constructivism paper.doc

7/25/2019 Constructivism Paper.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/constructivism-paperdoc 1/34

What Are We Making?

The Constructivist Approach to International Relations Theory

Samuel S. Stanton, Jr.

A paper presented at the 2002 Arkansas Political Science Association Annual Meeting

February 22-2, 2002, Jonesboro, A!



Abstract

"his paper looks at the constructi#ist approach to the study o$ international relations. "heconstructi#ist approach is de$ined in terms o$ the philosophical underpinnings o$ the

approach and the scienti$ic%social scienti$ic premises that highlight this social theory o$

international relations. "he approach is criti&ued based upon the postmodern approach tounderstanding and kno'ing. Also important to the criti&ue o$ the approach is the

understanding o$ scienti$ic%social scienti$ic criticisms o$ the constructi#ist approach.

Social constructi#ism is analy(ed $or its o$$erings in the study o$ anarchy, regimes, 'orld polity, and as systemic le#el theory o$ international relations. Among the interesting

$indings is the problematic nature o$ this approach to understanding anarchy, the

di$$iculty o$ de$ining constructi#ism as positi#ist social science, and the optimistic

outlook $or the $uture o$ international relations studies o$$ered by the constructi#istapproach.



Introduction

)t is o$ten asked 'hy any theory o$ international relations should be taken

seriously. *n the sur$ace this appears to be a #alid &uestion. "heory is academically

based and not part o$ the real 'orld. Practitioners o$ $oreign policy must li#e in the +real+

'orld and actually take care o$ the business o$ go#ernment.

o'e#er, 'e need look no $urther than the linton administration in the S to see

that theory can be highly in$luential on practitioners o$ $oreign policy. *ne strand o$

liberal international relations theory is called +democratic peace theory+./ "his strand o$

liberalism holds that democracy 'ill rarely engage in con$lictual beha#ior 'ith one

another. "he linton administrations policy o$ +engagement+ 'as designed to spread

democracy, this in hopes that $uture con$licts might be a#oided because democracies do

not engage in con$lict 'ith each other.

More recently the 1ush administration has made a decision on the type o$ arms to

sell to "ai'an. Most o$ the systems 'ere purposely de$ensi#e in nature. *ne #ersion o$

realist theory is o$$ense-de$ense realism.2 e$ensi#e realism holds that 'hen the strength

o$ states is de$ensi#e in nature it 'ill mitigate against interstate con$lict because security

is ma3imi(ed. on#ersely 'hen o$$ensi#e strength is the norm, it is more likely that

states 'ill engage in con$lict 'ith one another in an attempt to ma3imi(e their o'n

security.

1oth liberalism and realism in most o$ their #arieties assume that the main unit o$

analysis in international relations should be the state. "he di$$erence bet'een them is

/ A good re#ie' o$ democratic peace theory 'ill be $ound in 'orks by Michael oyle, 4ee# Mao(, 1ruce

!ussett and a#id Singer. hristopher 5ayne and Joanne 6o'a o$$er a good criticism o$ the democratic

peace theory.2

Scholars such as Stephen 7an 8#era, 6eorge 9uester and !obert Jer#is pro#ide a good source o$

in$ormation about o$$ense-de$ense realism.



o#er the concern $or po'er :absolute gains; #ersus the concern $or economic prosperity

:relati#e gains; :<alt /==>, >;. )n Neorealism and Neoliberalism, The Contemporary

Debate :1ald'in, 8d. /==; it is sho'n as e#ident that the only true di$$erence bet'een

the t'o main strands o$ liberal and realist theory is the &uestion o$ 'hen absolute gains

mean more than relati#e gains.

For the student o$ international relations theory and $or the practitioner looking

$or a 'ay to pro#ide the best $oreign policy this becomes &uite troubling. "heories are

supposed to pro#ide #iable options that are competiti#e in their ambition to e3plain a

phenomenon or to pro#ide a means o$ predicting $uture beha#ior and outcomes. "his is a

general theoretical problem, but as ans Morgenthau has in$ormed us, +"he key to a

theory o$ international politics 'ill not be $ound in the speci$ic sub?ect matter o$

international politics but in the re&uirements and problems o$ a general political theory,+

:/=@=, /;.

Stephen 7an 8#era says that theory is composed o$ causal la' or causal

hypothesis connected 'ith an e3planation o$ the causal la' or hypothesis :/==B, =;. "he

implication o$ this de$inition $or social science is that theory should allo' us to make

predictions about $uture beha#ior o$ the actors in#ol#ed based on an understood

e3planation o$ ho' phenomena relate to each other.

<ith these $actors in mind, ) turn to social constructi#ism to $ind a theory o$

international relations that is not particular to the speci$ic sub?ect matter o$ international

politics, but rather to the &uestion o$ general theory. eri#ed $rom a multitude o$ sources

that include the +1ritish School+ o$ international politics, postmodern philosophy, and



positi#ist social science, constructi#ist theory o$$ers a means o$ mo#ing beyond the

stagnation o$ the popular neoliberal and neorealist theories o$ international relations.

onstructi#ist theory is addressed in this 'ork $or both its social scienti$ic and

philosophical o$$erings. "he $irst t'o sections o$ this 'ork look at the philosophy and

social science o$ constructi#ist international relations theory and the philosophical and

social scienti$ic criti&ues o$ this theory. "he third section looks at 'hat constructi#ism

o$$ers to the study o$ international relations. A$ter all, the root o$ constructi#ism is

construct, so 'hat is being constructedC ) conclude this e$$ort by looking at the #alue o$

constructi#ist theory as a systemic le#el o$$ering to understand international relations.

Speci$ically, 'hat is re&uired $or a theory to be systemic and does constructi#ism &uali$yC

Constructivism, Philosophy

"o e3plain the basics o$ constructi#ist theory ) turn to Ale3ander <endt and his

Social Theory of International Politics :/===;, 'hich o$$ers one o$ the most

comprehensi#e looks at constructi#ist theory. onstructi#ist political theory holds that

the structures o$ interaction are determined by shared ideas. )dentities and interests are

constructed by shared ideas. <endt 'as not the $irst to e3plain human interaction this

'ay. 5ebo' :200/; e3plains that "hucydides can actually be considered the $ather o$

constructi#ism, as his 'ork e3plains ho' language and con#ention establish identities

and enable po'er to be translated into in$luence :5ebo' 200/, @DB;.

7ie'ed in this manner, constructi#ism is both idealistic and structural, 'hich

makes constructi#ist theory a richer and more #ibrant account o$ the structure o$

international relations than o$$ered by Eeorealism'hich ignores idealism in $a#or o$



naked structureor by Mar3ism or <orld Systems "heory, 'hich ignore structure in

$a#or o$ ideas. )t also makes constructi#ism a richer theory than liberalism or

neoliberalism.

