1. Constructivism believes that the terms and conditions of international relations are based on the ever-changing condition of states. While history plays a role, constructivists argue the current leadership and power structures within states have more influence than past relations. This theory is believable because international cooperation is still possible even after conflicts, like between the US and Russia. However, it is unrealistic to think socialization and communication can solve all issues between states given territorial and ideological disputes. 2. Realism focuses on practical thinking and facts over emotions. It emphasizes constraints on politics from human self-interest and the lack of a higher international authority. While generally believable due to its long-standing application, its claim that leaders can

1. 1) Constructivism is a prominent perspective that scholars, in
the field of political science, acknowledge being a well -
respected point of view. There are many factors of the state one
must consider when using constructivism as your persepctivve.
One of the most important things to pay attention to while using
this is the condition of the state. This is because constructivists
believe that the terms and international relations are based off
the condition of the state, which makes it ever-changing.
Some scholars are skeptic of this theory and may find certain
things compelling, for instance the idea the history having little
or nothing to do with the condition of the state. This is hard to
ignore because international relations relys heavily on the past
relations of the state. Without the history of the state many of
the the modern issues become uncomprehensible. What makes
this believeable is the constant change in power in many of
today's nations, meaning that what was done by a past leader
may not affect the leaders decisions. This is believable because
in countires where leaders are voted, like the U.S., there are
leaders of different parties running and what the last president
did may does not determine what is done by the current
president. Making the idea that the state's relations are ever-
chaning based on the current condiition.
The philosophical point of view that constructivist take makes it
a believeable theory/perspective. This being that one can not
determine the state international relations because of it's past.
Meaning fundemental relationships, a realationship between the
individual and society, between indviduals and society, and
between society. This concurs to the idea that we should rather
look at what is going on within the state in order to make an
educated infrence on the state. There aree still many holes in
this theory that are hard to ignore but if you take the mix
method approach, you will find the this perspective can help
lead you to a good inference.

2. 2) The theory I have chosen to dive into today will be the theory
is realism within international relations. The theory of realism
is to apps to achieve things in a manor for which they truly are,
being practical and using facts instead of emotions. Realism
truly is the the notion that there is a concern for fact and there
is a rejection for impractical/visionary ideologies. Realism
allows for us to gain an understanding of how politics have been
influenced and what they have been influenced by throughout
time. The constraint placed on politics by the people and their
egoistic ways is what is constantly highlighted my realists in
international relations. The lack of not having a central for
international government is also a constraint realists see that
has had an effect on global politics. The state is one of the most
important variables for realists, the state is unitary and speaks
under one voice. There are factors that are addressed such as
individuals within the state, however the state as a whole is
where the power lies, not just within one individual. Realists
believe that states find their dependency on their own
capabilities. Overall what makes this theory a believable one is
just it’s use of practical thinking and logical thinking. Use of
emotion or sympathy isn’t being shown it all boils down to what
is factual, and that is what I believe makes this theory i the
most believable from my standpoint. The most unrealistic claim
I belief this theory makes is that the all leaders are able to put
aside believes or political persuasions to govern their states
within a competitive environment. I find this claim to be very
hard to justify just simply due to the fact that humans are
emotional beings. I believe if someone has had a strong
influence no matter what they might claim I believe
subconsciously that influence will always be a factor in making
decisions.
3) I chose the realism theory because of the many realistic
values it holds. The basics of realism is that it is a family of
related debates & arguments that share common ground in and
on a logical ground point. Realism theory chooses to pay

