Constructivism Paper

8/12/2019 Constructivism Paper

1/34

What Are We Making?

The Constructivist Approach to International Relations Theory

Samuel S. Stanton, Jr.

A paper presented at the 2002 Arkansas Political Science Association Annual MeetingFebruary 22-2, 2002, Jonesboro, A!


2/34

Abstract

"his paper looks at the constructi#ist approach to the study o$ international relations. "heconstructi#ist approach is de$ined in terms o$ the philosophical underpinnings o$ the

approach and the scienti$ic%social scienti$ic premises that highlight this social theory o$

international relations. "he approach is criti&ued based upon the postmodern approach tounderstanding and kno'ing. Also important to the criti&ue o$ the approach is the

understanding o$ scienti$ic%social scienti$ic criticisms o$ the constructi#ist approach.

Social constructi#ism is analy(ed $or its o$$erings in the study o$ anarchy, regimes, 'orldpolity, and as systemic le#el theory o$ international relations. Among the interesting

$indings is the problematic nature o$ this approach to understanding anarchy, the

di$$iculty o$ de$ining constructi#ism as positi#ist social science, and the optimistic

outlook $or the $uture o$ international relations studies o$$ered by the constructi#istapproach.


3/34

Introduction

)t is o$ten asked 'hy any theory o$ international relations should be taken

seriously. *n the sur$ace this appears to be a #alid &uestion. "heory is academically

based and not part o$ the real 'orld. Practitioners o$ $oreign policy must li#e in the +real+

'orld and actually take care o$ the business o$ go#ernment.

o'e#er, 'e need look no $urther than the linton administration in the S to

see that theory can be highly in$luential on practitioners o$ $oreign policy. *ne strand o$

liberal international relations theory is called +democratic peace theory+./ "his strand o$

liberalism holds that democracy 'ill rarely engage in con$lictual beha#ior 'ith one

another. "he linton administrations policy o$ +engagement+ 'as designed to spread

democracy, this in hopes that $uture con$licts might be a#oided because democracies do

not engage in con$lict 'ith each other.

More recently the 1ush administration has made a decision on the type o$ arms to

sell to "ai'an. Most o$ the systems 'ere purposely de$ensi#e in nature. *ne #ersion o$

realist theory is o$$ense-de$ense realism.2 e$ensi#e realism holds that 'hen the strength

o$ states is de$ensi#e in nature it 'ill mitigate against interstate con$lict because security

is ma3imi(ed. on#ersely 'hen o$$ensi#e strength is the norm, it is more likely that

states 'ill engage in con$lict 'ith one another in an attempt to ma3imi(e their o'n

security.

1oth liberalism and realism in most o$ their #arieties assume that the main unit o$

analysis in international relations should be the state. "he di$$erence bet'een them is

/A good re#ie' o$ democratic peace theory 'ill be $ound in 'orks by Michael oyle, 4ee# Mao(, 1ruce

!ussett and a#id Singer. hristopher 5ayne and Joanne 6o'a o$$er a good criticism o$ the democratic

peace theory.2

Scholars such as Stephen 7an 8#era, 6eorge 9uester and !obert Jer#is pro#ide a good source o$

in$ormation about o$$ense-de$ense realism.


4/34

o#er the concern $or po'er :absolute gains; #ersus the concern $or economic prosperity

:relati#e gains; :, >;. )nNeorealism and Neoliberalism, The Contemporary

Debate :1ald'in, 8d. /==; it is sho'n as e#ident that the only true di$$erence bet'een

the t'o main strands o$ liberal and realist theory is the &uestion o$ 'hen absolute gains

mean more than relati#e gains.

For the student o$ international relations theory and $or the practitioner looking

$or a 'ay to pro#ide the best $oreign policy this becomes &uite troubling. "heories are

supposed to pro#ide #iable options that are competiti#e in their ambition to e3plain a

phenomenon or to pro#ide a means o$ predicting $uture beha#ior and outcomes. "his is a

general theoretical problem, but as ans Morgenthau has in$ormed us, +"he key to a

theory o$ international politics 'ill not be $ound in the speci$ic sub?ect matter o$

international politics but in the re&uirements and problems o$ a general political theory,+

:/=@=, /;.

Stephen 7an 8#era says that theory is composed o$ causal la' or causal

hypothesis connected 'ith an e3planation o$ the causal la' or hypothesis :/==B, =;. "he

implication o$ this de$inition $or social science is that theory should allo' us to make

predictions about $uture beha#ior o$ the actors in#ol#ed based on an understood

e3planation o$ ho' phenomena relate to each other.