<hat is meant by the social construction o$ identity, or that identities are

constructed by shared ideasC "he theory is that norms and ideals o$ state beha#ior are

embedded in the system. "he system is primarily composed o$ states :as in neorealism;

but also includes other non-state actors :as in liberalism;. "hese embedded ideals guide

and direct the interaction o$ states. )nternational relations are not readily #isible to

human senses, but according to constructi#ism these relations result $rom a distribution o$

ideas. )mplicit in this delineation is the assumption that states ha#e +human+ traits.

)ndeed, scholars and state leaders o$ten speak o$ the national +interests+, +needs+, etc.

:<endt /===, /0;.

<hile <alt identi$ies the unit o$ analysis $or constructi#ist theory as the

indi#idual :<alt /==>, >;, <endt :/===; identi$ies the main unit o$ analysis $or

constructi#ist theory in international relations as the state. 1ut, 'hat comprises a stateC

)ndi#iduals 'ho are in$ormed by the system comprise the state and in$orm the state o$ the

states responsibility and duty to the indi#iduals. "here is really not a con$lict bet'een

<alt and <endt on this matter, <alt correctly points out that indi#iduals are the main

element o$ constructi#ist analysis and <endt uses the states as +indi#iduals+ in the

international system.

onstructi#ist theory o$ this type makes three mo#es that delineate it as di$$erent

$rom <alt(ian structural theory :neorealism;. *ne, the structure o$ the international

system is a social phenomenon rather than a material phenomenon :<endt /===, 20;.



+"he character o$ international li$e is determined by the belie$s and e3pectations that

states ha#e about each other, and these are constructed largely by social rather than

material structures,+ :)bid.; Material po'er and capabilities matter, but only inso$aras

states ha#e delineated the meaning o$ po'er and capability. "'o, state identities are

constructed by the international system by 'ays that a pseudo-economic approach can

e3plain :<endt /===, 2/;. States are identi$ied as states because other states identi$y

them as such, not merely because o$ e3istence. <hat states #ie' as the &uality o$ +state+

is determined by the interactions bet'een these actors o#er the e3istence o$ the system.

"hree, anarchy has no logic apart $rom the process o$ interaction :<endt /===, 2/;.

)nteraction is structured by the embedded norms o$ the system. <endt states that this

does not undermine systemic theory :<endt /===, 2/;. <hether or not it does or does

not undermine systemic theory shall be discussed in the conclusions o$ this 'ork. 1e$ore

turning to the o$$erings o$ constructi#ism, ) $irst e3amine its philosophical and social

science aspects and o$$er a criti&ue o$ these $undamentals o$ the theory.

<hat then are the philosophical roots $or this theoryC "he philosophical basis $or

the theory is best understood $rom the perspecti#e o$ critical or postmodern theory.

1ecause identity and norms are so important to constructi#ism 'e must ask 'hose

identity and 'hose normsC )t is also important to understand constructi#ism is a means

o$ kno'ing or understanding phenomenon, 'hich is the goal o$ e3istential and

postmodern philosophical theory.

Postmodern philosophy in$orms constructi#ism along t'o lines. First, it is

impossible to +kno'+ anything or ha#e a uni#ersal de$inition outside o$ those in#ol#ed in



the discourse. Second, ho' actors 'ill beha#e is determined by the system in 'hich the

actor is located.

According to 5yotard, +5anguages are not employed hapha(ardly,Geach must

$ormulate its o'n rules and petition the addressee to accept them,+ :/=>D, D2;. o' 'e

discuss something must be agreed upon and understood be$ore the discussion begins. )$

'e look at international relations as a discussion, 'hat are the rules and $rom 'here do

they come 'ould be the e&ui#alent concern. onstructi#ism in$orms us that rules are

embedded in the system as the norms and principles by 'hich actors are identi$ied. "he

discourse among the actors is done according to norms, 'hich are designed by discourse

among the actors. "he actors are, in the case o$ international relations, states. 1y

common communication, deri#ed by norms o$ understanding, states can pro?ect the

understanding o$ +stateness+ onto the system o$ states.

"hese same embedded norms allo' states to understand 'hat is acceptable

beha#ior and transmit this beha#ior into the system. Michel Foucault, in Discipline and

Punish :/=BB;, states that +A body is docile that may be sub?ected, used, trans$ormed and

impro#ed,+ :/=BB, /;. 5ooking at the constructi#ist proposition that the norms and

principles that are embedded in the system in$orm and de#elop the identity o$ the actors

and then the actors can in turn in$orm and rede$ine the system, it is easy to see the

in$luence o$ the Foucauldian conception o$ docility.

*ne purpose o$ understanding international relations theory is to go beyond the

description o$ the sub?ect manner and e3plain ho' the system and the units o$ the system

might be trans$ormed. Foucault :/=BB; sho's ho' discipline and punishment in the

'orld changed o#er time as the people in$ormed the go#ernments o$ 'hat types o$



punishment and discipline 'ere acceptable. "he role o$ the people 'as determined by the

society in 'hich they li#ed. "he people in turn rede$ined acceptable practices in the

society.

"he same can be applied to states in the international system. "he system

pro#ides meaning to being a state. "he states then rede$ine acceptable practices in the

system. )n this manner the system and the states may be trans$ormed. For e3ample,

'hen the Athenians could no longer ?usti$y their $oreign policy'ar and the $orce$ul

surrender o$ territory $rom Spartan liege states'ith the accepted language o$ their time,

they rede$ined the system and introduced ne' language, thus in the Melian ialogue 'e

$ind the argument that strength makes rightde$initely out o$ place $or a society so

dedicated to democratic norms o$ beha#ior .

Philosophically postmodern ideas 'ould not be possible 'ithout the 'ork o$

e3istentialists such as Sartre and Merleau-Ponty. 83istentialism created the basis $or

understanding that no truths are uni#ersal. All things are seen through the essence that is

the indi#idual actor. 83istentialism created the indi#idual lens that is made systemic in

critical theory and makes it possible to argue in $a#or o$ social construction theories.

)$ international relations is a socially constructed phenomenon, then 'e must

understand ho' people are able to understand others in relation to themsel#es, so that

some norms or principles o$ understanding might appear to e3ist. H)$ ) am dealing 'ith a

stranger 'ho has yet to utter a 'ord, ) may 'ell belie#e that he is an inhabitant o$ another

'orld in 'hich my o'n thoughts and actions are un'orthy o$ a place. 1ut let him utter a

"he Melian ialogue can be $ound in "hucydides account o$ the Peloponnesian <ar, it is also discussed in

<. !obert onnor, Thucydides :/=>D;I Princeton ni#ersity Press.



'ork, or e#en make a gesture o$ impatience, and already he ceases to transcend me,

:Merleau-Ponty /=2, /;.

"he argument is that understanding each other is a matter o$ not being

transcended by the other. <hen 'e communicate 'e cease to be transcended and instead

begin to construct the idea o$ each other. <hile this radical indi#idualism may seem to

be at odds 'ith constructi#ism and critical postmodern theory, it is actually the

$oundation that makes constructi#ism and postmodernism possible. Social construction

does not occur in a #acuum, it occurs bet'een indi#idual actors, 'ho i$ they are

transcended by the other cannot begin to construct a theory o$ ho' the system in 'hich

they e3ist $unctions or de$ines their o'n e3istence.

