Constructivist Theory Vs. Foreign Policy During The Soviet Union And The Rise Of Non State Threats

1374 Words Nov 2nd, 2015 6 Pages
Constructivist Approach to Climate Change Realism has been the prevailing international relations (IR) theory since the Second World War (Sens & Stoett, 2010). Bennett Rambery, George Kennan, Hans Morgenthau, Henry Kissinger, and Samuel Huntington are just some of the prominent realists that swayed U.S. foreign policy during the recent era. However, state-centric realism seems to come short in explaining the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of non-state threats, e.g., al Qaeda, (Snyder, 2004). At the same time, the second and third waves of globalizations shed light on liberalism. The proliferation of intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), multinational corporations and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and the validity of the democratic peace theory uphold liberalism as a compelling IR theory. The discourse in IR has long been dominated by these two theories. Not until three decades ago, the emergency of a new IR theory, constructivism, challenged these two IR theories’ underlying assumptions such as defined anarchy (Wendt, 1992) and permanent national interests (Snyder, 2004). This paper examines three IR theories: neorealism, neoliberalism, and conventional constructivism. I argue that constructivism offers the most valuable tools for understanding global politics because the theory allows identities and norms to shape a non-materialistic and non-rational world. I then apply constructivism to the question of climate change, specifically, what makes a state to…

Related Documents