter-national (between states) to the
‘trans-national;’ (across/beyond-states’ and their borders).
• This view is not just a choice, rather more of an analytical necessity
• Different factors have dramatically changed the general
dynamics in politics and global affairs:
– international commercial aviation and the rapid spread of
information technologies: increased people’s mobility and
the rate at which interactions occur across and beyond state
borders.
– Social media: provide accessible platforms of
communication that allow for the projection and promotion
of ideas across borders at virtually no cost to the individual18
or group generating and advocating them.
1.5. Levels of Analysis in IR
• From 1919 till after the WWII, traditional/conventional IR was not concerned
with any potential distinctions between different levels of analysis (theoretical
perspectives).
– Scholars just roamed up and down the ladder of organizational complexity, focusing
upon the total system, international organizations, regions, coalitions, extra-national
associations, nations, domestic pressure groups, social lasses, elites and individuals
(singer(1961)
• Levels of analysis:
– example: trying to explain Germany’s decision to open its borders to hundreds of
thousands of refugees in 2015,
• you might look at external pressures that led to the decision
– You would investigate factors at the system level
» (economic indicators, refugee flows, attitude of key partners) and
• the personal motivations of Angela Merkel.
– factors at the individual level
» (Merkel’s ideological background, her interests and perceptions o the problem as it emerges from
statements and key decisions throughout her career)

• 1950s onwards, scholars of IR started specifying the focus of their analysis

more clearly
– Kenneth Waltz’s Man, distinguished between different images of an issue: the
19
individual, the state and the international system.
1.5.1. The Individual level
• Refers to looking at the behaviors, motivations, beliefs and orientation of the
individual in affecting a particular international phenomenon
– We focus on the psychology and emotions behind people’s actions and decisions, their fears
and their visions as well as their access to information and capacity to make a difference.
• Psychological factors are important factors in the analysis of foreign policy, whenever particular mindset
and perceptions of political leaders and key actors might influence their decisions and behavior.
• Focusing on the individual level and the particular actions of specific personalities in
the public realm, would lead us to draw different conclusions about the causes and
consequences about that phenomenon.
– Thus, being aware and acknowledging the potential gaps in our observation is important.
Applying rigor in our analysis is also important.
1.5.2. The Group Level
• Tries and breaks the analysis down into certain kinds of groups, further tires to
identify how these groups relate to the state level and where they position
themselves with respect to the global dimension of the issues they are dealing
with
– Example of a group level analysis focusing on foreign policy would look at the role of lobbying
groups and the way they influence national decision making on an issue.
• Group level analysis would be interested in the actions of group of individuals like:
– all voters of a country and the way they express their views in the general elections;
– political parties picking up on the issue in their campaigns or social movements forming20to
1.5.3. The State Level
• The main focus remains on the state as the dominant unit of
analysis.
– State-centrism: enduring focus on the state and on the state level of
analysis.
• IR scholars consider States as the central unit of analysis; and
conceive states as a point of reference for other types of
actors.
– (the state acts as the arena in which state officials, politicians and
decision-makers operate).
– The state is seen as the framework that encapsulates society and
as the main point of reference of the individual.
• State centrism; has to be seen against the historical context
within which some of the most prominent IR scholars
operated: the Cold War.
– During the cold war, much of international affairs appeared to be
run via state channels and in line with particular state interests. 21
• Even today, much of the political life remains managed in the state
framework;
– states form the primary kind of actor in major IOs;
– states still hold monopoly of violence (exclusive right to the legitimate use of
physical force)
• The state as a unit of analysis and frame of reference will certainly not go
away anytime soon, nor will the interactions of states as a key level of
analysis in IR
• A state level analysis might be interested to look at any one of the
following:
– the actions of states and their decisions to find an answer to our analytical
questions;
– how states interact with each other to deal with crisis;
– how states build off each other’s suggestions and react to international
developments and trends;
– how states cooperate;
– how states act as competitors and antagonists to each other
• A state level analysis requires a careful consideration of what kinds of
states we are looking at:
22
– their political order; their geographical position their historical ties and experiences;
1.5.4. The System Level
• Considers the global system as the structure or context within which states
cooperate, compete and confront each other over issues of national interest.
• It can be visualized as a level above the state
• It is concerned with distribution of power amongst states: whether there is
one main concentration of power (uni-polarity), two (bi-polarity) or several
(multi-polarity)
• Global circumstances are seen to condition the abilities and opportunity of
individual states and groups of states to pursue their interests in cooperative
or competitive ways.
• Starts with the assumption that our international system is anarchic:
– lacks a central government (or international sovereign) that regulates and controls
what happens to states in their dealings with each other.
• This level of analysis needs to consider global linkages that go beyond single
interactions between states.
– EG: it should look at the balance of power between states and how that determines
what happens in global politics
• A global level would give us the big picture and help us to grasp wide
ranging dynamics that emerge from the global economic system to affect its
23
various components, states, national economies, societies and individuals.
1.6. The Structure of International System
• Political power is usually distributed into three main types of systems:
unipolar system, bipolar system and multipolar system.
– They reflect the number of powerful states competing for power and their
hierarchical relationship
• Unipolar: there is one state with the greatest political, economic, cultural and
military power and hence the ability to totally control other states.
• Bipolar and Multipolar: there is no one single state with a preponderant
power and hence ability to control other states.
– states in such systems are forced to balance each other’s power.
• Bipolar system: there are two dominant states (super-powers) and the less
powerful states join either sides through alliance and counter alliance
formations.
– Problem with this system: it is vulnerable for zero sum game politics-when one
superpower gains the other would inevitably lose.
• EG: cold War period
• Multipolar System: It usually reflects various equally powerful states
competing for power.
– There is no need for a zero sum game.
• It is possible to bring change without gaining or losing power. 24
• Power: is the currency of international politics.
– It determines the relative influence of actors and it shapes the structure of the
international system.
– IR is essentially about actors’ power relations in the supra-national domain
• Hans Morgentahu: an advocate of the realism theory
– International politics is a struggle for power.
– Power is the blood line of IR
• Power can be defined in terms of both relations and material (capability
aspects)
– Relational definition of power by Robert Dahl: ‘A’s ability to get ‘B’ to do something it
would not other wise do.
• Whenever capabilities are equal, power tends to vanish totally.
– Anarchy: absence of authority/government (be it in national or international/global
level systems)
• Within a country, anarchy means: the breakdown of law and order.
• In IR, it means a system where power is decentralized and there are no shared institutions with
the right to enforce common rules.
– Anarchical world is a world where everyone looks after themselves and on one looks after the system as a
whole.
» States rely either on their own resources or form alliances