Constructivism, ocial cience

"he second $oundation $or a theory o$ international relations is disco#ered in the

understanding that a theory about actors in a system is a social scienti$ic theory.

)nternational relations as a $ield o$ study in political science must be held to some

scienti$ic standard i$ it is to be considered as Hscience. ume, in Treatise of Human

Nature :8. Mossner, 8d. /==;, argues that the name political science re$lects a

commitment to e3plain political phenomena according to la's, methods, and principles

similar to those at 'ork in nature. ume discusses an Hassociation o$ ideas, 'ith three

basic rulesI resemblanceK contiguity in time and placeK and, cause and e$$ect :/==, @>;.

"his relates to the scienti$ic method o$ understanding, 'hich is to be echoed in the study

o$ social phenomena i$ 'e 'ish to call the study scienti$ic.



Eeu$eld :/==@; sets the stage $or understanding constructi#ism as positi#istic

social science by gi#ing positi#ism three basic aspects. *ne, positi#e kno'ledge is true

in that it corresponds to $acts. Second, positi#e kno'ledge is ob?ecti#e. Lno'ledge

should be generated 'ithout re$erence to normati#ely oriented ideas. "hird, the

methodological approach that is used 'ould be as 'ell suited $or use in the natural 'orld

as the social 'orld :/==@, 2D-2@;.

Ale3ander <endt :/===; attempts to e3plain constructi#ism as a positi#istic social

scienti$ic theory. "his 'ould mean that constructi#ism is not epistemologicala

descripti#e or relational theorybut, it is ontologicala causal theory. "his seems

problematic at $irst glance because <alt :/==>; says that one o$ the main problems o$

constructi#ist theory is that it is better at describing 'hat is and 'hat 'as than in

predicting 'hat might be or should be :/==>, >;.

*ne $urther point should understood be$ore plunging into the argument about the

positi#ist nature o$ constructi#ismthe di$$erence bet'een causation and constitution.

Materialism, the basis $or neorealism, relies on causal logic. "his is to say that causes

N. )dealism, the basis $or constructi#ism, relies on constituti#e e$$ect. "hat is to say that

presupposes N, N is not contingent upon , but does constitute N or part o$ N. <endt

o$$ers a good e3ampleI the ?oining o$ hydrogen and o3ygen atoms causes <aterK but

'ater is constituted by the molecular structure 2*. "he molecular structure does not

cause 'ater, but 'ithout this structure something cannot be 'ater :<endt, 2@;. "his is

similar to e3planation o$ constituti#e rules $ound in !uggie :/==>, 22;, the rules might

delineate ho' to play the game, but they also delineate the structure o$ the game. Armed



'ith these insights into constructi#ism ) turn to the &uestions o$ 'hether constructi#ism is

scienti$ically positi#ist and 'hether or not anarchy is ideational rather than structural.

<hether or not constructi#ism is a scienti$ic positi#ist theory is the cru3 o$ the

argument about constructi#ism as a $orm o$ cogniti#e international relations theory.

Positi#ismD re$ers to the idea that 'e can scienti$ically Hkno' something. A positi#ist

theory o$ international relations 'ould at minimum accept the idea that nature o$ Hstates

can be scienti$ically appro3imated. "he ma3imum le#el o$ positi#ism in international

relations theory 'ould say that the nature o$ Hthe system o$ states could be scienti$ically

appro3imated. *n the sur$ace it seems that there is a logical $la' in arguing that a theory

o$ Hkno'ing in the constructi#ist sense'here identity is constructed by the actors

based on embedded normscould be a scienti$ically positi#ist theory o$ international

relations.

<hat should be recogni(able is that 'hile 'ater is constituted by $undamental

elements o$ matter, it is not caused by these elements. )t is possible $or a phenomenon to

be constructed by positi#istically understood parts, 'ithout being caused by these parts.

"his is the argument o$ those 'ho $a#or constructi#ist theory as a positi#istic social

scienti$ic theory o$ international relations. Science positi#ely de$ines H'hat is and the

search $or H'hat is is the result o$ an idea that a relationship e3ists bet'een some

elements o$ the system. )n nature the elements o$ the systemo3ygen, hydrogen, argon,

etc.make or constitute the identity o$ understood $lora and $auna. )n the social system

the elementspeople, states, ideology, etc.constitute the identity o$ understood beings

'hich are the states, people, ideologies, etc. "he most common ob?ection to this is that

D ) use positi#ism to re$er to 'hat <endt :/===; terms scienti$ic realism or realism to a#oid any con$usion

bet'een this term and realist theory o$ international relations.



this seems tautological causes N 'hich causes . 1ut this is premised on the

misguided belie$ that all positi#e science is aimed at causal :ontological; theory at its

core. <endtOs :/===; argument is that 'hile the goal o$ constructi#ism is positi#istic

e3plaining some beha#ior in the systemat its core it is an understanding o$ the

constituti#e elements o$ the system.

Criti!ues, Philosophy and cience

"he same areas that pro#ide the philosophical and social science basis $or

constructi#ism also o$$er a strong criti&ue. Along this line o$ reasoning t'o criti&ues o$

scienti$ic positi#ism e3ist. "he criti&ues are based on the need $or science to be

empirically #eri$iable and the nature o$ critical discourse that is so much a part o$

postmodernism. First ) look at the scienti$ic criti&ue, then at the postmodernist criti&ue.

Science is based on obser#able $act. <e cannot kno' 'hat is unobser#able. As

a#id ume has in$ormed us, 'hat 'e kno' is really the illumination o$ Hsensa@ in our

minds. Sensa are the mental images 'e recei#e $rom sensory contact and this alone

constitutes 'hat is kno'able. Since 'e cannot possess sensory perception o$ Hstate or

Hsystem o$ states, these things cannot scienti$ically or kno'ingly e3ist. "he second is

the more radical criti&ue o$ postmodernism. "his criti&ue says that it is impossible to

Hkno' anythingK there are no uni#ersally applicable truths.

"o some postmodernists constructi#ism 'ould be epistemological rather than

ontological :or positi#ist;. onstructi#ism is the construction o$ discourse bet'een

masters o$ the linguistic game that is being used at that moment to e3press the

@ Sensa re$ers to sensory percei#ed in$ormation. <hat 'e see at this moment is acti#e sensa. <hat 'e

remember 'hen not actually seeing something is memory, or decaying sensa.



signi$icance o$ the symbols that signi$y a possible de$inition o$ 'hat has at one time been

termed Hstate or Hsystem o$ states. "hrough discourse, the linguistic game, 'e can gain

an understanding o$ the construction o$ the norms that predicate the understood meaning

o$ the understood action o$ the entity that 'e symboli(e 'ith the 'ord state. )n any case,

there is a strong case that can be made that constructi#ism is an empirical be$ore

ontological theory. "his 'ould mean that the theory is more concerned 'ith ho' 'e can

understand a relation rather than ho' the relation might come into being.