3. attention to the power, the state, and the national interest in
world politics, in the regard to international relations. When it
comes to how the state is involved in realism theory, it boils
down to how the states have wanted and will continue to want to
protect their own interest against neighboring and or enemy
states. Personally, this theory is compelling due to how long it
has been in place and how effective it has been while in place -
even when not recognized for what it is titled "realism theory".
It gives a framework as well as a plan to understand the
backlash of disastrous events - and has been doing so for many
decades - ranging from the post World War One collapse as well
as the series of aggression coming from Europe, World War
Two, and more economically stressful events. Basically, this
plays a part in its believability as well. If it were not in place
for so long and it was not producing good enough results to
keep this theory in place, then, this theory would be
unbelievable as it would have produced no results. but, because
it produced results in its productivity, it makes it believable.
Realism is very realistic, but the thing that truly makes it
unbelievable is how it is the theory that coincides with
EVERYTHING - from the periodic table elements to what the
elements make to bring us into space, to then the upcoming
space wars that will take place. It is unbelievable that the theory
has that big of a butterfly effect.
4) Constructivism is centrally based on socialization and
education. Constructivists think that most conflicts can be
resolved through communication, socialization, and education.
That sharing different ideas, cultures, and understanding of
different ideals of other states could avoid conflicts such as
war. The role of the state in constructivism is to identify its
their own characteristics and ideals, and understand their
neighboring states characteristics and ideals. Their
characteristics and ideals could be similar or they could be
different from one another, which does not always mean they
oppose each other but opposition could happen as well.

4. Understanding the difference between their own identity and
another states identity is an importance that could prevent
unneccessary actions between states.
I find the theory that educating each other and socialization
would correct a lot of the world issues interesting. I do believe
that many issues can be solved by communication and coming to
an understanding of each states perspective. In my opinion, if
states were to be able to educate each other on their own
identities it would end a lot of the worlds issues and decrease
the chance of negative actions such as war. Yet in this year
there are still countries that can not find a way to communicate
to each other, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. What makes this
theory believable though is country leaders are capable of
meeting and discussing world issues even after past wars. For
example, Russia and the United States have not had the best
relationship since the Cold War but we are able to look past
those issues and have our leaders meet and discuss. Even the
United States with North Korea, who we never expected to have
a meeting with, have met and socialized, we do not have to
agree with each other but being able to understand each other
can solve a lot of issues.
What is unbelievable or unrealistic about Constructivism is that
it can solve every issue between states. Unfortunately,
socializing and understanding each others identities can not
solve every world problem. For example, if a state wants more
territory and the state occupying that territory does not want to
give it up, then what happens? Russia invading Ukraine in an
attempt to regain the territory they had is what happens. Saudi
Arabia and Iran, or Sunni and Shia, have been fighing each
other for decades. Even though I belive finding and
understanding between two different indentities can solve a lot
of issues I also understand it can not solve every issue.
5) The theory I have chosen to dive into today will be the theory
is realism within international relations. Realism is s a theory

5. that claims to explain the reality of international politics.
Realism’s roots are often said to be found in some of
humankind’s earliest historical writings, particularly
Thucydides’ history of the Peloponnesian War, which raged
between 431 and 404 BCE. It emphasizes the constraints on
politics that result from humankind's egoistic nature and the
absence of a central authority above the stat. Realism allowed
for us to gain an understanding of how politics have been
influenced and what they have been influenced by over a huge
period of time. Realists claim to offer both the most accurate
explanation of state behavior and a set of policy prescriptions
(notably the balance of power between states) for ameliorating
the inherent destabilizing elements of international affairs.
While learning about this theory, the most unrealistic claim I
belief this theory makes is that the all leaders are able to put
aside believes or political persuasions to govern their states
within a competitive environment. I find this claim to be very
hard to believe because no matter what, at the end of the day
everyone is going to have an opinion and specific belief with
almost anything. Personally, I believe someone will have an
opinion and want to embrace that opinion whether it is in
specific way or not. If an individual wants their opinion to be
known, then I believe that it will be known
6) The theory I have chosen is liberalism. Liberalism has many
different meanings and theories that fall under it. Liberal theory
can be traced all the way back to the eighteenth century but has
been modernized as generations move forward into new
ideologies. The liberal theory in the most simple terms is
basically a political and moral outlook based on the rights of
the person, liberty, consent of the governed, and equality before
the law. Liberalism is loosely based on morals, and making sure
that an individual has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness. Liberals emphasize the ideology of the well -being of
an individual and put that as the building block in political
institutions to push forward and make progress as a society.

