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