"he &uestion o$ the positi#ism o$ a theory o$ international relations comes to rest

on the &uestion o$ 'hether a constructi#ist theory o$ international relations rests on a

descripti#e theory o$ re$erence, a relational theory o$ re$erence, or a causal theory o$

re$erence. )$ constructi#ism is a descripti#e or relational theory then it is epistemological.

<endtOs argument is that constructi#ism is a constituti#e theory, 'hich is an ontological

theory and thus positi#istic. A constituti#e theory is necessary to understand the elements

that 'ill be causal o$ phenomenon in a systemK this is ho' constructi#ism can be #ie'ed

as ontological.

escripti#e theory relates to the ume argument about Hsensa. <hat 'e can

describe is 'hat 'e can understand and thus gi#e meaning. "he relational theory is

rooted in linguistic structuration and is the basis $or postmodern epistemology. <hat 'e

obser#e in reality has nothing to do 'ith meaning and truth, 'hich are the product o$

sociological relations that are $ound in the discourse bet'een actors. o'e#er, the

problem 'ith this theory is that it $ails to account $or the resistance o$ nature to certain

representations reached through discourse :<endt, @;.



)n causal theory a term is gi#en meaning and that meaning is then taught to others

through time :<endt, @B;. "he meaning o$ the term becomes embedded in the process o$

understanding that actors possess. )n the positi#ist #ie' belie$s and the meanings that

actors apply to terms is both a $unction o$ nature and discourse. "his is ho'

constructi#isma highly cogniti#e theoryis able to claim positi#ist status. "he

structure o$ the system o$ states has been gi#en a meaning that is understood by its

$unction and ho' its actors engage in discourse about its meaning. )n the process o$

understanding this meaning, the belie$s about ho' the system operates and 'hat

constitutes being an actor in the system become embedded in the #ery nature o$ the actors

and the system.

) repeat mysel$ here brie$ly on the issue o$ tautology. "he only logical criti&ue o$

this bit o$ theori(ing is that it is slightly tautological. )$ the structure has been gi#en

meaning, ho' can it gi#e meaning to ne' actorsC "he system cannot both gi#e

constituti#e meaning to the actors and recei#e its meaning $rom the actors. nless o$

course, you are 'illing to accept the sociological premise that social kinds both gi#e and

recei#e meaning $rom their parts. "his is because social kinds ha#e both internal and

e3ternal structure :<endt /===, B/;. "his returns us to the constituti#e nature o$ the

constructi#ist theory o$ international relations.

Many constructi#ists 'ould disagree 'ith the claim o$ tautology because social

structure is created and maintained by indi#idual per$ormances that in turn impact

structure. Sub?ecti#ity has a dialectic nature, not synthesis dialectic as understood in the

egelian sense, 'hich is that sub?ecti#ity is internal and e3ternal. !emember that in its

philosophical roots constructi#ism has a touch o$ e3istentialism 'hich holds all things



sub?ect to the being that is obser#ing and constructing the obser#able relationship at any

gi#en time. "his same concept is applied by constructi#ism to the international actor.

"o e3plain the nature o$ states in the simplest $ashion 'e can turn to the internal

structure. States are gi#en meaning by the structures o$ go#ernance that constitute Hbeing

a state. States are also gi#en meaning by the embedded understanding o$ 'hat

constitutes a Hstate, i.e., by the e3ternal structure o$ the system that says Hthis is a state

or Hthis is not a state :<endt /===, >@->B;. "he same &uestion o$ 'hether this is

logically tautological raises &uestions about the #alidity o$ <endtOs argument. o'e#er,

it is readily apparent that a constructi#ist theory o$ international relations is not

epistemologically dri#en, but an ontologically speci$ied epistemological search $or

structural meanings. More simply put, constructi#ist theory passes the tests o$ positi#ist

scienti$ic in&uiry into relations bet'een entitiesalbeit they are social kinds and not

natural kinds.

"he arguments $or and against constructi#ism as positi#istic social science are

compelling. o'e#er one may lean on this argument, the idea o$ constituti#e structure

applied to social phenomena is an appealing idea. ) $ind the constructi#ist argument to be

stronger than the criti&ue and belie#e that it should be accepted as a positi#ist theory o$

social science that $inds its roots in postmodern criti&ue and in constituted identity. "his

o$ course leads us to the ne3t &uestion, 'hat e3actly does constructi#ism ha#e to say or

predict in areas o$ concern $or international relations theoryC "his is addressed in three

partsI anarchy, regimes, and the idea o$ 'orld polity.



Anarchy

Eeorealism and Eeoliberalism both hold anarchy as the lack o$ higher authority in

the 'orld. States, according to Leohane and Mearsheimer alike, e3ist in a sel$-help

'orld 'here gains :relati#eI Leohane, 6riecoK or absoluteI <alt(, Mearsheimer; matter.

"hus anarchy is a materialistic phenomenon that 'ill dri#e states to compete $or scarce

resources, such as economic strength and security. <alt( :/=B=; de$ines anarchy as a

system in 'hich there is no legitimate use o$ $orce outside o$ the actors :'hich he de$ines

as states; :/=B=, /0D;. Some liberals, such as Milner :/==; ha#e attempted to o#ercome

the neorealist%neoliberal conception o$ anarchy by rede$ining its meaning. "his pro?ect

seems almost constructi#e in approach, but does not e3tend itsel$ to the conclusions about

anarchy made by constructi#ists such as <endt. onstructi#ists argue that anarchy is a

deeply embedded structure that is basically only as important as the actors decide it is at a

gi#en point in time.

According to <endt :/==2; the interaction and cogniti#e processes o$ actors

de$ines anarchy :<endt /==2, =B-=>;. "he argument rests on the key idea that actors

ac&uire their identity by participating in the system and the system ac&uires

institutionali(ation $rom the interests o$ actors. "hese interests e3ist abo#e and beyond

the indi#idual members o$ the system and thus anarchy is only a nominal structure o$ the

system and is rede$ined by the actors as their interests merge and change o#er time.

<endtOs argument relies on the conceptuali(ation o$ anarchy as an empty concept outside

o$ the meaning, 'hich the actors in the international system gi#e to the 'ord. )n this case

it is also possible to think o$ anarchy as an institution o$ or deep structure o$ the system.

"he three structures that <endt argues are possible $or anarchy are $riend, ri#al, and



enemy. "hat is to say that anarchy can mean that states can cooperate and be $riends :ala

)mmanuel Lant and neoliberalism;, they can be ri#als $or resources :ala John 5ocke and

neorealism;, or they can be enemies $ighting in a continual struggle $or primacy :ala

"homas obbes;.

