Search

Some norms go through long contested periods, resulting in norm change, rejection, or persisting conflict. Others are adopted quite quickly, with little resistance across diverse societies. An underlying and unanswered theoretical question is why? A foundational characteristic of a norm as a concept, and a key aspect of constructivist scholarship on norms, is the role of values and moral principles in giving norms meaning and in motivating global policy change. For a field placing significant emphasis on the importance of ideas, the limited theorizing around the value-based content of these ideas is a notable shortcoming. Emphasizing the importance of moral values as among the most deeply held beliefs, I outline a theory of how moral values and moral distance can help explain why certain normative processes and outcomes occur. Building from constructivist work on norms and social psychology scholarship on morality, I propose that moral distance, the degree of alignment, overlap, or separation in moral values between actors can help to explain the type of contestation, the intensity and duration of contestation, and what processes or outcomes are more likely to transpire. The shorter the moral distance, the more likely persuasion or adaptations will occur, leading to the eventual adoption of a norm. The greater the moral distance, the more likely prolonged and heated contestation will occur, leading to rejection or enduring contestation. I argue that centering the analysis of moral values and moral distance in research on normative agreement and disagreement can therefore contribute to understanding why or under what circumstances conflict is more or less likely to happen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This forum seeks to honor the contributions of a scholar who has greatly influenced international relations (IR) scholarship on transnational relations and constructivist research: Thomas Risse. Best known for his pathbreaking studies on the importance of transnational actors, the power of international norms and ideas in international relations, and the influence of domestic structures on international interactions, his work has significantly contributed to several interrelated research agendas within IR. The forum takes a fresh look at some of his contributions, focusing on assumptions about the nature of non-state actors, the content of human rights, and the evolution of knowledge that underpin his work. Interrogating especially some of the liberal assumptions that have informed these lines of research, we ask: are we still dealing with the same kinds of non-state actors that Thomas Risse and early constructivist research have analyzed? How has the nature of these actors changed, and how has this affected the processes and mechanisms by which they shape transnational politics? To what extent do these changes require different research methodologies? And, finally, which directions for future research on non-state actors, human rights, and constructivism emerge from these discussions? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Proposed large-scale intentional interventions in natural systems in order to counter climate change, typically called "climate engineering" or "geoengineering," stand to dramatically alter the international politics of climate change and potentially much more. There is currently a significant and growing literature on the international politics of climate engineering. However, it has been produced primarily by scholars from outside the discipline of International Relations (IR). We are concerned that IR scholars are missing a critical opportunity to offer insights into, and perhaps help shape, the emerging international politics of climate engineering. To that end, the primary goal of this paper is to call the attention of the IR community to these developments. Thus, we offer here an overview of the existing literature on the international politics of climate engineering and a preliminary assessment of its strengths and lacunae. We trace several key themes in this corpus, including problem structure, the concern that climate engineering could undermine emissions cuts, the potentially "slippery slope" of research and development, unilateral implementation, interstate conflict, militarization, rising tensions between industrialized and developing countries, and governance challenges and opportunities. The international politics of climate engineering is then considered through the lenses of the leading IR theories (Realism, Institutionalism, Liberalism, and Constructivism), exploring both what they have contributed and possible lines of future inquiry. Disciplinary IR scholars should have much to say on a number of topics related to climate engineering, including its power and transformational potentials, the possibility of counter-climate engineering, issues of institutional design, international law, and emergent practices. We believe that it is incumbent on the IR community, whose defining focus is international relations, to turn its attention to these unprecedented technologies and to the full scope of possible ramifications they might have for the international system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article anchors neoclassical realism (NCR) as a solid theoretical framework which departs from Wendtian constructivism, Moravcsik's liberal theory, and Putnam's two-level game liberalism. NCR moves away from these other approaches by bridging three divides: the spatial (domestic-international), the cognitive (matter-ideas), and the temporal (present-future). What matters is not what states have to do because the structure compels them so (as Waltz and Wendt would want us to believe). Looking at what domestic interest groups want states to do (as Moravcsik and Putnam suggest) is also unsatisfactory. Rather, what can states do to represent domestic economic interests within the predefined geopolitical context? The argument here is that a version of geopolitical structure is external to the state and binds. However, a perceptual layer at the level of state policymaker affects the operationalization of that structure. Domestic economic forces make themselves felt through state-level policymakers, but only within the predefined context of binding structural factors that constrain. The findings from this study are vastly different from previous studies, suggesting that NCR's triple bridging identity distinguishes it from other IR theories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article advances a unified explanation of intersubjective rules, international agents, and historical structures. It also ties in national identity narratives and international practices. It shows that rules, suitably defined, instantiate and assemble themselves to form national-autobiographical narratives that become the identities of states, motivating their actions and practices. Agents here do not follow rules, rather self-activating rules constitute agents. Rules are distributed across states and other agents, some shared widely and others held narrowly. A rule can gain or lose credibility among the agents it constitutes. Rules depend on the operation of other agents' rules for their credibility. An international historical structure is a collection of rules distributed among different states that operate to vindicate each other. The rules, shared and divided across agents, motivate practices that vindicate the rules. This process of structuration gives rise to enduring social networks of agents connected by interdependent practices. This process also yields the historical dynamics of the rise, fall, and succession of structures. Structures rise, unevenly, as new rules and practices join into the reproduction process and some old ones drop out. Structures break down when some rules are discredited, leading to a disruption of established practices, causing the discredit of yet more rules. Agents can be transformed radically. This model has strong empirical reference as the rules define categories, norms, and causal beliefs visible in discourse. The case of US-Russian relations is used for illustration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author comments on the dominance of American-based scholars with regards to the international relations, wherein he disagree. He states the three topics that hardly concern the U.S. such as nuclear proliferations, democracy promotions, and economic interdependence. He highlighted constructivism, liberalism, and realism as the most important bodies of international relation theory.