• Sovereignty:
– Internal sovereignty: a state’s ultimate authority within its territorial entity 25
– External sovereignty: the state’s involvement in the international community
1.7. Theories of IR
• We are daily confronted by images of global
interaction. We cannot claim immunity or
distance form events that occur elsewhere,
which affect others beyond our shores.
• Theories of IR allow us to understand and try to
make sense of the world around us through
various lenses.
• The theories can be classified as:
– traditional theories,
– middle-ground theories and
– critical theories
26
1.7.1. Idealism/Liberalism
• Liberalism in IR was referred to as a ‘utopian’ theory
• This theory portrays human beings as innately good and believe peace and harmony
between nations is not only achievable, but desirable
• Immanuel Kant: states that:
– shared liberal values should have no reason for going against one another;
• the more liberal states there are in the world, the more peaceful it would become because liberal states
are ruled by their citizens and citizens are rarely disposed to desire war.
• This idea is developed by modern liberals:
– the democratic peace theory-claims that democracies do not go to war with each other
• Liberals have faith in the idea that permanent cessation of war is an attainable goal
– Woodrow Wilson: 1918, presented 14points to the US congress; the last point was to ‘create a
general association of nations’. It got to be called the League of Nations. The league was
created for the purpose of overseeing affairs between states and implementing as well as
maintaining international peace.
• 1919-1930s, liberalism was dominated by liberal internationalism
– claims that the conditions which had led to the outbreak of the WWI, and the devastation
which followed should not be allowed to occur in the future.
– The underlying assumption was that the academic study of IR had the potential to contribute
to the prevention of war and the establishment of peace.
• Scottt Burchill, 1996: the prospects for the elimination of war lay with a preference
for democracy over aristocracy, free trade over autarky, and collective security over
27
• Foundations for the liberal internationalism:
– democratic governance; and
– institutionalized, law-governed relations of cooperation between states.
• The 2 pillars of liberal internationalism (democracy and free trade)
required the establishment of IR which would promote collective
aspirations in place of the conflictual relations which formed the
basis of balance of power thinking.
• A system of ‘collective security’ was advocated to replace
antagonistic alliance system with an international order, based on the
rule of law and collective responsibility.
– League of Nations was the conclusion of the liberal ideal of IR.
• The League was aimed to function as the guarantor of international order and would
be the organ through which states could settle their differences through arbitration.
• Any deviance from IL would be dealt with collectively in the name of maintaining
peace and security.
– When the LoN collapsed in 1939, its failure became difficult for liberals to
comprehend, as the events that caused the collapse seemed to contradict
their theories.
• Liberalism failed to retain a strong hold and a new theory emerged
28
• Liberals argue that International Law(IL) offers a mechanism by which
cooperation among states is made possible
IL:
– the body of customary and conventional rules which are binding on civilized states in
their intercourse with each other.
– It provides the normative framework for political discourse among members of the
international system.
– It does not guarantee consensus, but it foster the discourse and participation needed to
provide conceptual clarity in developing legal obligations and gaining their acceptance
• IL plays two roles:
1. Operating system: to provide mechanisms for cross-border interactions; and
2. Normative system: to shape the values and goals these interactions are pursing
• Purpose of IL: to regulate
– the conducts of governments; and
– the behavior of individuals within states.
• But the legal standing of IL is a contentious issue among scholars.
– There are three competitive views on this matter:
I. IL is not a law at all but a bunch of international morality.
II. IL is a law in all senses of the term.
III. the operating system of IL functions in some ways as a constitution does in a domestic legal
system and not as a law proper
– 29
(it does noting beyond setting out the consensus of its constituent actors on distribution of rights and
1.7.2. Realism
• At the outset of the 1930s and the out break of WWII, liberal
internationalist ideals seemed futile (pointless) and utopian
– IR placed power and self-interest at the forefront of concern.
– the idealism of the interwar period was henceforth to be replaced by
realism
• E.H. Carr presented utopianism in opposition to realism in his book
‘Twenty Years’ Crisis’ (1939). His book called for a move away from
utopian doctrine
• Realists argue: morality is determined by interest; conditions of the
present are determined by historical processes
• Realism starts with the assumption and view of the international
system as ‘anarchic’ as a result of the absence of an all-
encompassing authority (international Sovereign).
– Domestic society is ruled by a single system of government; the
international system lacks such a basis(IL is non-binding and ultimately
ineffectual (week) in the regulation of relations between states).
• As a result, conflict is inevitable and continual feature of the IR. 30
• Liberal internationalism found its basis in the enlightenment
and the birth of reason . Realism locates its roots back to
Thucydides, Machiavelli and Hobbes’s works.
– Thucydides: Peloponnesian War (book that talks about power,
intrigue, conquest, alliance-bling and the intricacies (details) of
bargaining)
– Hans Morgenthau: Politics among Nations (1948)- a book that
leads the realist perspective.
• A work that is a descendant form Thucydides.
• Morgenthau asserts that realism assumes that its key concept of interest
defined as power is objective a theory which is universally valid; but it
does not endow that concept with a meaning that is fixed once and for
all.
• Morgenthau starts with the assumption that there are objective laws
that are universally applicable.
– International politics like all politics is a struggle for power.