6. This theory is heavily based on trusting individuals and
believing that they are rational and social beings capable of
cooperation and decision making as a whole. A key part of
liberalism is neoliberal institutionalists and their role in internal
relations. Neoliberals are known as "new" liberals, and
institution is in the sense of international institutions such as
the United Nations that countries may come and go but the
United Nations institution will still exist. Neoliberals believe
that self-interest is important in any system. Liberals also
believe that states can work together to maximize prosperity and
minimize conflict. What is compelling about liberalism is the
fact that there is much evidence that shows the goal of the
liberal theory is to satisfy the people as a whole and make
decisions together. Liberalism is very heavy on teamwork and
being one. But, that can also be the issue with liberalism. While
it seems that it would make sense to be cooperative with
everyone that is not the reality. The reality is that people have
different power motives and intentions for their own people,
and countries and people have different intentions as an
individual as well.
7) The theory in which I chose was liberalism. The basics of
this theory are that they focus on liberty, freedom values of
order, and toleration. They usually are known for supporting
individuals’ rights whether it is civil rights or human rights.
They believe in equal opportunity for all people and one who is
open-minded and not strict on the observance of orthodox.
Liberals think the most important things to pay attention to in
international relations are the global structures within the
international system. They also think that states can work
together to maximize prosperity and minimize conflict. The
liberal state focuses on individual rights and freedom. While it
also argues for a neutral and minimal state. The state works for
the common good of the society and its main activity is to
understand law and order so that everyone is treated equally
with no discrimination. Meaning liberal states regard

7. individuals as rational agents and morals. What I find
compelling about liberalism is that everything is done for the
good pf the person. It seems hard to believe since usually
everything is done for money or a higher power to benefit them
without worrying about the true person in which you are.
Liberalism compels me since we are finally worrying about the
people for a change and making sure they are okay and happy
with what is going on around them. They protect their human
and civil rights as well to help change the way for new things
people do not want. What I find unbelievable about liberalism is
that they are not strict on any values. They are such open-
minded people that they understand everyone’s perspectives and
give them input on their opinions or ways even if it is different
from their own. While still carrying open forms to keep the
group of liberals going.
8) Like many other theories, liberalism is a diverse theory that
is made up through centuries and countiues to be updated to this
day. If liberalism was looked up in the dictionary it is stated to
be a political philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil
liberties, democracy, and free enterprise. Even though this may
be the definition there is so much that goes into liberalism and
how it all started, and how it has changed today. One of the
founders of enlightenment beliefs is Immanuel Kant. Mr. Kant
believed that states would act in their own way due to their
beliefs and it would lead to peace because of self interest.
Continuing through the years, in the nineteenth century it was
seen that liberalism was met through freedom in a democratic
state. To this day it is true that most political freedoms are in
capitalist states such as the United States. Following through to
the twentieth century Woodrow Wilson, a president of the
United States followed liberalism and believed in the "idealist"
theory. Wilson believed that the war was preventable through
certain aspects such as mediation, arbitration, and international
courts. To this day, the basis of liberalism is quite the same, but
there are a few changes that continue to progress as time goes

8. by. The liberalism theory is compelling because they want
equality but at the same time it can be unrealistic because it
could be taking other people's freedom away. This could be a
sticky situation in today's world as we see the problems the
United States suffers with in today's world. Liberalism has
become extremely popular in today's generation because so
many people agree with these beliefs that are given. An example
of liberalism in today's world would be free education. Many
people believe that if everyone had free education then there
would be more equality, and opportunity for all people. Even
though this may be seen as a good thing it can be unrealistic in
our current system of social services.
9) The basics of realism is that states lives in a context of
anarchy where power and security is principle for survival. In a
state of anarchy where there is no government present for help,
realist would need to harvest a bunch of power and use it for the
security of the state. A realist use's their power intelligently
and judiciously in order to protect their land. The use of the
power can be broken into offensive or defensive realist.
Offensive realist believe "the best defense is good offense", and
that the more powerful your country is, the more countries are
willing to be on your side. Countries want to be on the winning
and more powerful side. This is also known as bandwagoning.
On the other hand, we have defensive realist who believe in
balancing the power. A defensive realist would balance their
power so they do not attract much attention and will not have a
big target. Another kind of realism are neorealist or (new) -
realist. Neorealist focus on the distribution of power among
varies countries and not just a single state. If a there are
different distributions of power among varies states, then this
will lead to different kinds of politics and the ways states
interact. What I find interesting of this theory is how
competitive this theory can be. In a realist mindset where
power is the key for survival, a state can create a security
dilemma. This can happen when a state wants to have more