<endtOs reasoning on ho' this is possibleI anarchic structures construct their

elements, but these structures #ary at the macro le#el and can ha#e multiple logics

:<endt /===, 2D=;. <hich basically means that anarchy as a structure o$ the system does

determine the nature o$ the actors. 1ut, the actors can apply di$$erent logic at di$$erent

temporal re$erence points and thus recreate the structure o$ anarchy. <endt :/==2, /===;

bases his desertion o$ the $undamental belie$ that anarchy is $undamentally about the

obbsean H'ar o$ all against all, on the argument o$ edley 1ull :/=BB;. Some $orms

o$ interstate cooperation are possible based on shared idealsmaking possible a 6rotian

or 5ockean #ie' o$ anarchy as a system o$ ri#alries, not enmities. onstructi#ism goes

$urther, though, to argue that a cooperati#e anarchy is possible because states de$ine 'hat

anarchy means at the gi#en moment o$ the interaction bet'een the states. on$lict or

cooperation are neither one a good indicator o$ materialism or idealism. )t all hinges on

ho' the concepts o$ cooperation or con$lict are constituted :<endt /===, 2@-2@@;.

Anarchy is, according to <endt, HAn empty #essel, 'ithout intrinsic meaning.

<hat gi#es anarchy its meaning are the kinds o$ people 'ho li#e there and the structure

o$ their relationships, :<endt /===, 0=;. <endt does gi#e a ca#eat to this proposition.

1ecause the constitution o$ anarchy and o$ the system is temporally speci$ic, once one

stage o$ anarchy is le$t, the system can ne#er return to that stage again. Anarchy is



probably $irst constituted as enmity and then progresses to ri#alry and $inally

cooperation.

) ha#e t'o primary problems 'ith constructi#ist arguments about anarchy. First,

the argument that the structure o$ anarchy de$ines the actors 'ho then reconstitute or

rede$ine anarchy 'hich 'ill in turn reconstitute the meaning o$ being an actor in the

system is tautological. <endt :/==2, /===; is repeatedly gi#en to making circular

arguments that do not ha#e logical consistency. "hat anarchy can be reconstituted ) do

not doubt. )n $act, at any time any symbol can be rei$ied and the rei$ication gi#en ne'

signi$icance $or interpretation. 1eyond this idea, e#en the interpretation o$ the

signi$icance o$ the signi$ication o$ the symbol can be reinterpreted as the discourse

bet'een actors gro's and changes to incorporate ne' actors or $e'er actors. o'e#er,

?ust because actors can discursi#ely rede$ine 'hat something means at any point in time,

does not mean that this meaning can in turn de$ine the actors. From a realist point o$

#ie' the system does de$ine the actors, but the actors cannot rede$ine the system :<alt(

/=B=, Mearsheimer /==D;. <hether one criti&ues constructi#ism $rom a realist or

postmodernist #ie'point, the logic o$ anarchy de$ining actors and actors de$ining anarchy

is $la'ed.

"he second problem is that <endt :/==2, /===; makes the constitution o$ anarchy

linear. *nce changed in $orm $rom enmity to ri#al it cannot return to enmity and $rom

ri#al to cooperation it cannot return to ri#al or enmity. Eatural science holds natural

phenomenon act cyclically, 'hich 'ould indicate nonlinearity. <hy should social kinds

o$ phenomenon beha#e di$$erentlyC "his is particularly problematic because o$ the

For an insight$ul e3pansion on this idea see Jean-Francois 5yotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report

on no!led"e :/==B;.



contention that constructi#ism is positi#istic social science. !ealism 'ould tell you that

?ust because there is cooperation today does not mean that there 'ill not be enmity

tomorro' or at least ri#alry. "he S and Japan 'ere allies in the early /=00s, ri#als in

the /=20s and /=0s, enemies in the /=D0s, cooperati#e in the /=@0s and /=0s and

materialistic ri#als in the last three :; decades o$ the century.

Regimes

!egimes are Hsocial institutions that consist o$ agreed upon principles, norms,

rules, decision-making procedures, and programs that go#ern the interactions o$ actors in

a speci$ic issue area, :Noung /==B, ;. Principles are belie$s about causation and ho' a

social process 'orks. Eorms are standards o$ beha#ior that are ideational. For the

constructi#ist the principles and norms are embedded in the system and de$ine the actors

that are part o$ the system. !ules are speci$ic guidelines, usually $ound in the $orm o$ a

co#enant or treaty, o$ beha#ior that con$orm to the norms. ecision-making procedures

are the dispute resolution mechanisms o$ a regime. Should one or more actors #iolate the

rules, a decision is made about the proper procedure $or the other actors that are part o$

the regime to take in regard to the incident:s; in &uestion.

"here are generally three theories about regime $ormation and purposes. *ne is

the po'er-based theory o$ regimes that is associated 'ith realist theory o$ international

relations. Second is interest-based theory that is associated 'ith liberal theories o$

international relations. "hird is the cogniti#e%constructi#ist approach to the study o$

regimes and regime $ormation. Eeoliberals stress the sel$-interest o$ states as the moti#e

$or cooperation among states and $or the creation and compliance 'ith international



Eeorealism concentrates on t'o areas o$ concern in addressing regimes and

cooperation. *ne is po'er-based theory. "he other is concern o#er relati#e gains.

8#en po'er-based theory is concerned 'ith the pay-o$$. Lrasner :/==; points

out that international interaction is about 'ho gets 'hat and not ho' they get 'hat :/==B,

/0@;. )n addition, po'er matters because it determines 'ho can play, 'hat the rules o$

the game 'ill be, and it can change the pay-o$$ :Lrasner /==/, in /==B, /0;.

"o po'er-based theorists, regimes are important $or policy coordination and

stability. An e3ample o$ten cited is the global communications regime :asencle#er et al

/==B, /0B;. <hile this doesnt detract $rom neoliberal arguments, particularly the

contractualist arguments, it does add to them an important element. Po'er-based theory

allo's the e3amination o$ (ero-sum games.

John Mearsheimer :/==D; points out that neoliberal theories o$ cooperation and

regime are most problematic because they ignore the &uestion o$ relati#e gains. Joseph

6rieco :/=>>, /==0, /==; makes a strong argument that neorealism does not re?ect

neoliberal institutionalism, but &uali$ies the theory. Mearsheimer argues that you cannot

separate security and economics, and this is the cru3 o$ 6riecos arguments about modern

realist theory and regimes.

Anarchy, de$ined as the lack o$ go#ernance o#er states, makes cooperation

di$$icult, not impossible. <hy, because not absolute gains but relati#e gains matter more

in an anarchic 'orld. States desire to gain relati#e to other states, this hampers

cooperation :asencle#er et al /==B, //-//>;. )t is e#en the case, according to 6rieco

:/=>>;, that states 'ill $orgo absolute gain i$ it is e3pected that another state 'ould reap

greater bene$it and increase in relati#e capabilities $rom the transaction :cited in /==B,



/20;. States 'ill cooperate only i$ the terms ensure a balance or e&uitable distribution o$

gains that maintains the pre-cooperation balance o$ capabilities.