• Liberal internationalism is openly normative and

31
prescriptive; realism is scientific and explanatory.
• In late 1950s and 1960s, IR dominated by realist conceptions
– Realism gained momentum during WWII.
• Realism originated in name in the 20th C; but many realists have traced its origins in
earlier writings.
• Realism purports to reflect the ‘reality’ of the world and accounts for change in
international politics.
– Morgenthau: realism concentrates on the attributes and behavior of states within the
international system.
– Thomas Hobbes: described human beings as living in an order less ‘state of nature’ ( war of all
against all).
• To remedy this, ‘social contract’ (contract between ruler and the people of a state to maintain relative
order) was required.
– Hedley Bull: in 1977’s book, ‘The Anarchical society’ criticized Morgenthau's approaches.
• He claims that relations between states couldn ot be reduced to measureable attributes of power or
models of decision making. He states that we could legitimately look to history and philosophy to
conceptualize the complexity of international politics.
– This is referred to as the ‘English School’ demarcated from the US dominated realist perspective through its normative
approaches to the subject.
– Kenneth Waltz: defined a neo-realist agenda.
• Waltz focuses on the International system itself and seeks to provide a structural account of its dynamics
and the constraints it imposes on state behavior.
• The international system is anarchical and hence perpetually threatening and conflictual.
• For waltz is more interested in the imperatives of the international system and the distribution of
capabilities within it (a structural account). Domestically, there are leaders (sovereign) who set rules and
establish a system of punishment for those who break them; no such thing exists internationally. Hence,
war seems more common than peace to realists; war is inevitable. IR is characterized by ‘international 32
What sets realism and liberalism apart?
1. the different views they have about human nature
• Realists: individuals act in their own self interests; people are selfish and behave
according to their own needs without necessarily taking into account the needs of
others.
– Conflict is unavoidable and perpetual and so war is common and inherent to human kind
• Morgenthau: all politics is a struggle for power. Politics is primarily about domination as opposed to
operation between states.
• Liberals: human beings are inherently good; have the potential for good
2. the way they see the world (the lenses they use)
• Both see the same world; but through different lenses.
• Realists: world appears to be of domination.
– This lens magnifies instances of war and conflict and then uses those to paint a certain
picture of the world.
– They are not optimists about the world: they have a more pessimistic view.
– They focus on the centrality of the state and its need for security and survival in an
anarchical system where it can only truly rely on itself.
– They describe IR as a system where war and conflict is common and periods of peace are
merely times when states are preparing for future conflict.
• Liberals: this lens blurs out areas of domination and instead bring areas of
cooperation in to focus.
– Have an optimistic view of IR. 33
• They believe that the world order can be improved, with peace and progress gradually replacing war.
3. the way they see the nature of the state
• Both consider the state to be the dominant actor in IR;
states are typically regarded as possessing ultimate
power; this includes the capacity to enforce decisions
• Liberalism: adds a role for non-state actors (IOs).
– Argues that organizations are valuable in assisting states in
formulating decisions and helping to formalize cooperation that
leads to peaceful outcomes
• Realists: believe states partake in international
organizations only when it is in their self-interest to do
so.