9. security by building a better army or bringing more weapons
causing the neighboring states to feel insecure and weak. This
can lead to the neighboring states also wanting to build their
power and security causing an arms race. That sounds like that
happens in today's society where whatever state has the most
nuclear weapons then they are stronger. What I find
unbelievable about the theory is it only focuses on the states.
There are other organizations and individuals within the state
but they hold less power.
10) The theory of liberalism in the scheme of international
relations can be traced back to the Enlightenment optimism seen
in the 18th century. According to the textbook on page 78,
liberalism rests on the basic idea that humans are rational and
able to understand universally applicable laws that govern
nature and society. Furthermore, this understanding means that
humans are capable of manufacturing a just society where war,
aggression, and injustice can be moderated through reform or
collective action. The base ideas that contributed to the
formation of liberal theory often cited war and violence as a
consequence of forming civil society but that does not
necessarily mean that it is an attribute of individual humans.
This optimistic view of human nature developed the more
rational approach that is 19th century liberalism, which favored
fair trade and democracy. A core value of the liberal theory is
that individual needs of each person can be satisfied in rational
ways under a democratic state that allows for freedom and
autonomy. Without excessive government restriction,
individuals can contribute to themselves and the greater good of
the economy and free market. Free commerce and trade is also
believed to create an interdependency between states and
increase the cost of war, creating a deterrent for it. Liberalism
is exceptionally compelling because of its development with
idealism. The idea that war is preventable through collective
action or mediation is quite interesting because of its relevance
to history. For example, the League of Nations cited this notion

10. of "collective security", that aggression against one state is
aggression against all and should be handled collectively.
Seeing as of now the relations between Ukraine and Russia this
could become very important. On the other hand, states often
act within their own economic interest and the theory of
liberalism does not propose a solution to this sort-of large scale
greed.
11) The theory that I chose to explore is liberalism. Liberalism
as an international relations theory essentially states that people
are inherently good and trustworthy, and that cooperation is
possible. This contrasts with the idea of realism which states
that people are inherently self-interested and untrustworthy.
Liberalism also states that negative occurrences such as wars
are a product of society, not something caused by the nature of
individuals. Therefore, liberals do not believe that events such
as these are unavoidable, but rather that they can be moderated
or eliminated. Liberalism also focuses on absolute power and
absolute gains rather than relative power and relative gains.
This means that they are less focused on equality of outcome
and more on ensuring that every party involved in relations ends
up being better off, even if some countries benefit more than
others. I believe that a good representation of the international
relations theory of liberalism is summed up in the quote by
Montesquieu: “different nations ought in time of peace to do
one another all the good they can, and in time of war as little
harm as possible, without prejudicing their real interests.”
The role of the state in liberalism is to pursue action that brings
about the collective good. For example, the League of Nations
was rooted in liberal theory. It was founded on the idea that war
is preventable through the collective action of states. It included
the concept of collective security, which states that aggression
by one state would be met with action by a “league of nations.”
Liberalism appeals to me mostly because of the idea of multiple
nations working together to achieve a common good. The idea
that people are generally good and trustworthy seems like a