"he third area is cogniti#ist%constructi#ist. ) e3amine cogniti#ist theories o$

regime $ormation as constructi#ist due to the underlying principle o$ constituti#e

structure. <endt :/===;, 'hose 'ork is an e3emplary e3ample o$ constructi#ism

borro's hea#ily $rom !uggie :/==>; in e3plaining the 'ay in 'hich structures are

constituti#e o$ their parts and the system constituted in turn by the parts.

ogniti#ist theory comes in t'o parts. <eak cogniti#ism holds that liberal and

realist theories are not totally 'rong, that they need to be $leshed out by the addition o$

theories o$ learning. Strong cogniti#ism holds that only the e3planation o$ the origin and

dynamic o$ societal actors sel$-understanding can e3plain cooperation and the role o$

regimes in international interaction :asencle#er et al. /==B, /B;.

"here are three basic assumptions to 'eak cogniti#ism. *ne, kno'ledge shapes

the beha#ior o$ decision-makers and the e3pectations o$ the actors about the actions o$

others. "'o, leaders re&uire in$ormation to lo'er the le#el o$ uncertainty in decision-

making. "hree, a minimum collecti#e understanding o$ ideas is necessary $or choosing

the rules o$ the game :asencle#er et al /==B, /D0-/D2;.

)deas, or kno'ledge, carry 'eight because interests are shaped by ideas.

)kenberry :/==; points out that the post <<)) 'orld economy 'as greatly shaped by

the idea o$ Leynsianism. Jackson :/==; e3plains ho' common ideas about the

capabilities o$ the S and SS! to destroy each other and sur#i#e nuclear holocaust

aided in the implementation o$ security regimes in the /=B0s and /=>0s.



)deas can be important not ?ust $or lo' politic areas, but also $or economics and

security. "he addition o$ such thought into liberal or realist theory does pro#e stimulating

and theoretically re'arding. More importantly, 'hat this sho's is that cooperation can

be learned and regimes can be the dependent #ariable resulting $rom interaction and

cooperation o$ states :Eye /=>B, aas /==, in /==B, /D@;. )t is less clear that

cooperation ser#es as a causal $actor in 'eak cogniti#ism, because it is problematic at

best to measure cooperation and regimes as independent #ariables.

Strong cogniti#ism re?ects the arguments o$ both liberalism and realism.

1asically, strong cogniti#ism says that there are $undamental rules that actors learn

because they are embedded in the +'hat and 'ho+ o$ the actors identity. "hese rules lead

to actors speci$ying interests and gaining ne' kno'ledge, 'hich in turn leads to

cooperation 'ith those actors 'ho share the same $undamental attributes and embedded

ideas and kno'ledge by #irtue o$ e3istenceand this leads to regime. "he regime in turn

a$$ords an opportunity $or ne' kno'ledge to be disseminated and internali(ed by actors

'ho 'ill then ha#e ne' interests and demands $or cooperation :asencle#er et al /==B,

/@;.

According to strong cogniti#ism the problem 'ith the logical positi#ism o$

realism and liberalism is that social interaction is not the same as the biological

interactions, 'hich ga#e rise to the patterns o$ relationship testing $ound in positi#istic

social science. An e3ample is that norms are o$ten treated as causal #ariables by

positi#ist science. According to !uggie :/=>; norms can inspire, guide or ?usti$y action,

but they do not cause action :asencle#er et al /==B, /;.



Strong cogniti#ists other problem 'ith positi#istic science is that regimes are a

practice and not a set o$ regulations :asencle#er et al /==B, /;. asencle#er, et al

likens this to game playing. "he rules o$ the game do not ?ust control the gameK they

allo' the game to be played in the $irst place.

"his last point is problematic. )t appears to be a rei$ying o$ regulation. )s

regulation the same as practiceC "he practice or action o$ the game is controlled by

regulationK does regulation e&ual the playing o$ the gameC For a theory that is o#erly

concerned 'ith kno'ledge, ideas and logic, it is almost illogical in this particular point.

Another problem 'ith strong cogniti#ism is its claim about the process 'hen

kno'ledge causes di#ergent interests and interpretations o$ reality. asencle#er et al,

sho' that the in strong cogniti#ist position di#ergent interpretations lead to di#ergent

rules that 'ill be con$lictual. "his con$lict leads to discourse and discourse to common

interpretation and thus con#erging e3pectations :asencle#er et al /==B, /B>;.

<hy 'ill discourse lead to common interpretationC <hy 'ill con$lict lead to

discourse and i$ the interpretation o$ reality in the beginning leads to di$$erent ideas, 'hy

'ill di$$erent ideas cause a con#ergent e3pectationC "his argument assumes that the

mechanism o$ cooperation is already embedded in society. )t is more likely that

cooperation is created because o$ embedded ideals, not that it ?ust e3ists.

)t is interesting to note that only strong cogniti#ism seems unlikely to con#erge

'ith any other theory o$ regime to $orm a synthesis. 5iberalism and realism con#erge in

neoliberal institutionalism and in relati#e gains concerns. <eak cogniti#ism compliments

either liberal or realist theory. 1ut strong cogniti#ism, 'here learning and kno'ledge

lead to regime and regime teaches actors is the least likely to con#erge 'ith other theory



despite its argument about di#ergent interpretation o$ reality leading to con#ergent

e3pectations.

World Polity

<hat 'ould be needed to $undamentally trans$orm the 'orld systemC )ndi#idual

states and groups o$ states ha#e attempted to alter the system, as it is currently

understood. o'e#er, attempts o$ this type may lead to 'ars :Ea(i 6ermanyOs attempt to

change the map;, but rarely lead to trans$ormation. onstructi#ism is an argument that

says it is possible to trans$orm the system. So, this &uestion must be addressed.

"he last great systemic trans$ormation 'as the "reaty o$ <estphalia :/D>;, 'hich

outlined the idea o$ the so#ereign state 'e currently understand. "his treaty ga#e us the

idea o$ state so#ereigntythat is that a state is $ree $rom e3ternal controls and intrusions

in its internal a$$airs :Lrasner /===, D;. )$ Lrasner :/===; is correct, then the idea o$ legal

so#ereignty o$ the state might e3ist, but does the ability o$ a go#ernment to act 'ithout

reproach 'ithin its o'n borders really e3istC )$ <estphalian so#ereignty is currently

under assail, then ho' is this possible trans$ormation being made possibleC

onstructi#ism has an ans'er to this &uestion. "he construction o$ a 'orld

political culture or 'orld polity is ho' the system can be $undamentally trans$ormed

gi#en the nature o$ <estphalian states. 1oli and "homas :/===; argue that H"o an e#er

increasing degree, all sorts o$ actors learn to de$ine themsel#es and their interests $rom

the global culture and organi(ational structures in 'hich they are embedded. on#ersely,

these global structures are maintained and trans$ormed by the actors they constitute,

:1oli and "homas /===, D;.



onstructi#ism as a systemic theory takes the state as the primary unit o$ analysis.