• Many scholars have begun to reject these traditional

theories over the past several decades because of their
obsession with the state and the status quo. 34
1.7.3. Structuralism/Marxism
• Marxism: agues that a capitalist society is divided in to 2 contradictory classes:
– the business class (the bourgeoisie), and
– the working class (the proletariat).
• Proletariats- are at the mercy of the bourgeoisie who control their wages and
therefore their standard of living.
• Marx hoped for the end of the stratified society; and the overthrow of the
bourgeoisie by the proletariat.
– Marxism only came to constitute an alternative mode of conceptualizing politics during
the 1960s
• ( US withdrew from Vietnam; Third world alliance felt at the UN, global relations came to encompass
vast concepts)
• John Burton’s book came with a view that stated that global relations were
multiform in content and involved a number of different types of actor ( starting
from individuals to states, to non-state organizations)
• Marxism emerged as a critique of both realism and pluralism;
– it concentrated on the :
• inequalities that exist within the international system,
• inequalities of wealth between the rich ‘north/ 1st world; and the poor ‘south/3rd world.
– This led to the creation of the Structuralist paradigm (which focused on dependency,
exploitation and the international division of labor).
• Scholars of this paradigm argue that most states were not free and that they were suugated by the
35
political, ideological and social consequences of economic forces.
• Marxism and structuralism agree: the basis behind the
inequality was the capitalist structure of the
international system.
• Liberalism claims networks of economic
interdependence as a basis of increasing international
cooperation founded on trade and financial interactions.
But Marxist & Structuralism vies these processes as the
basis of inequality, the debt burden, violence and
instability.
• The major writers in the Structuralism perspective
emerged from Latin America, Africa and the Middle East
– EG:
– Andre Gunter Frank, Samir Amin- both concentrated on the
dependency theory;
– Immanuel Wallerstien 36
1.7.4. Constructivism
• A theory commonly viewed as a middle ground between the main stream
theories and the critical theories.
• Highlights the importance of values and shared interests between
individuals who interact on the global stage.
• Alexander Wendt: described the relationship between agents (individuals
and structures( such as the state) as one in which structures not only
constrain agents but also construct their identities and interests :
“anarchy is what states make of it”
• International relations exist in the interactions between people.
– States do not interact, it is agents of these states such as politicians and
diplomats who interact.
• If anarchy is what we make of it, then different states can perceive
anarchy differently and the qualities of anarchy can even change over
time.
• To understand constructivism is to understand that ideas (norms) have
power.
• IR is a never ending journey of change chronicling the accumulation of the
accepted norms of the past and the emerging norms of the future. 37
1.7.5. Critical Theories
• Wide spectrum of theories that have been established in
response to mainstream approaches (liberalism and
realism)
• This theory opposes commonly held assumptions in the
field of IR that have ben central since its establishment.
• Claims that altered circumstances call for new approaches
that are better suited to understand and question the
world.
• CT identify positions that have typically been ignored or
overlooked within IR
• CT provides a voice to individuals who have frequently
been marginalized
– (women and the those from the Global south)
• Marxist angle; post colonialism 38