5/34

positi#ist social science, constructi#ist theory o$$ers a means o$ mo#ing beyond the

stagnation o$ the popular neoliberal and neorealist theories o$ international relations.

onstructi#ist theory is addressed in this 'ork $or both its social scienti$ic and

philosophical o$$erings. "he $irst t'o sections o$ this 'ork look at the philosophy and

social science o$ constructi#ist international relations theory and the philosophical and

social scienti$ic criti&ues o$ this theory. "he third section looks at 'hat constructi#ism

o$$ers to the study o$ international relations. A$ter all, the root o$ constructi#ism is

construct, so 'hat is being constructedC ) conclude this e$$ort by looking at the #alue o$

constructi#ist theory as a systemic le#el o$$ering to understand international relations.

Speci$ically, 'hat is re&uired $or a theory to be systemic and does constructi#ism

&uali$yC

Constructivism, Philosophy

"o e3plain the basics o$ constructi#ist theory ) turn to Ale3ander


6/34

international relations than o$$ered by Eeorealism'hich ignores idealism in $a#or o$

naked structureor by Mar3ism or


7/34

system is a social phenomenon rather than a material phenomenon :


8/34

the discourse. Second, ho' actors 'ill beha#e is determined by the system in 'hich the

actor is located.

According to 5yotard, +5anguages are not employed hapha(ardly,Geach must

$ormulate its o'n rules and petition the addressee to accept them,+ :/=>D, D2;. o' 'e

discuss something must be agreed upon and understood be$ore the discussion begins. )$

'e look at international relations as a discussion, 'hat are the rules and $rom 'here do

they come 'ould be the e&ui#alent concern. onstructi#ism in$orms us that rules are

embedded in the system as the norms and principles by 'hich actors are identi$ied. "he

discourse among the actors is done according to norms, 'hich are designed by discourse

among the actors. "he actors are, in the case o$ international relations, states. 1y

common communication, deri#ed by norms o$ understanding, states can pro?ect the

understanding o$ +stateness+ onto the system o$ states.

"hese same embedded norms allo' states to understand 'hat is acceptable

beha#ior and transmit this beha#ior into the system. Michel Foucault, inDiscipline and

Punish:/=BB;, states that +A body is docile that may be sub?ected, used, trans$ormed and

impro#ed,+ :/=BB, /;. 5ooking at the constructi#ist proposition that the norms and

principles that are embedded in the system in$orm and de#elop the identity o$ the actors

and then the actors can in turn in$orm and rede$ine the system, it is easy to see the

in$luence o$ the Foucauldian conception o$ docility.

*ne purpose o$ understanding international relations theory is to go beyond the

description o$ the sub?ect manner and e3plain ho' the system and the units o$ the system

might be trans$ormed. Foucault :/=BB; sho's ho' discipline and punishment in the

'orld changed o#er time as the people in$ormed the go#ernments o$ 'hat types o$


9/34

punishment and discipline 'ere acceptable. "he role o$ the people 'as determined by

the society in 'hich they li#ed. "he people in turn rede$ined acceptable practices in the

society.

"he same can be applied to states in the international system. "he system

pro#ides meaning to being a state. "he states then rede$ine acceptable practices in the

system. )n this manner the system and the states may be trans$ormed. For e3ample,

'hen the Athenians could no longer ?usti$y their $oreign policy'ar and the $orce$ul

surrender o$ territory $rom Spartan liege states'ith the accepted language o$ their time,

they rede$ined the system and introduced ne' language, thus in the Melian ialogue 'e

$ind the argument that strength makes rightde$initely out o$ place $or a society so

dedicated to democratic norms o$ beha#ior.

Philosophically postmodern ideas 'ould not be possible 'ithout the 'ork o$

e3istentialists such as Sartre and Merleau-Ponty. 83istentialism created the basis $or

understanding that no truths are uni#ersal. All things are seen through the essence that is

the indi#idual actor. 83istentialism created the indi#idual lens that is made systemic in

critical theory and makes it possible to argue in $a#or o$ social construction theories.

)$ international relations is a socially constructed phenomenon, then 'e must

understand ho' people are able to understand others in relation to themsel#es, so that

some norms or principles o$ understanding might appear to e3ist. H)$ ) am dealing 'ith a

stranger 'ho has yet to utter a 'ord, ) may 'ell belie#e that he is an inhabitant o$ another

'orld in 'hich my o'n thoughts and actions are un'orthy o$ a place. 1ut let him utter a

"he Melian ialogue can be $ound in "hucydides account o$ the Peloponnesian


10/34

'ork, or e#en make a gesture o$ impatience, and already he ceases to transcend me,

:Merleau-Ponty /=2, /;.