)t does need to understand the current system that e3ists. onstructi#ism in o$$ering a

means o$ trans$orming the system then turns to the idea o$ a 'orld political culture that is

created by memberships o$ people around the 'orld in international nongo#ernmental

organi(ations.

"homas Princen and Matthias Finger :/==D;, along 'ith their contributors, ha#e a

larger picture e3planation o$ the role o$ E6*s in the international en#ironmental debate.

)n #n$ironmental N%&s in 'orld Politics, E6*s are presented as a $orce $or tying local

concern to the global problem o$ en#ironmental protocols and particularly $or

conser#ation e$$orts.

)t is ine#itable that as the number o$ international organi(ations increased, non-

go#ernmental organi(ations :E6*s; 'ould increase in number also. 1ut, as pointed out

by Princen and Finger :/==D; this linkage is only partially #alid as an e3planatory $actor

o$ the gro'th o$ E6*s. 1et'een /=0= and /=>> the increase in )*s 'as only about 2>0,

'hile the increase in E6*s 'as o#er D,00 :Princen and FingerI /;. "he increase in the

number o$ E6*s coincides 'ith the rising number o$ interest groups, groups $orm as

political systems mature, and as indi#iduals become more concerned 'ith in$luencing

issues o$ importance to themsel#es and issues that they percei#e as greatly a$$ecting their

'orld.

1oli and "homas :/===; e3amine the gro'th in E6*s as a 'ay o$ changing

'orld culture. )t is a 'eak cogniti#ist approach to studying culture, because it conditions

rational choice but is not terribly beset by the &uestion o$ identity. "he authors o$$er $i#e

cultural themes that can be seen in the E6* population.



"he $irst is an element o$ uni#ersalism :1oli and "homas /===I @-;. uman

nature, agency and the purposes o$ E6*s are #ie'ed as being uni#ersal. )$ the E6*s

ha#e uni#ersal traits then it is possible that an element o$ uni#ersality underlies actual

social $orms. A 'orld body politic 'ould ha#e to be uni#ersal to de#elop, i$ not uni#ersal

the 'orld body politic 'ould not e3ist. "his argument underscores the constructi#ist

belie$ in embedded norms and principles.

Second is that E6*s are indi#idualistic. Society is $ormed o$ indi#iduals. At the

)6* le#el, the society is indi#idual states. At the E6* le#el it is indi#idual people $rom

around the 'orld. ombining the $irst t'o elements constructs +the 'orld polity as a

social unit,+ :1oli and "homas /===I B;.

"he third element is that the acti#ity o$ people 'ho are in#ol#ed in E6*s is

rationalistic and #oluntary. "he authority o$ E6*s is not $ormali(edK the reasons $or

people ?oining the E6*s actually create the authority o$ the E6*. So, a 'orld culture

must e3ist at some le#el $or E6*s to success$ully proli$erate and penetrate many

di$$erent states.

"he $ourth characteristic is that E6*s ha#e a purposi#e nature. E6*s ha#e a

de#elopmental agenda that includes not ?ust security or economic gro'th. E6*s are

greatly interested in indi#idual sel$-$ul$illment and ?ustice :1oli and "homas /===I >;, as

'itnessed by the gro'th o$ organi(ations like Amnesty )nternational. o'e#er, this

process cannot be o#er rationali(ed, rationali(ation can cause se#ere problems $or

indi#idual spiritual gro'th :/===I =;.



"he $inal characteristic is 'orld citi(enship. <hen the $our pre#ious elements are

in place, 'orld citi(enship is the outcome. "his citi(enship is egalitarian and based on

the access o$ indi#iduals to the ideas 'hich can shape their culture and identity.

!uggie :/==>; approaches the creation o$ 'orld polity $rom a di$$erent

perspecti#e. )t is a philosophical and psychological construction based on history,

argumentation, legitimation, and identity $ormation. "his is a strong cogniti#ist

perspecti#e.

"he construction o$ 'orld polity in this #ein begins 'ith the idea that identity is a

social construction. )dentity is constructed through language, #alidation and brute $act.

<e identi$y 'ith the state o$ our citi(enship because 'e 'ere born there. States come

into e3istence through the $ormation o$ common identity.

1ecause rationality cannot e3plain all things, 'e must look $or ans'ers in other

areas. )nstitutions might not be the most rational choice $or sol#ing a problem. "his is a

common problem, so 'e create identity to deal 'ith problems.

"he problem becomes one o$ $i3ing the identity. )dentity is a historical and o$ten

linguistic construct. "he post-modernist school o$ philosophy :both political and social;

has argued that the problem is one o$ changing human thought through control o$

symbols that represent languages.

!uggie re?ects the post-modernist argument. )deas are the meaning 'hich people

ha#e attributed to phenomena. )deas are socially constructed. )$ enough people accept

the idea, then it becomes a part o$ the culture o$ the society. "his same logic applies to

the 'orld polity.



<hether one $inds the construction o$ 'orld culture :'orld polity; more

appealing in the $orm gi#en by 1oli and "homas :/===; or !uggie :/==>; does not really

matter. <hat is important to understand is that in both cases a means o$ trans$orming the

system is created based on the de#elopment o$ a 'orld political identity shaped by

indi#idual le#el interaction that then in$orms the Hstate o$ 'hat ought to be and 'hat

'ill be acceptable to the people that the state represents in the international system. "his

is the truly $ascinating aspect o$ constructi#ist theory in international relations.

onstructi#ism makes arguments about anarchy and regimes and systemic

trans$ormation. o these arguments make this a systemic theory o$ international

relationsC And, i$ constructi#ism is a systemic theory, should it be gi#en e&ual

consideration to that gi#en realist and liberal theoriesC "hese are the &uestions o$ the

$inal section o$ this 'ork.

Constructivism as ystemic Theory

HA theory, though related to the 'orld about 'hich e3planations are 'anted,

al'ays remains distinct $rom that 'orld. !ealityO 'ill be congruent neither 'ith a theory

nor 'ith a model that may represent it, :<alt( /=B=, -B;. "hese lines are $rom the

introduction to <alt(O Theory of International Politics. <alt(O o$$ering is the seminal

'ork o$ neorealist theory in international relations. )$ neorealism is the benchmark

against 'hich other theories are to be assessed, then a competiti#e systemic theory should

at least meet the re&uirements o$ theory that <alt( uses to bedrock his neorealist theory.

HA theory is a picture, mentally $ormed, o$ a bounded realm or domain o$ acti#ity.