Constructivism is often invoked in calls for a turn toward ethics in the practice of International Relations scholarship. Yet, while constructivists rely on norms and ethical ideas in their explanations of world politics, the theory or approach actually fails spectacularly in providing fundamental notions about what is right or ethical in world politics. In this article I interrogate the paradox that, while constructivists provide a prominent place for morals and ethics in their explanations of world politics, constructivism is agnostic on what those morals and ethics should be. I then inquire into the source of ethics in international relations theory more generally, arguing that the ethical commitments of international relations theories are found in the theories’ basic assumptions. Finding a fundamental qualitative difference between constructivism and other international relations theories relative to core assumptions, I discuss what constructivist ethics consists of and I turn inward to reflect on the ramifications of the discussion for personal ethics for a constructivist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently, scholars have connected US constructivism to liberal-idealism. International relations theorists have branded US constructivists as “liberal theorists” for three notable reasons: (1) realists apply an “idealist” tag on constructivism so that it can efficiently be dismissed as a form of theoretical naïvete, (2) rational choice empiricists are motivated with amending constructivist assumptions to make them viable for quantitative analysis; and (3) certain constructivist scholars have attempted to build bridges with rationalist scholarship, especially on epistemological terms, and this “bridge-building” has opened a door for a liberal–constructivist synergy. This essay demonstrates how constructivism can, and must, be distinguished from liberalism. It uses the recent Iraq War to illustrate three constructivist critiques of an important liberal theory: democratic peace “theory.” The three critiques are (1) ontological—liberal democratic peace researchers' focus on events leads to an incomplete understanding of processes, structures, and agency; (2) epistemological—unlike constructivism, liberal democratic peace research fails to acknowledge the contamination of subject and object or that state agents use theory to inform their actions; thus the traditionally positivist emphasis on outcomes instead of processes makes for faulty conclusions; and (3) normative—liberalism's radical celebration of the individual desocializes states thereby inhibiting, in structurationist terms, the reflexive monitoring of actions. The essay concludes with some general theoretical statements about democratic peace's future as a paradigm for research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In IR theory debates, there exists a recurring tendency to draw a distinction between problem-solving and critical theory. Whereas problem-solving theory ostensibly pertains to the short term, critical theory purportedly examines the evolution of more enduring social structures over the long term. In this essay, the argument is made that this distinction obscures the ongoing role—equally in the long and the short runs—of theory in the reconstitution of social structures. To highlight such possibilities, the essay calls for a“pragmatist constructivism,” which applies a critical approach to the analysis of not only long-term policy possibilities but also toongoingpolicy matters. After reviewing the arguments of two essentially pragmatist-constructivist scholars—John Dewey and John Kenneth Galbraith—each of whom recognized the social bases of political life and designed their research with an eye to highlighting unappreciated policy possibilities, the piece concludes by stressing both the disciplinary constraints on IR theorists and the opportunity that the constructivist turn in IR theory offers for a more sustained engagement with public debates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents a commentary about the differences between a commitment to understanding the social world as a product of contingent social interactions and a commitment to understanding the social world as a result of natural necessity. Views of contemporary liberals on anarchy; Influence of power on political processes; Involvement of post-structural and critical understandings of power in realist-constructivism.