"he argument is that understanding each other is a matter o$ not being

transcended by the other.


11/34

Eeu$eld :/==@; sets the stage $or understanding constructi#ism as positi#istic

social science by gi#ing positi#ism three basic aspects. *ne, positi#e kno'ledge is true

in that it corresponds to $acts. Second, positi#e kno'ledge is ob?ecti#e. Lno'ledge

should be generated 'ithout re$erence to normati#ely oriented ideas. "hird, the

methodological approach that is used 'ould be as 'ell suited $or use in the natural 'orld

as the social 'orld :/==@, 2D-2@;.

Ale3ander , >;.

*ne $urther point should understood be$ore plunging into the argument about the

positi#ist nature o$ constructi#ismthe di$$erence bet'een causation and constitution.

Materialism, the basis $or neorealism, relies on causal logic. "his is to say that causes

N. )dealism, the basis $or constructi#ism, relies on constituti#e e$$ect. "hat is to say that

presupposes N, N is not contingent upon , but does constitute N or part o$ N.


12/34

'ith these insights into constructi#ism ) turn to the &uestions o$ 'hether constructi#ism is

scienti$ically positi#ist and 'hether or not anarchy is ideational rather than structural.


13/34

this seems tautological causes N 'hich causes . 1ut this is premised on the

misguided belie$ that all positi#e science is aimed at causal :ontological; theory at its

core.


14/34

signi$icance o$ the symbols that signi$y a possible de$inition o$ 'hat has at one time been

termed Hstate or Hsystem o$ states. "hrough discourse, the linguistic game, 'e can gain

an understanding o$ the construction o$ the norms that predicate the understood meaning

o$ the understood action o$ the entity that 'e symboli(e 'ith the 'ord state. )n any case,

there is a strong case that can be made that constructi#ism is an empirical be$ore

ontological theory. "his 'ould mean that the theory is more concerned 'ith ho' 'e can

understand a relation rather than ho' the relation might come into being.

"he &uestion o$ the positi#ism o$ a theory o$ international relations comes to rest

on the &uestion o$ 'hether a constructi#ist theory o$ international relations rests on a

descripti#e theory o$ re$erence, a relational theory o$ re$erence, or a causal theory o$

re$erence. )$ constructi#ism is a descripti#e or relational theory then it is epistemological.


15/34

)n causal theory a term is gi#en meaning and that meaning is then taught to others

through time :


16/34

sub?ect to the being that is obser#ing and constructing the obser#able relationship at any

gi#en time. "his same concept is applied by constructi#ism to the international actor.

"o e3plain the nature o$ states in the simplest $ashion 'e can turn to the internal

structure. States are gi#en meaning by the structures o$ go#ernance that constitute Hbeing

a state. States are also gi#en meaning by the embedded understanding o$ 'hat

constitutes a Hstate, i.e., by the e3ternal structure o$ the system that says Hthis is a state

or Hthis is not a state :@->B;. "he same &uestion o$ 'hether this is

logically tautological raises &uestions about the #alidity o$


17/34

Anarchy

Eeorealism and Eeoliberalism both hold anarchy as the lack o$ higher authority in

the 'orld. States, according to Leohane and Mearsheimer alike, e3ist in a sel$-help

'orld 'here gains :relati#eI Leohane, 6riecoK or absoluteI


18/34

enemy. "hat is to say that anarchy can mean that states can cooperate and be $riends :ala

)mmanuel Lant and neoliberalism;, they can be ri#als $or resources :ala John 5ocke and

neorealism;, or they can be enemies $ighting in a continual struggle $or primacy :ala

"homas obbes;.


19/34

probably $irst constituted as enmity and then progresses to ri#alry and $inally

cooperation.

) ha#e t'o primary problems 'ith constructi#ist arguments about anarchy. First,

the argument that the structure o$ anarchy de$ines the actors 'ho then reconstitute or

rede$ine anarchy 'hich 'ill in turn reconstitute the meaning o$ being an actor in the

system is tautological.


20/34

contention that constructi#ism is positi#istic social science. !ealism 'ould tell you that

?ust because there is cooperation today does not mean that there 'ill not be enmity

tomorro' or at least ri#alry. "he S and Japan 'ere allies in the early /=00s, ri#als in

the /=20s and /=0s, enemies in the /=D0s, cooperati#e in the /=@0s and /=0s and

materialistic ri#als in the last three :; decades o$ the century.