A theory is a depiction o$ the organi(ation o$ a domain and o$ the connections among its



parts, :<alt( /=B=, >;. )n the case o$ international relations scholarship the realm is the

'orld. "he parts are either states, groups o$ states, or indi#idual people depending upon

the type o$ theory. For constructi#ism the parts are indi#idual actors, but the actors e3ist

at t'o le#els. At one le#el there are the indi#iduals 'ho generate the norms o$ 'orld

polity. At the other le#el are the states through 'hich the system is trans$ormed. 1ut

does meeting the re&uirements o$ theory make constructi#ist theory o$ international

relations systemicC

H)n international politics the appropriate concernsGo$ systems theory are

t'o$oldI $irst, to trace the e3pected careers o$ di$$erent international systems, $or

e3ample, by indicating the likely durability and peace$ulnessK second, to sho' ho' the

structure o$ the system a$$ects the interacting units and ho' they in turn a$$ect the

structure, :<alt( /=B=, D0;. "here is little &uestion that constructi#ist theory e3plains

ho' the structure o$ the system a$$ects the units and is in turn a$$ected by the units.

)ndeed most o$ constructi#ism $ocuses on ho' the embedded norms o$ the structure

de$ine the parts that then rede$ine the structure.

o'e#er, i$ there is a 'eakness to constructi#ism it is in the $irst purpose o$

systemic theory. oes constructi#ism in$orm us about the di$$erent systems and e3plain

the likelihood o$ $uture actionsC According to <alt :/==>; the primary 'eakness o$

constructi#ism is that it is non-predicti#e. )$ the theory cannot predict ho' a system 'ill

gro' and de#elop is it still a systemic theoryC !ealism did not predict the end o$ the

old <arK interdependence liberalism $ails to predict con$lict in an increasingly

economically interdependent 'orld. Are these theories any less systemicC



onstructi#ism seeks to e3plain systems and the interaction bet'een systems and

their parts. Actually constructi#ism can e3plain some aspects o$ the system &uite 'ell.

<hy did the 'orld unite against the genocidal beha#ior o$ Ea(i 6ermany in <<)) and

uni#ersally condemn such beha#ior in the 1alkans and in A$rica during the /==0sC

onstructi#ists 'ould ans'er that this occurred because o$ the norms and principles that

are embedded in the system and de$ine the states and the proper beha#ior o$ states. )$ 'e

can understand the trans$ormation o$ norms and principles embedded in the system

caused by indi#idual beha#ior, then 'e can actually predict the beha#ior o$ the systemic

le#el actorsi.e., states.

onstructi#ism as a systemic theory o$$ers the best hope $or understanding the

trans$ormation o$ the system. )t also o$$ers the best hope $or trans$ormation 'hen people

reali(e that their collecti#e identity can be based on norms and principles that they can

instill in the structure o$ the system. )t is a theory that should be gi#en the same degree o$

attention that is gi#en to the #arious $orms o$ realism and liberalism, and it is likely to

better e3plain the nature o$ international relations in the coming years than the more

narro'ly $ocused liberal and realist theories o$ international relations.



"#RC$

Allison, June. 'ord and Concept in Thucydides. AtlantaI Scholars Press,/==B.

1ald'in, a#id A., 8d. Neorealism and Neoliberalism, The Contemporary Debate, Ee'NorkI olumbia ni#ersity Press, /==.

1oli, John and 6eorge M. "homas. Constructin" 'orld Culture, Stan$ord, AI Stan$ordni#ersity Press, /===.

onnor, <. !obert. Thucydides, PrincetonI Princeton ni#ersity Press, /=>D.

Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish, Ee' NorkI !andom ouse, /=BB.

asencle#er, Andreas, Peter Mayer and 7olker !ittberger. Theories of International

Re"imes, ambridge, LI ambridge ni#ersity Press, /==B.

ume, a#id., edited by 8. Mossner, A Treatise of Human Nature, 5ondonIarmonds'orthI /==.

Jer#is, !obert, HSecurity !egimes, International &r"ani(ations, :Spring /=>2;I /B-/=D.

Llosko, 6eorge, Ha#id ume, in 6eorge Llosko )olume II History of Political Theory,

Ee' NorkI arcourt-1race, /==@I /-/B@.

Lrasner, Stephen . So$erei"nty, &r"ani(ed Hypocrisy, PrincetonI Princeton ni#ersity

Press, /===.

Lratoch'il, Friederich. Rules, Norms, and Decisions, ambridge, LI ambridge

ni#ersity Press, /=>=.

Lratoch'il, F. and J. !uggie, H)nternational *rgani(ationsI A State o$ the Art or an Art o

o$ the State, International &r"ani(ations, D0 :Summer /=>;I B@-BB@.

5ebo', !ichard Eed, H"hucydides the onstructi#ist, American Political Science

Re$ie!, =@, :September 200/;I @DB-@0.

5yotard, Jean-Francois. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on no!led"e,

Minneapolis, MEI ni#ersity o$ Minnesota Press, /=>D.

Mercer, Jonathan, HAnarchy and )dentity, International &r"ani(ations, D= :Spring

/==@;I 22=-2@2.

Merleau-Ponty, M. Phenomenolo"y of Perception. Ee' NorkI !outledge, /=2.



Milner, elen, H"he Assumption o$ Anarchy in )nternational !elations "heory, in .

1ald'in, 8d. Neorealism and Neoliberalism, ENI olumbia ni#ersity Press,

/==I /D-/=.

Eeu$eld, Mark. The Restructurin" of International Relations Theory, ambridge, LI

ambridge ni#ersity Press, /==@.

Princen, "homas and Matthias Finger, HE6*sI reating a Eiche in 8n#ironmental

iplomacy, in Princen, "homas and Matthias Finger, 8ds. #n$ironmental N%&sin 'orld Politics, 5ondonI !outledge, /==D, /-DB.

!uggie, John 6. Constructin" The 'orld Polity, Ee' NorkI !outledge, /==>.

!usten, Je$$erey, 8d. Thucydides* History of the Peloponnesian 'ar ,

ambridgeI ar#ard ni#ersity Press, /=>=.

"homas, 6eorge M., John Meyer, Francisco !amire( and John 1oli. InstitutionalStructure, Constitutin" State, Society, and the Indi$idual , Ee' NorkI Sage

Publications, /=>B.

7an 8#era, Stephen. %uide to +ethods for Students of Political Science, )thaca, ENI

ornell ni#ersity Press, /==B.

<alt, Stephen M., H)nternational !elationsI *ne <orld, Many "heories, orei"n Policy

//0 :Spring /==>;I 2=-D.

<alt(, Lenneth. Theory of International Politics, Ee' NorkI Mc6ra'-ill, /=B=.

<endt, Ale3ander, HAnarchy is <hat States Make o$ )tI "he Social onstruction o$Po'er Politics, International &r"ani(ations, D :Spring /==2;I =/-D2@.

<endt, Ale3ander. Social Theory of International Politics, ambridge, LI ambridgeni#ersity Press, /===.

<ight, Martin. International Theory, The Three Traditions, Ee' NorkI olmes Q

Meier, /==2.

Noung, *ran, H!ights, !ules, and !esources in <orld A$$airs, in *. Noung, 8d. %lobal

%o$ernance, 1oston, MAI M)" Press, /==BI /-2D.

constructivism paper.doc

Documents