Presents an overview of articles related to the potentialities and limits of realist constructivism in general.

Constructivism appears to have taken a place in the literature on international relations (IR) theory in direct opposition to realism. Constructivists who claim their methodology is incompatible with realism focus on the association between realism and both materialism and rationalism. Realists who claim their paradigm is incompatible with constructivism focus for the most part on a perceived tendency for constructivists to be idealists or utopians. Neither argument, however, holds up. This essay examines constructivist epistemology and classical realist theory, contending that they are, in fact, compatible; not that constructivism is necessarily realist, but that constructivist research is as compatible with a realist worldview as with any other. Having a realist constructivism could prove useful in IR theory beyond clarifying methodological debates, including helping to specify the relationship between the study of power in international politics and the study of international relations as a social construction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Explores the conservatism of gender ideologies. Primary debate within feminist theorizing; Analyses of sex and gender within the mainstream of international relations theory; Principles of gender constructivism.

Comments on two articles about the relationship of constructivism and social knowledge with international relations. Contributions of constructivism to traditional concerns in international relations; Challenge of constructivism to the realist paradigm; Factors to consider in the application of a constructivist approach in international relations.

Provides information on a study which examined the significant role of constructivism and culturalism in the norms and structures in security studies and in international relations. Difference of constructivism and culturalism in security studies; Information on how constructivist and culturalist approaches complicates the task of disaggregating them.

Deals with the comparison of realists and constructivists on ontological aspect in the field of international relations. Difficulty of achieving theoretical reconciliation; Advantages of transformation to human identities and social practices; Observations of Ted Hopf about constructivism; Description of ontological source for realism's commitment to transhistorical limitations; Criticism on neorealism's rationalist-scientific epistemology.

Deals with the ways in which the realist and constructivist traditions can, and need to, work in tandem. Modalities that govern the ends actors seek and the means they use to achieve these ends; Kinds of worlds in which liberal and realist assumptions give analytical leverage; Difficulty of appeasing the spirit or appetite, or of discriminating among competing appetites.

Discusses the relationship between realist-constructivism and morality. Difference between realism and constructivism; Advantages of starting a realist-constructivist combination with human nature; Analysis of the inability to take tribalism.

Comments on the article "Realist Constructivism," by J. Samuel Barkin, which deals with the opposition between realist and constructivist schools of thought in international relations. Compatibility of certain classical realist notions with constructivist sensibilities about the role of norms and other intersubjective factors in producing social and political outcomes; Nature and possibilities for realist constructivism; Dissociation of constructivism from the liberal tradition.