Regimes

!egimes are Hsocial institutions that consist o$ agreed upon principles, norms,

rules, decision-making procedures, and programs that go#ern the interactions o$ actors in

a speci$ic issue area, :Noung /==B, ;. Principles are belie$s about causation and ho' a

social process 'orks. Eorms are standards o$ beha#ior that are ideational. For the

constructi#ist the principles and norms are embedded in the system and de$ine the actors

that are part o$ the system. !ules are speci$ic guidelines, usually $ound in the $orm o$ a

co#enant or treaty, o$ beha#ior that con$orm to the norms. ecision-making procedures

are the dispute resolution mechanisms o$ a regime. Should one or more actors #iolate the

rules, a decision is made about the proper procedure $or the other actors that are part o$

the regime to take in regard to the incident:s; in &uestion.

"here are generally three theories about regime $ormation and purposes. *ne is

the po'er-based theory o$ regimes that is associated 'ith realist theory o$ international

relations. Second is interest-based theory that is associated 'ith liberal theories o$

international relations. "hird is the cogniti#e%constructi#ist approach to the study o$

regimes and regime $ormation. Eeoliberals stress the sel$-interest o$ states as the moti#e

$or cooperation among states and $or the creation and compliance 'ith international


21/34

regimes. !ealist emphasi(e po'er considerations and ho' the relati#e position o$ actors

'ill cause cooperation, and thus regimes, to be less likely to e3ist and harder to maintain.

ogniti#ists sho' that the meaning o$ po'er and perception o$ actors interests rely upon

the de#elopment o$ the actors social kno'ledge :asencle#er, et al. /==B, 2//;.

For the neoliberal, international politics is not a (ero sum game. States, 'hich are

the primary but not only actors, do not al'ays desire to ha#e all o$ the resource that is in

contest. States ha#e common interests in using and o#erseeing the use o$ resources and

may choose to cooperate. !egimes e3ist $or the purpose o$ lo'ering the probability o$

states cheating instead o$ truly cooperating in the use or o#ersight o$ a resource.

"o the neoliberal, regimes are important because they pro#ide in$ormation to

states. "he in$ormation that regimes pro#ide is use$ul in $acilitating cooperation

:asencle#er, et al. /==B, 2-D;. )n this instance the goal o$ the actors is bound by

cooperation, regimes are created as instruments to achie#e the cooperati#e goal o$ the

states regarding a certain resource :/==B, B;.

!ealism o$$ers three theories about regimes and cooperationK hegemonic stability,

po'er-oriented research, and modern realist theory. )n $act, only hegemonic stability is

truly realist. "he other t'o theories are neorealist in scope.

egemonic stability holds that regimes are created by po'er$ul states to ensure

cooperation that is bene$icial to the hegemon.


22/34

Eeorealism concentrates on t'o areas o$ concern in addressing regimes and

cooperation. *ne is po'er-based theory. "he other is concern o#er relati#e gains.

8#en po'er-based theory is concerned 'ith the pay-o$$. Lrasner :/==; points

out that international interaction is about 'ho gets 'hat and not ho' they get 'hat :/==B,

/0@;. )n addition, po'er matters because it determines 'ho can play, 'hat the rules o$

the game 'ill be, and it can change the pay-o$$ :Lrasner /==/, in /==B, /0;.

"o po'er-based theorists, regimes are important $or policy coordination and

stability. An e3ample o$ten cited is the global communications regime :asencle#er et al

/==B, /0B;. >, /==0, /==; makes a strong argument that neorealism does not re?ect

neoliberal institutionalism, but &uali$ies the theory. Mearsheimer argues that you cannot

separate security and economics, and this is the cru3 o$ 6riecos arguments about modern

realist theory and regimes.

Anarchy, de$ined as the lack o$ go#ernance o#er states, makes cooperation

di$$icult, not impossible.


23/34

/20;. States 'ill cooperate only i$ the terms ensure a balance or e&uitable distribution o$

gains that maintains the pre-cooperation balance o$ capabilities.

"he third area is cogniti#ist%constructi#ist. ) e3amine cogniti#ist theories o$

regime $ormation as constructi#ist due to the underlying principle o$ constituti#e

structure. 0s.


