Constructivism in International Relations

States act in self-interest to achieve security, which leads to a balance of power.

The US as the sole superpower hasn't triggered new major powers, challenging neorealism's prediction.

Constructivists argue that ideas and shared understandings shape state behavior and power dynamics.

Neoliberalism is a more cooperative variant of realism, but it also focuses on material power.

Constructivists believe ideas and shared understandings play a significant role in international politics.

Constructivists emphasize that states and their identities are shaped by historical context and social interaction.

Constructivism offers a new perspective on the study of international relations, particularly in the post-Cold War context.

Construtivism has roots in earlier philosophical ideas about the power of shared beliefs and social interaction.

The social and political world is not a fixed, inherent product of nature. Instead, it is a human construct shaped by shared understandings, ideas, beliefs, and values, which are constantly evolving and interacting.

Ideas are the core building block of the social world, and they gain their power through widespread acceptance and shared understanding.

The meaning and purpose of physical objects, even those used for security or power, are ultimately determined by the ideas and beliefs of the people using them.

Constructivism is a social theory that focuses on the idea that the social world is built and shaped through human interactions and shared understandings.

The theory of international relations argues that states and their actions are shaped by the ideas and beliefs that govern their actions. It challenges realist theories that focus primarily on power and interests.

Intersubjective beliefs and understandings, widely shared and accepted, determine the nature of international relations, including the behavior of states.

Alexander Wendt's work is foundational in constructivist international relations theory, challenging the idea that anarchy inevitably leads to conflict. He emphasizes the role of interaction in shaping states' identities and interests.

States, through their interactions, develop shared beliefs and identities, which in turn shape their interests and actions in the international system.

The idea that the nature of anarchy and the interactions between states shape the identities and interests of those states. This is in contrast to neorealism, which assumes states have pre-defined identities and interests.

Wendt's ideal type of anarchy where states see each other as enemies and war is a constant threat to survival. This was the dominant culture of anarchy until the 17th century, according to Wendt.

Wendt's ideal type of anarchy where states are rivals but recognize each other's right to exist. They pursue self-interest but are restrained from outright aggression. This type of anarchy emerged after the Peace of Westphalia.

Wendt's ideal type of anarchy where states view each other as friends, resolve disputes peacefully, and support each other against threats. It has emerged among consolidated liberal democracies since WWII.

The process through which states come to understand and define themselves and their relationships with other states. This process involves communication, shared ideas, and interactions between states.

The idea that the meaning and significance of objects, actions, and events are not inherent but are created through social interaction. This applies to the understanding of international relations, where states construct their identities and interests through interactions and shared meanings.

The process of understanding and interpreting actions and events within a specific context. This involves taking into account the shared norms, values, and beliefs that shape the meaning of those actions and events.

The idea that the fundamental nature of anarchy is not fixed but can be shaped by the interactions and shared understandings of states. This means that anarchy is not a given, but rather it is a product of state actions and the culture of anarchy that emerges from those actions.

International organizations (IOs) have the ability to establish and structure the environments in which international cooperation and decision-making take place.

The power of IOs stems from their ability to influence international actors through the control of material resources, such as funds or military assets.

IOs can exert influence by promoting and advocating for specific values and norms, encouraging states and other actors to align their policies and practices with these standards.

This type of power is exercised through the ability to influence the agenda of international meetings and discussions. By setting the topics for debate, IOs have a significant impact on what is discussed and ultimately decided.

IOs have the power to define the problems that need to be addressed in the international system. By framing issues in specific ways, they shape the way others understand and respond to global challenges.

IOs can exert influence over states by creating common interests, promoting cooperation, and establishing shared goals.

Bhutan's geographical location between China and India makes it a strategically important buffer state. This geopolitical position influences Bhutan's foreign policy and its relationship with both major powers.

A state's economic resources, population size, military strength, and geographical location all contribute to its material power. Bhutan, with its small economy and limited military, possesses relatively low material power compared to its powerful neighbors.

Bhutan's foreign policy is heavily influenced by India due to the 1949 India-Bhutan Friendship Treaty, where Bhutan agreed to be guided by India's advice on external relations. This treaty, though revised in 2007, still reflects a significant influence on Bhutan's foreign policy decisions.

A key principle of realism argues that a state's actions are driven by its own self-interest and the pursuit of power within a world of anarchy. It suggests that Bhutan's geographical location and limited power relative to its neighbours make it vulnerable, and its survival depends on how it navigates the power struggles between China and India.

Constructivism emphasizes the role of ideas, social norms, and shared understandings in shaping state behavior. It suggests that despite structural constraints like geography and power dynamics, Bhutan's choices aren't predetermined.

China's annexation of Tibet in the 1950s created a security threat for Bhutan, leading them to close their northern border and seek a strong alliance with India.

Bhutan perceives China as a potential threat and India as a friendly ally, reflecting a social relationship shaped by past events and shared understandings.

Constructivism highlights that social relationships between states can change based on evolving ideas, beliefs, and actions. For instance, a border agreement between China and Bhutan could alter their perceptions of each other, potentially leading to the development of a formal relationship.

The meaning attributed to structural conditions is crucial in understanding state behavior. Even in the face of seemingly limiting factors, like Bhutan's relative weakness compared to China and India, the interpretation of these conditions by states themselves influences their actions.

The ongoing border dispute between Bhutan and China represents a conflict of interest and a potential source of instability in the region, underscoring the complexities and challenges of international relations.

A concept explaining how actors and structures mutually influence each other. It's a dynamic relationship.

A view of international relations where states are primarily driven by self-preservation and fear, leading to constant competition and conflict.

A slightly more optimistic view of anarchy where states can cooperate to achieve some common goals, but still prioritize their own interests.

A hopeful view of anarchy where shared norms and values, like respect for human rights, can lead to peaceful cooperation between states.

Behaviours and expectations generally accepted and practiced by states in international relations.

How does change occur in international relations? Constructivists explain that social interaction, norms, and identities are central to this process.

Why do states cooperate sometimes? Constructivists say it's because of shared norms and ideas that can create a sense of community and common interests.