Examples Of Constructivism And International Institutions

Kant assumed that states would act in self-interested ways and that repeated interactions would eventually lead to an expanding zone of peace – for example NATO. Like Kant’s theory, the Prisoner’s Dilemma is a model that posed that after continued repeated interactions, states would realize that it’s in their best interest to cooperate. Economic interdependency, also known as functionalism, proposes that states take cooperative ventures in nonpolitical areas such as the economy and security. This in turn will lead to greater interdependence and eventually, greater peace. Functionalism is a means to achieve peace now, starting with economic interdependence through international organizations such as the European Community. It is also a strategy in which international organizations, including the United Nations, use to promote interdependency and thus, maintain peace. Consequently, functionalism is most successful under a democratic government. Liberals

According to constructivism “The world of international relations is not just the world of material capabilities and materialistic opportunities it is also a social world”. Constructivists believe that actor states are occupied with both normative and material factors. They do not deny that the material world shapes their structure, but they believe that through reflections and discourse, actor states are malleable and influenced by each other. Constructivism thus deals with the process through which principled ideals become social norms. In being so, constructivism becomes a critical component for the international recognition of a state. This becomes crucial for actors, as the internationalization of social norms will ensure compliance over external pressure. Thus, democracy promotion can be subsumed under the socialization and internalization by actors. The persistence of democratic international institutions after the cold war as well as the mass identification of states as democracies and the absence of a strong alternative political ideology have contributed to a process of socialization promoting democratic cooperation. Therefore, after the Cold

The era of globalization has witnessed the growing influence of a number of unconventional international actors, from non-governmental organizations, to multi-national corporations, to global political movements. Traditional, state-centric definitions of foreign policy

A typical case of study is the Cold War. From my understanding, the Cold War describes the relationship between America and the Soviet Union between 1945 and 1980. During this period, neither sides ever fought each other directly, but indirectly they influenced other countries through their ideologies (i.e. America’s democracy and Russia’s communism) to war. For example, America supplied weapons to South Vietnam (anti-communist) to war with North Vietnam (pro-communist), who were also supported and supplied weapons by China/Russia. Also with Afghanistan, Americans helped them after the Soviet Union invaded in 1979 by supplying them with weapons to war, without physically involving themselves. This portrays that, in the absence of a supreme power to regulate law in International relations, the system will not be able to provide any public good, in this case, PEACE among states. However, to some extent they do. To achieve this peace, both realists and liberals have outlined various factors that facilitate this provision among States. For liberals, peace among states can be achieved through economic cooperation, democratic peace

Liberalism was previously a projection of how international relations ought to be; now, liberalism is a modern theory towards peace attained with a state’s ambition for dominance. “Self-interest” has two definitions in accordance to liberalism and realism. Liberalism considers the measure of power within states through stable economies, the possibility of peace and cooperation, as well as the concepts of political freedoms (human rights). Realism believes states are driven by competitive self-interest; international organizations hold little to no real influence because states are self-preserved. International relations is governed by states acting in their self-interest through liberalism; states act in their self-interest by cooperating with one another through international organizations, transnational advocacy networks, and non-governmental organizations. International organizations, normative values, and terrorism are all examples of how international relations is progressing into liberalism.

Realism and Liberalism are two extremely prominent theories of international relations. These doctrines exhibit sagacious perceptions about war, foreign affairs and domestic relations. The fundamental principles of protocol in which we rely upon aren’t always apprehensive (Karle, Warren, 2003). By interpreting the data one could fathom these ideas. The assessment of these faculties wield noteworthy dominance about the concepts of international affairs. In analyzing this data, you will comprehend the variant relationship between Realism and Liberalism.

