Can the international environment be remade?

This week, we were assigned an in-class debate on whether the international environment can be remade. Drawing on the theories of constructivism and liberal institutionalism, my side argued that the environment could be remade. While we certainly had the more difficult argument to make, I think we did a great job of asserting our side, and despite the prevailing realist views of the class, I think we made a strong case for the fact that yes, the international environment can be remade.

This is a difficult question to answer in a "yes or no" framework. Of course the realists have history on their side - the international environment has remained the same throughout most of human history, so it's easy to say it cannot be remade when we have so little evidence that it has been. However, humanity experienced an enormous shift in the 20th century - with increasing globalization and weapons that can destroy the Earth, the world changed a great deal. While the world remained the same for thousands of years, climate change, an unprecedented increase in technology, and population boom resulting in billions of new humans means that the world is not, and never will be, the same as it has been throughout history. Has the international environment been remade? It's too soon to tell. Can the international environment be remade? I think so - with all of the new global institutions created in the 20th century, it can be done gradually. Must the international environment be remade? This is imperative. The world faces major, apocalyptic problems that go far beyond national scope, so while we can say the international environment has not been remade (yet) the truth is that it MUST be remade - global cooperation is the only answer to these problems.

While our international institutions do not have all of the answers, of course, they are merely a first step in creating our international environment. In the grand scheme of history, they are so new that of course it is hard to tell what tangible effect they will have. However, even their existence is an important part of remaking the international environment - countries are beginning to see the importance of international cooperation. The realists could that countries only do this because it's currently in their self-interest, which I agree with. However, interests evolve, and while countries will probably always act in their self-interest, that does not necessarily preclude peace.

Evolution of International Structure

This past week we read material regarding why we exist in a state of anarchy.  The debates that followed centered on articles from Wendt and Waltz with strongly opposing viewpoints between whether or not states are ruled by ideas or interests respectively.  Clearly, it was easy to argue on the side of interests and support the idea that the international structure can never be remade, however, history has proven contrary to this issue.

Wendt sums it up with the point that states view the world through the lens that they (the state) are doing the right thing.  America has conducted a mission spanning centuries of promoting liberty and democracy abroad.  America and the Soviet Union were in a political arms race, spanning decades, trying to convert the rest of the world to their respective ideologies.  NATO was founded on the values of democracy with the interests in mind of creating an international “club” that excluded the USSSR.  In the end, in my opinion, all interests are rooted in ideas and, through extension transference, those ideas are more to the forefront.  People forget the values that started everything and only see the interests ahead.  

Going by the four squared table in the lecture, the structure of the international community has undergone changes from hard/autonomous to soft/autonomous and evolving to hard/attunement.  Originally, we had the billiard effect.  States only looked out for only their own. After a catastrophe like WWII, states  redistributed their values (especially the U.S.) and state agents created institutions such as the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, etc.

When values change, interests follow until they become lost in transference then interests become as strong as an idea or value.

Last week we delved into the different schools of international theory and most people tended to lean toward the side of realist.   It was agreed that, in the end, the state will look out for its own interests; however, there was some debate as to safeguards being put into place to make sure those interests did not result in total self destructive behavior (i.e. a nuclear war).

This week we look more closely at the school of constructivism and how it holds up to the ideas of a realistic world.  The ideas (values) of realism are for a state to maintain its sovereignty.  This has been the cause of a number of disputes to the legitimacy of many international organizations.  China, as a member of the P5, is usually quiet in voicing its opinion on laws or sanctions until it seems that these sanctions are infringing on sovereignty.  As a general rule they do not want to set any precedence that could lead to their sovereignty being put into question.  The United States signed the Roman Statute, albeit conditionally, but rescinded its signature to protect itself from persecution for any actions the state thought necessary that would, probably, be grounds for investigation in the eyes of the ICC.  This is the sole reason the U.S. left the ICJ, after the Nicaragua incident. 

This is where realism and autonomy rear its head and displays the state’s natural tendency towards survival mode.  All actions are justified when it concerns the well being and sovereignty of the state and changing political or social climates do not change that.

The fact that we have a United Nations, an International Court of Justice, or an International Criminal Court shows a lean to a more constructivist lifestyle, but the outcome has these institutions riddled with realist overtones.

Developing the global stage - foundational theories in international relations

This week, we began to explore the different schools of IR thought and how these scholars perceive our position on the global stage. I'm also taking Global Governance, where we studied these theories a few weeks ago, so I'm happy to see the crossover in IR 760. I was also excited to read some new scholars and further the develop the foundation touched upon in Global Governance.


I really enjoyed the Wendt's article, as I've been wanting to examine constructivist theory a bit more. His argument that a state's need for identity really resonated - states have a need to identify as powerful and strong, and institutions can have a tough time breaking through national identity in order to facilitate cooperation. Additionally, institutions can have a difficult (if not impossible!) time enforcing hard power, and international cooperation is usually still done more in national self-interest and reciprocity, rather than a true desire for peace. He explained the mind frame behind state actions really well in his alien metaphor - if aliens were to conquer, would we meet them aggressively or peacefully? Of course, many states have already faced a similar issue - states that were colonized in the past several centuries have had varied responses to their colonizers, who nearly always conquered with brutal violence. Though peace seems like a nice answer, would it really be the world's self-interest to meet alien colonizers peacefully? History amongst humans says no.


Waltz's article further examines state identity through a realist lens. Are war and peace inherent qualities within a state or a reaction? Waltz argues that states become preoccupied with perceived danger and threats and take measures to improve national security, which is the most paramount issue for states (Waltz 619). This can certainly be seen in the United States's preliminary 2016 election cycle, in which many candidates have made national security the foundation of their platform at the expense of many other pressing domestic issues. As seen by their popularity, it would seem that Waltz is correct - states, and the citizens within them, are focused on national security to a very extreme degree. Waltz argues that in an anarchical world, peace is fragile. (Waltz 620) Judging by the history of the world, he's not wrong.


In Global Governance, we were asked whether we identified most with realist, liberalist, or constructivist thought the most, and I found that a really difficult question to answer. I feel that in an ideal world, the liberalist school of thought would prevail, but this isn't an ideal world - in the actual world, realist thought is still the motivation behind almost all states. Constructivist thought and the development of international institutions is still very recent and it is a bit soon to see how international institutions will affect policy decisions in several centuries, as the realist world order has prevailed for thousands of years. However, international institutions have had a significant impact in the 20th and 21st century, and an oft-quoted statement says that we are living in the most peaceful time humanity has seen (I don't know if I believe that!).






Waltz, Kenneth N. (1988) The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 18 (4), pp. 615-628