lessening the need to search for power as alliances are formed, this globalization of states
will never eclipse the true nation state, and nationalism will always remain a powerful
force behind world politics.
Constructivism is a social theory and not truly a substantive theory of
international politics, and therefore does not really have much to say about the state itself
and what its role is, it tends to focus more on conceptualizing the relationships between
agents and structures, and explaining how shared ideas, rather simply material forces,
shape the world of international politics. These ideas and how they relate to Wendt’s
statement will be further discussed later in the essay.
If Realists believe that states’ primary goal is the pursuit of power in order to
perpetuate the life of the state, in the threatening environment that is the international
world, then what checks and balances are there in order to stop states simply doing what
they want in the ‘anarchy’ of the international arena. International law is one of these
checks, and it is there for the good of all states. Most states follow international law
because it benefits them, it brings them security and trade, and also provides typical
norms and conventions for other states to follow, which in doing so shows that they are
being compliant and following international law, thus giving them respect and prestige in
the international community. International law may be regarded as ‘a body of rules which
binds states and other agents in world politics in their relations with one another and is
considered to have a status of law’.
International law takes a special place on the scene of international politics,
because it competes with one of Realism’s core principles, sovereignty. Sovereignty can
be said to be the principle that establishes the nation-state as an independent actor within
the international system. It can trace its history back to an event key to Realist thinkers,
the signing of The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. This treaty ended the Thirty Years War
in Europe and established national self-determination as the main principle for the
formation of a recognized state. That is, states were recognized as political units
associated with a population that had to have a common cultural, language, religious, or
historic heritage. Sovereignty was then embodied in the monarch who ruled with freedom
from interference from other authorities and who enjoyed formal equality with other
monarchs.
Sovereignty is key to Realism because as a sovereign ruler, the sovereign must
take decisions in the international arena in order to ensure their states survival, and
effectively their decisions must represent and be in the interest of the states population.
Preserving the life and the ethical community that the state represents, becomes a moral
duty for the sovereign, and they must do whatever it takes to ensure survival of the state.
International law can over-rule the established power of sovereignty, because although
sovereigns have the right to be free of any power’s interference of their own domestic
affairs, if the international community or an international institution believes that a
sovereign state or ruler is mistreated its own civilians, committing human rights abuses
against its own or other civilians or is behaving in a way that endangers other states or the
international community itself, it has the power to over-rule sovereignty and take
whatever action is necessary. The United States actions when invading Iraq is a prime
example of this. They claimed it was their moral duty, whilst other states protested that it
was surely illegal to invade a sovereign state that hadn’t attacked or invaded any other
state; however the US went ahead anyway, against the recommendations of the United
Nations, something which did not earn the US any respect in the international
community.
International law works on a different basis to that of national law which is
legislated and passed by central authorities. International laws have not been passed
through a legislative body, they are simply agreed on, and even more specifically rulings
from bodies such as the U.N Security Council are commands rather than laws as such,
and are specific to situations in the international community. States are also restricted in
their actions by the various international institutions of the world. The U.N and the E.U
can pass rulings and impose sanctions and trade blockades on states that are not behaving
in ways they see fit. In a truly international world with a global market, these threats can
often cause states to back down as they can be potentially very damaging for states.
International organizations like the E.U which help and benefit its members through aid,
trade and development agreements, can force states to comply with their wishes by not
allowing them to join the E.U until they comply or meet certain criteria, for example
forcing Turkey to clean up its human rights record before it will be considered for
membership.
So if Wendt is making his point from a Constructivist stance, what is
Constructivism and what does it stand for? ‘Constructivism is about human
consciousness and its role in international life’. This statement suggests a strong link
within Constructivism to a form of idealism, a theory that is generally associated in
international relations with the claim that it is possible to create a world of peace.
Constructivists believe that ideas shape the way in which we see ourselves and our
interests, and also the ways in which we see possible solutions to challenges and threats.
This main emphasis on ideas does not mean a neglect of material forces such as wealth,
technology and geography, but simply that the meanings and consequences of these
material forces are not given by nature, but rather are driven by human interpretations
and understandings of them. Constructivists also examine how states and actors make
their activities meaningful. They attempt to recover the meaning that actors give to their
practices and from this the objects that they construct. The meanings that actors give to
their practices do not come from private views but rather from society or culture.
Individuals fight to come up with and fix the meanings of important concepts such as
human rights and sovereignty, and their often rival interpretations frequently come from
their differing cultural settings. Because of these often rival interpretations, many
Constructivists have suggested alternative ways of thinking about power. Most
international relations thinkers view power as the ability to compel one state to do
something which it otherwise would not. The commonly held assumption is that the
means of power, such as military technology or might, and economic strength, are
material, and that evidence of power exists when states are forced to change or alter their
behavior. However Constructivists argue that the forces of power can also go beyond
material, they can be ideational. For example when environmentalists or human rights
activists publicly ‘name and shame’ governments, they are trying to embarrass them into
changing their actions by showing how their conduct is not consistent with commonly
held international norms and values.
When Wendt stated that ‘Anarchy is what states make of it’, he was referring to
the Constructivist belief that ideas form the world, and these ideas that exist need not, and
need not have, it invites us to think of alternative worlds and the conditions that make
them possible, Constructivism can be said to be attentive to the issues of transformation.
Many times Constructivists have criticized neo-realists and neo-liberalists for their failure
to explain contemporary global transformations. It is widely accepted that the Peace of
Westphalia helped to establish sovereignty and the recognized norm of non-interference,
but in recent decades various processes have worked against the principle of non
interference and have suggested that state sovereignty is conditional on how states treat
their own populations. I mentioned this point earlier regarding the United States and
their invasion of Iraq.
Constructivists believe that a central theme in the discussion of global change or
transformation is diffusion, or the diffusion of ideas or practices, and how these spread
within a population. When Constructivists speak about diffusion, they highlight two
important issues. One of these is institutional isomorphism, which observes how actors
and institutions that are subjected to the same environment will often acquire identical
forms or structures. For example there used to be various different ways of organizing
the state and its structures, however nowadays at the state is organized around the nation-
state, modern states increasingly adopt democratic forms of government, economic
activity is increasingly nowadays organized around markets and most governments now
try to take care of the environment in their policies. This mass convergence may be
driven due to the fact the world knows that these policies are simply superior to others,
however there is also the additional possibility that this convergence may be driven by
the desire for acceptance and status. Sometimes states, especially in the Third World will
adopt or accept policies because they know it will bring them acceptance or trade, for
example states in the Third World not only accept the IMF’s recommendations so as to
secure loans, but also so receive its approval so it can enter global markets.
I believe that Wendt, arguing from a Constructivist viewpoint presents a
very tight and persuasive theory of international relations. Obviously the world is not
controlled entirely by ideas, but also states are not completely dictated by material forces
such as wealth and military power. Both factors play a role in influencing the decisions
and actions that actors and states take, and Wendt makes an important point, noting that it
is important to look at issues from alternative viewpoints in order to make a balanced a
fair judgment before one makes their mind up. Sometimes theories can be proved wrong
and others can be vindicated, as clearly shown when the Cold War ended peacefully
between American and the USSR, showing that through states and leaders changing and
transforming their relations and ideologies, seemingly hopeless situations can be resolved
peacefully. This upset Realists who could never have predicted this whilst showing that
Constructivism was a real and valid theory of modern international relations.
The globalization of world politics- John Baylis and Steve Smith
Lecture Notes - Erika Harris - University of Liverpool
Constructivism in International Relations: The Politics of Reality - Maja Zehfuss