24/34

)deas can be important not ?ust $or lo' politic areas, but also $or economics and

security. "he addition o$ such thought into liberal or realist theory does pro#e

stimulating and theoretically re'arding. More importantly, 'hat this sho's is that

cooperation can be learned and regimes can be the dependent #ariable resulting $rom

interaction and cooperation o$ states :Eye /=>B, aas /==, in /==B, /D@;. )t is less clear

that cooperation ser#es as a causal $actor in 'eak cogniti#ism, because it is problematic

at best to measure cooperation and regimes as independent #ariables.

Strong cogniti#ism re?ects the arguments o$ both liberalism and realism.

1asically, strong cogniti#ism says that there are $undamental rules that actors learn

because they are embedded in the +'hat and 'ho+ o$ the actors identity. "hese rules lead

to actors speci$ying interests and gaining ne' kno'ledge, 'hich in turn leads to

cooperation 'ith those actors 'ho share the same $undamental attributes and embedded

ideas and kno'ledge by #irtue o$ e3istenceand this leads to regime. "he regime in turn

a$$ords an opportunity $or ne' kno'ledge to be disseminated and internali(ed by actors

'ho 'ill then ha#e ne' interests and demands $or cooperation :asencle#er et al /==B,

/@;.

According to strong cogniti#ism the problem 'ith the logical positi#ism o$

realism and liberalism is that social interaction is not the same as the biological

interactions, 'hich ga#e rise to the patterns o$ relationship testing $ound in positi#istic

social science. An e3ample is that norms are o$ten treated as causal #ariables by

positi#ist science. According to !uggie :/=>; norms can inspire, guide or ?usti$y action,

but they do not cause action :asencle#er et al /==B, /;.


25/34

Strong cogniti#ists other problem 'ith positi#istic science is that regimes are a

practice and not a set o$ regulations :asencle#er et al /==B, /;. asencle#er, et al

likens this to game playing. "he rules o$ the game do not ?ust control the gameK they

allo' the game to be played in the $irst place.

"his last point is problematic. )t appears to be a rei$ying o$ regulation. )s

regulation the same as practiceC "he practice or action o$ the game is controlled by

regulationK does regulation e&ual the playing o$ the gameC For a theory that is o#erly

concerned 'ith kno'ledge, ideas and logic, it is almost illogical in this particular point.

Another problem 'ith strong cogniti#ism is its claim about the process 'hen

kno'ledge causes di#ergent interests and interpretations o$ reality. asencle#er et al,

sho' that the in strong cogniti#ist position di#ergent interpretations lead to di#ergent

rules that 'ill be con$lictual. "his con$lict leads to discourse and discourse to common

interpretation and thus con#erging e3pectations :asencle#er et al /==B, /B>;.


26/34

other theory despite its argument about di#ergent interpretation o$ reality leading to

con#ergent e3pectations.

World Polity


27/34

onstructi#ism as a systemic theory takes the state as the primary unit o$ analysis.

)t does need to understand the current system that e3ists. onstructi#ism in o$$ering a

means o$ trans$orming the system then turns to the idea o$ a 'orld political culture that is

created by memberships o$ people around the 'orld in international nongo#ernmental

organi(ations.

"homas Princen and Matthias Finger :/==D;, along 'ith their contributors, ha#e a

larger picture e3planation o$ the role o$ E6*s in the international en#ironmental debate.

)n#n$ironmental N%&s in 'orld Politics, E6*s are presented as a $orce $or tying local

concern to the global problem o$ en#ironmental protocols and particularly $or

conser#ation e$$orts.

)t is ine#itable that as the number o$ international organi(ations increased, non-

go#ernmental organi(ations :E6*s; 'ould increase in number also. 1ut, as pointed out

by Princen and Finger :/==D; this linkage is only partially #alid as an e3planatory $actor

o$ the gro'th o$ E6*s. 1et'een /=0= and /=>> the increase in )*s 'as only about 2>0,

'hile the increase in E6*s 'as o#er D,00 :Princen and FingerI /;. "he increase in the

number o$ E6*s coincides 'ith the rising number o$ interest groups, groups $orm as

political systems mature, and as indi#iduals become more concerned 'ith in$luencing

issues o$ importance to themsel#es and issues that they percei#e as greatly a$$ecting their

'orld.

1oli and "homas :/===; e3amine the gro'th in E6*s as a 'ay o$ changing

'orld culture. )t is a 'eak cogniti#ist approach to studying culture, because it conditions

rational choice but is not terribly beset by the &uestion o$ identity. "he authors o$$er $i#e

cultural themes that can be seen in the E6* population.