11. much more positive outlook on the world than the opposite. The
success by IGOS such as NATO and the UN shows that this
idealistic point of view is at least somewhat believable.
Liberalism can be somewhat unrealistic however, as it does not
always self-interest as an important motivation for individuals
and nations and does not seem to acknowledge that this can
cause them to act in dishonest or harmful ways. A good example
of this is the failure of the League of Nations to prevent conflict
in WW2.
12) The theory that I decided to write about was liberalism.
This theory is based on protecting individuals rights, the
consent of the governed and equality. Liberalism was developed
in the 1970s. Liberals tend to believe that international
institutions could play an essential role in cooperation within
states by inter-independence. Liberals tend to argue that
international diplomacy can be a significant way to convince
states to have some sort of interaction within themselves
without the use of any violent or untruthful manner to solve
their concerns. By believing that with the proper government
system, all states would be able to successfully rise prosperity
and decrease conflict. Additionally, liberals strongly support
the idea of being able to successfully spread their democracy to
other corporations. Liberals stand by the idea that the state
should not be granted a lot of power, but to limit their power by
separation of powers, so that their citizens beliefs could be
respected and for that the government could hold too much
power. The political idea which holds that the state isn’t a issue
to outside and internal authority of the other states which
includes the military. Liberals strongly agree with the idea that
nongovernmental organizations and international law
organizations have a equal say in political concerns which in
this circumstances contradicts with the concepts that realists
support. What makes this theory realistic is the main purpose
of this theory: protecting individuals rights. The idea of
building an government system helps sustain the laws that

12. would help prevent anyone from disturbing someone’s rights.
The only flaw with this theory is that it is based in an idea that
their is equality within citizens and the government. Even
though, they have tried to explore the idea of finding ways to
help spread their democracy, their government will always hold
more power than their citizens. The equality that is mentioned
in this theory is solely based in the idea that somehow this
could be made true but it has yet to happen.
13) International relations theory is a political perspective
looking at how states interact with each other on the global
stage in different approaches. Some states may approach it
through radicalism, liberalism, or constructivism each having its
unique aspects of operating. However, one theory that stands
out is that of realism.
Realism in international relations theory is that which
emphasizes conflict and competitiveness. In emphasizing this,
the state is the front when dealing with international relations.
This involves the state acting on the global stage on behalf of
its citizens and making decisions for the state in its entirety.
Something very important in the realism approach on the
international stage is that of strength or power, logic, and
national interest. For example, in a time of war or foreign
interaction, the state will show aggression and ensure they do
not look weak. Additionally, they follow the principle that the
unitary leader will make rational decisions that are only in the
best interest of the state. The idea of realism is almost opposite
to that of liberalism which emphasizes cooperation, however,
realism emphasizes competition. The role of the state is to
ensure it is competitive on the world stage and remains a strong
power.
Many of the aspects of this theory of realism can be seen in
certain aspects of our daily lives which makes it believable.
Many countries such as North Korea operate as a dictatorship in
which the Supreme Leader serves as the state and governs all
operations both domestic and foreign. Seemingly operating with

13. an iron fist and lack of regard for cooperation to earn a seat at
the table of world powers. Many times, he has often declined to
cooperate with other countries most recently being seen in a
famine crisis. The lack of cooperation is realism in action.
However, by this power-hungry ruling,
Some aspects that I find unrealistic about the theory are the lack
of cooperation and constant competitiveness. To have a state
always be in competition with others and refuse to work with
other foreign policies, they ensure themselves as an isolated
state – a state with no outside help, alliances, and often less
socioeconomically developed. This ultimately may not be ruling
with the best interests of the state in mind as the theory
suggests. Often, it would be better to cooperate with outside
states for trades, alliances, and more to improve a statistic like
the human development index and increase GDP, technological
advances, and others.
14) Liberalism a set of beliefs that includes the advocacy of
positive government action to improve the welfare of
individuals, support for civil rights, and tolerance for political
and social change. Liberalism argues that states can mitigate the
effects of anarchy. The theory of Liberalism is that they think
that it within international relations theory which revolves
around three interrelated principles: Rejection of power politics
as the only possible outcome of international relations; it
questions security/warfare principles of realism. Mutual
benefits and international cooperation. The liberal state focuses
on individual rights and freedom. It also argues for a neutral
and minimal state, it fears that the state may act in an arbitrary
manner to persecute certain groups.Honestly, I never knew what
a liberal was or what it meant until taking this class. And from
the information that I read throughout the chapter, I see the
theory wants for the community to be at peace and have
common ground. They want individuals to be able to speak their
minds but to also be considerate of others and live in a peaceful
and conflict less world. The people that believe in this theory