Since International Relations has been academically studied Realism has been the dominant theory of world politics. The theory’s inability to explain the end of the Cold War, however, brought strength and momentum to the Liberalism theory. Today Realism and Liberalism are the two major paradigms of International Relations. The aforementioned theories focus on the international system and the external factors that can lead to two phenomena - conflict and cooperation. Realism believes that as a result of anarchy and the security dilemma, conflict is inevitable. Liberalism argues that this conflict can be overcome through cooperative activities amongst states and international organizations. This paper will explore as well as compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of both theories. It will also debate which of the two theories is more valuable in the

In order for countries to cohesively overcome international barriers, frameworks of ideal political standards must be established. Two of these frameworks constantly discussed in international relations are the theories of Neo-realism and Liberalism; two theories with their own outlook at the way politicians should govern their country as well as how they should deal with others. Neo-realism lies on the structural level, emphasizing on anarchy and the balance of power as a dominant factor in order to maintain hierarchy in international affairs. In contrast, Liberalism's beliefs are more permissive, focusing on the establishments of international organizations, democracy, and trade as links to strengthen the chain of peace amongst

Constructivism is a coherent theory of learning that emerged as a prevailing paradigm in the last part of the twentieth century. Constructivism is a theory which brings cogitation to pedagogy (Bruner, 1966). Constructivism capitalizes on the ways in which human beings create their own personal construct of reality by understanding and experiencing the world. The main underlying assumption of constructivism is that individuals are actively involved right from the birth in constructing personal meaning.

The rising power of transnational terrorist organizations post 9/11 has weakened the state-centric framework of the international system and challenged the structural realist’s conception of power. As one of the major theories, one would assume that the premises of structural realism would be more applicable in the 21st century. However, leaders of today are enveloping countries in a globalist mindset, contesting a state mentality that honors sovereignty. 9/11 represents a historical turning point; in which clashes between state and non-state actors increased the vulnerability of state actors and challenged their internal sovereignty. This paper will examine the premises of structural realism and explain how the rise of non-state actors

To define any perspective in International Relations, one must understand its’ origin and primary authors, including the context in which they were writing in. Liberalism is one of the more loosely defined perspectives as it has had a number of authors throughout history. Primarily, liberalism relies on the positive aspects of human nature. One of the most prominent liberal authors was Kant- who often wrote of the anarchical nature of international relations- referring to it as “the lawless state of savagery.” He also wrote of three primary routes to obtaining peace within this system, namely treating all aspects of human life with humanity, allowing for a federation of states and

In international relations, constructivism is regarded to be the starting point of the institutionalization of values that leads to the development of collaborative behaviors within the international community. Constructivism is based on the following core principles:

Social constructivism emerged in the mid-1990s, after the end of Cold War. Although it has been seen as a 'young ' theory in International Relations, it has challenged the two dominant theories – realism and liberalism. It also provided new theoretical openings to understand the International Relations. Social constructivists tried to establish a “middle ground” between rationalism and poststructuralism. Unlike realism, social constructivism claims that material capabilities of states, such as military power, is not the only essential factor in International Relations. It also concentrates on other non-material factors, including identity, culture, ideas, norms, institutions and interests. Moreover, it believes that the interaction of structures and agency is a key in explaining the international politics. However, not every social constructivists agree with the same themes of the theory. There is contestation. According to Ted Hopf (1998), social constructivism can be divided into two categories. The first type is the conventional constructivism, in other words, the 'weak ' constructivism. The second type is the critical constructivism, which is also called poststructuralism. In this essay, I am going to discuss the limitations of the weak form of social constructivism from the perspectives of other approaches, such as the critical constructivism and rationalism. The other approaches can indicate the deficiency of the weak form of social constructivism.

In examining Kenneth Waltz 's “Structural Realism after the Cold War,”1 and Andrew Moravcsik 's “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics,”2 it is clear that theories presented in each (Realism and Liberalism) are at odds with one another in many ways. But why did the authors reach the conclusions they did about the way that states behave in the international system? This paper seeks to answer that question.

For example, although there is consensus that the international system is structured anarchically, neo-realists and neoliberals hold differing views on the nature of anarchy: the former argues that anarchy is all-encompassing whereas the latter contends that anarchy can be weak or strong. Furthermore, neo-realists think that international cooperation is much harder to achieve than neoliberals do. What is more, they see institutions as unable to mitigate international anarchy, while neoliberals doubt this. All of the aforementioned differences will be sequentially elaborated on throughout this essay.