28/34

"he $irst is an element o$ uni#ersalism :1oli and "homas /===I @-;. uman

nature, agency and the purposes o$ E6*s are #ie'ed as being uni#ersal. )$ the E6*s

ha#e uni#ersal traits then it is possible that an element o$ uni#ersality underlies actual

social $orms. A 'orld body politic 'ould ha#e to be uni#ersal to de#elop, i$ not

uni#ersal the 'orld body politic 'ould not e3ist. "his argument underscores the

constructi#ist belie$ in embedded norms and principles.

Second is that E6*s are indi#idualistic. Society is $ormed o$ indi#iduals. At the

)6* le#el, the society is indi#idual states. At the E6* le#el it is indi#idual people $rom

around the 'orld. ombining the $irst t'o elements constructs +the 'orld polity as a

social unit,+ :1oli and "homas /===I B;.

"he third element is that the acti#ity o$ people 'ho are in#ol#ed in E6*s is

rationalistic and #oluntary. "he authority o$ E6*s is not $ormali(edK the reasons $or

people ?oining the E6*s actually create the authority o$ the E6*. So, a 'orld culture

must e3ist at some le#el $or E6*s to success$ully proli$erate and penetrate many

di$$erent states.

"he $ourth characteristic is that E6*s ha#e a purposi#e nature. E6*s ha#e a

de#elopmental agenda that includes not ?ust security or economic gro'th. E6*s are

greatly interested in indi#idual sel$-$ul$illment and ?ustice :1oli and "homas /===I >;,

as 'itnessed by the gro'th o$ organi(ations like Amnesty )nternational. o'e#er, this

process cannot be o#er rationali(ed, rationali(ation can cause se#ere problems $or

indi#idual spiritual gro'th :/===I =;.


29/34

"he $inal characteristic is 'orld citi(enship. ; approaches the creation o$ 'orld polity $rom a di$$erent

perspecti#e. )t is a philosophical and psychological construction based on history,

argumentation, legitimation, and identity $ormation. "his is a strong cogniti#ist

perspecti#e.

"he construction o$ 'orld polity in this #ein begins 'ith the idea that identity is a

social construction. )dentity is constructed through language, #alidation and brute $act.


30/34


31/34

parts, :;. )n the case o$ international relations scholarship the realm is the

'orld. "he parts are either states, groups o$ states, or indi#idual people depending upon

the type o$ theory. For constructi#ism the parts are indi#idual actors, but the actors e3ist

at t'o le#els. At one le#el there are the indi#iduals 'ho generate the norms o$ 'orld

polity. At the other le#el are the states through 'hich the system is trans$ormed. 1ut

does meeting the re&uirements o$ theory make constructi#ist theory o$ international

relations systemicC

H)n international politics the appropriate concernsGo$ systems theory are

t'o$oldI $irst, to trace the e3pected careers o$ di$$erent international systems, $or

e3ample, by indicating the likely durability and peace$ulnessK second, to sho' ho' the

structure o$ the system a$$ects the interacting units and ho' they in turn a$$ect the

structure, :


32/34

onstructi#ism seeks to e3plain systems and the interaction bet'een systems and

their parts. Actually constructi#ism can e3plain some aspects o$ the system &uite 'ell.


33/34


34/34

Milner, elen, H"he Assumption o$ Anarchy in )nternational !elations "heory, in .

1ald'in, 8d.Neorealism and Neoliberalism,ENI olumbia ni#ersity Press,

/==I /D-/=.

Eeu$eld, Mark. The Restructurin" of International Relations Theory, ambridge, LI

ambridge ni#ersity Press, /==@.

Princen, "homas and Matthias Finger, HE6*sI reating a Eiche in 8n#ironmental

iplomacy, in Princen, "homas and Matthias Finger, 8ds. #n$ironmentalN%&s

in 'orld Politics, 5ondonI !outledge, /==D, /-DB.

!uggie, John 6. Constructin" The 'orld Polity, Ee' NorkI !outledge, /==>.

!usten, Je$$erey, 8d. Thucydides* History of the Peloponnesian 'ar,

ambridgeI ar#ard ni#ersity Press, /=>=.

"homas, 6eorge M., John Meyer, Francisco !amire( and John 1oli.Institutional

Structure, Constitutin" State, Society, and the Indi$idual, Ee' NorkI SagePublications, /=>B.

7an 8#era, Stephen. %uide to +ethods for Students of Political Science, )thaca, ENIornell ni#ersity Press, /==B.

Documents

Constructivism Paper