14. doesn’t want a war but to able to talk about the issues and try to
find ways that will suite everyone involved. With they also
realize that sometimes a war must come to get things sorted out,
but they want that option to be the last resort. But there were
some criticisms from this group because of World War ll people
questioned how things were going because of the new of the
holocaust and how the human rights were being stripped away
and a lot of question were being asked and questions the
theories characteristics and replaced it with Realism. I get why
this theory was created and I do agree with some of the
guidelines that they have but I don’t agree with the fact that
they want a warless world but in the same instance they wanted
to get free trade from international groups, Liberal theorists
believe that free trade and commerce create interdependencies
among states, thus raising the cost of war and reducing its
likelihood. I don’t think they researched on how this could
affect the nation if this were to happen. In today’s society we
rely on a lot of trade especially from China and places in the
middle east and the US and Iraq are in constant battle over the
land of oil even though we have a treaty with Iraq. Just because
two countries can work out one issue doesn’t mean they can
work out any other issue that may come up in the alliance.
15) The theory that is most compelling to me out of the ones
listed above is radicalism. The reason this one catches my
attention more than the others is because it is apparent in todays
society, and is still taking place. There are plenty of people and
groups who maintain radical political opinions and are
advocating for immediate change. The basics of this theory is
that anyone who believes in it, demands immediate social, and
political reform. The people who believe in radicalism tend to
have the most extreme opinions on political matters, no matter
the side. This theory believes first and foremost in the
distribution of wealth, where there is more of a middle class,
and less people inside the one percent income status. The state
does not have a very significant role when it comes to this

15. specific theory. What is most compelling about this theory is
the dedication people involved have to make a change. People
who believe radical thoughts go to many different lengths to
express their opinion. The most seen way to express the need
for change is found in the forms of protests and petitions. These
have been happening far more often throughout America, and
many people believe it has a very big impact. It is seen as quite
believable because it has created many different changes in
politics in America, and it will continue to do so. The thing that
can be viewed as unrealistic when talking about this theory, is
the belief that change must happen immediately. Change has
historically taken time when it comes to politics. Many radical
people expect a protest or petition to create immediate action.
This however does not happen often, and can sometimes be
disheartening to many radical individuals. Radicalism is very
apparent in this current climate, and will continue to grow.
16) Realism can best be defined as a measure of security.
Realism maintains that a security posture is the most important
aspect of a state. The role of the state in the realist framework
is to pursue its own self-interest, and to maintain its own
security. The realist framework also emphasizes the importance
of relative gains. The textbook gives the example of India and
Pakistan. In order to maintain a security posture against the
other state, both states attempt to develop a stronger nuclear
arsenal than the other. This falls in line with the realist point of
view, which is that states will individually pursue their self-
interest. Another core tenet of realism is the idea of
international anarchy. Individual states have sovereignty, but
there is no sovereignty exercised at the international level. As
such, there is no force that can coerce individual states other
than other individual states.
The most compelling thing about realism is its close attention to
self-interest. Since not all states cooperate, smaller states are in
a position where they must choose to align themselves with
countries for their own protection and material interest. NATO

16. would be an example of countries that band together for
material interests, even though there is no unifying ideology. A
country like Turkey is radically different from the United States
in its style of politics, but still feels compelled to stay in NATO
because of the protection it provides from a country like Russia.
The material gains of customs unions like the EU and defensive
alliances like NATO increase Western countries' relative gains
in proportion to autocratic countries in the same region, like
Russia.
The existence of NATO can also be used as an argument against
realism. From the perspective of realism, states are meant to
pursue their own material interest at the expense of other states.
If this were true all the time, it seems difficult to justify the
existence of regional alliances and customs unions, since they
also benefit the other countries in that region. If the goal of the
state is to maximize its relative gains in proportion to all other
states, it would seem like an unwise decision to help your
regional adversaries by engaging in trade and commerce with
them.
17) The theory I selected for this discussion is liberalism. The
liberalism theory focuses on the equality of rights, and well -
being of individuals. Liberalism has a major objective to protect
the freedom of individuals prioritizing their rights over the
government. Liberalism limits governmental power by creating
equality rights between the individuals and the law, protecting
private property, freedom of speech, division of powers,
limiting state power, and establishing civil codes. Etc. The state
plays a particular role in the theory of liberalism because it is
considered the principal enemy; whose power is trying to be
diminished meanwhile the power of the people increases. The
liberals fear that the state can use its power to prosecute and
censure those that have different opinions. Thus, their main
objective is to limit state power via constitutionalism, an
independent judicial system, and rule of law.

