Conflicting Proliferations: Realism V. Constructivism
Essay Preview: Conflicting Proliferations: Realism V. Constructivism
Report this essay
DO NOT COPY * DO NOT COPY * DO NOT COPY
Conflicting Proliferations: Realist v. Constructivist Patterns of Globalization in International Relations
The distinct theories of International Relations offer different explanations and connotations about the way the actors within the international scheme operate. These explanations lead the theories to act as lenses, thereby affecting the scope of the individual viewing the relations between the actors of International Relations. I argue that the different theories of IR alter the perceptions of individuals because the theories affect what kind of patterns and trends those individuals can identify in IR, thereby affecting attitudes and policy. Further, I argue that two schools of thought can perceive two different, contradictory patterns, yet both can be validly supported. The theories and patterns I will focus on are A) Realism and the global trend of military build-up, leading to security dilemmas and B) Constructivism and the global trend of disappearing anarchy, leading to greater cohesion between states in International Relations.
First, from a Realist lens, one of the emerging patterns in international relations is a global build-up of military capabilities, particularly the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology. Since Realists see other states military force as an indicator of a states power (Goldstein & Pevehouse, 2006), they see worldwide increases in military expenditure (SIPRI database, 2006) and possible additions to the Nuke Club as threats to their power (Kissinger, 2006). For example, according to a database from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the entire Group-of-8 (the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, and Russia) have all consistently raised their military expenditure, with very few drops, since at least 1998. Other countries not in the G-8, like China, Iran, North Korea, and Israel also follow this paper has been copied (SIPRI database, 2006). Furthermore, in a world where international relations work in a state of anarchy, Realists perceive these military build-ups as direct threats to their nations security – particularly countries that threaten to develop nuclear capabilities. Realists share Kissingers sentiment that “The world is faced with the nightmarish prospect that nuclear do not copy weapons will become a standard part of national armament and wind up in terrorist hands.” In that sense, it is no surprise that many Realists scrutinize Irans continued pursuit of nuclear power and take a serious stand against the recent nuclear test conducted by North Korea. Indeed, in another article, Kissinger writes, “The US has strongly opposed the spread of weapons of mass destruction to Iran and North Korea because they are governed by hostile autocratic regimes and have records of ruthless international conduct” (Kissinger, 2006 [2]). However, these nations have their own security in mind when attempting to copy this paper, as Kenneth Waltz writes, “What is a small, weak country surrounded by enemies supposed to do other than rely on [nuclear] deterrence? It cannot possibly compete with conventional weapons” (Waltz, 2003). The result is a security dilemma – How does the United States respond to such threats and how do the nations targeted by the United States respond? Many Realists support unilateral, pre-emptive strikes as the best option for a response, as Kissinger writes “[The Great Powers] should know that, after the use of weapons of mass destruction or universal carnage due to a clash of civilizations, their publics will demand some form of preventive diplomacy” (Kissinger, 2006 [2]). Yet, it can be argued that such a response to alleged WMD in Iraq is what has lead nations like Iran to more aggressively pursue nuclear capabilities in their own defense (Porter, 2006). These patterns, however, lie mostly in the scope of Realist belief, where maintaining national security is at the heart of the theory and great emphasis is placed on the military aspects of states relations.
On the other hand, Constructivists have a different perspective. Constructivists believe, as Alexander Wendt writes, “Anarchy is what states make of it.” Since they base international relations on flexible and changing relations between states, they do not simply accept the Realist perception of anarchy (Wendt, 1992). Further, Constructivists value non-material concepts more than Realists, meaning that they do not copy this paper base their perceptions on power politics or the extent of one states military capabilities, like Realists do (Goldstein & Pevehouse, 2006). In that sense, it is not surprising that Constructivists see a pattern of globalization leading to more peaceful relations between states, one which some believe are evidence to the weakening of the anarchy in international relations and the foundation for an eventual world state (Wendt, 2003). Moreover, in the words of Emanuel Adler, “Constructivism occupies the middle ground between rationalist approaches (whether realist or liberal) and interpretive approaches (mainly postmodernist, poststructuralist and critical), and creates new areas for theoretical and empirical investigation” (Adler, 1997). Therefore, Constructivists see beyond one state naming certain countries or issues security threats, they instead broaden the scope and assess the individuals designating such nations or issues as security threats (Buzan, 2006). Constructivists see a trend of strengthening interrelations between countries through international organizations – particularly regional organizations in the current scheme of International Relations. Globalization, both in this paper being copied and economy and politics has lead many to redefine sovereignty. As John Ruggie writes, “The emergence of integrated global markets and firms has thoroughly domesticated the global policy agenda” (Ruggie, 2000). Transnational issues like HIV/AIDS and global warming have lead to treaties and accords that unify nations on more than the level of a simple military alliance (Ruggie, 2006). Because of the contention that stable economic trade is a factor in maintaining peace between states, transnational economic institutions can represent more than agreements between nations on economic issues (Goldstein & Pevehouse, 2006). Constructivists see the creation, acceptance, and success of institutions like the European Union as evidence of improved cohesion