17. Liberalism is a way of thoughts and behavior that has become
so commonplace that it is easy to forget how it came to be. It
brought civic liberty, which put an end to dictatorship and the
feudal system. As a result, we may conclude that liberalism's
significance stems from the fact that it ushered in change in
many areas, fostering, among other things, democracy, and the
well-known rule of law. It also made a change in the social
aspect creating the freedom of speech
What I found most unrealistic about this theory is that it tries to
take most of the power from the government entity to give it to
the people; instead of creating a bridge between the government
and the people to work together instead of separate. Also, that
liberalism works under the hypothesis that it is possible to take
all the power from the government and that if a country is based
on liberal principles, it can build the power and wealth
necessary to propel a free society more than a mission.
18) The word liberal has many different meanings. To start
when you look at the economy, a liberal point of view stresses
the importance of a free market. This is where people self
regulate their businesses with limited government rule. The next
definition of liberal relates to American politics which
highlights liberating people from government control. Lastly,
looking at liberalism on an international relations scale is a lot
different from these two. Liberal as an international relations
theory focusing on connections and relationships with foreign
entities. It points out that cooperation with other countries is
possible and necessary and the focus should be on absolute
power and absolute gains. A liberal view in international
relations tries to consider all points of view looking for a
solution that will make everyone happy. Liberalism focuses on
mutual benefits with other countries meaning they have
incentives to hold down things like treaties. Liberalism seems
like a very fair way of going about international relationships
because it seeks to make everyone happy and help everyone

18. benefit from one another. On another note it doesn't seam to
realistic considering that its impossible to always make
everyone happy. There are so many alliances in our world that
when one country helps out another, some other country is
being effected negatively. Its impossible for everyone to win
when not everyone is on the same page and has the same
interests for their country. In a perfect world, liberalism would
be the perfect way to go about international relationships but as
we have seen in the past, its not so easy to put your trust and
treat all countries the same especially when they dont have
similar intentions.
19) Liberalism (not to be confused with strictly American
liberalism) in international relations essentially means the
ability to cooperate with other nations is a possibility. Liberals
believe cooperation should be encouraged, focusing on absolute
gains, meaning policies that make all involved countries better
off, even if some are made more better off than others. In this
sense, the most important thing to look for regarding liberalism
in international relations is simply whether a policy or action
benefits all parties involved; if it does then it's likely a result of
a liberalistic approach. The role of the state in this theory is to
encourage transparency and cooperation in order to provide the
most possible benefit.
I find this theory compelling because personally I think the
whole realm of international relations would be incredibly
different without the idea of liberalism. I think w hat makes it
believable and valid as an idea (particularly neoliberal
institutionalism) is that it takes into account people and
institutions tend to act in their own self interest, but utilizes
that to still benefit everyone involved.
I think the only thing I find unrealistic about this theory in
international relations is that there are many scenarios where
it's not really an option. For example, two countries who
produce the same product to export are going to have a difficult
time coming to some sort of accord where they both benefit;

19. similar to like if fire and water were trying to find something
that benefits them both, the possibilities are slim if not
nonexistent, so in some cases the idea of liberalism in
international relations is not valid.
My discussion: Constructivism views the globe and what we
perceive to see concerning the world as socially constructed.
This perception indicates nature to be of reality and knowledge,
which is also known as “ontology and epistemology”.
“Constructivists believe both agency and structure are mutually
constitutive, implying that structures impact agency and agency
affects structures”. The definition of agency is the capacity to
react, while the structure is the international system composed
of physical and conceptual parts. This modification or
reinforcement relies on the assumptions and concepts shared by
both states. If such values and ideals shift, the social interaction
may evolve into companionship. Realists, on the other hand,
believe that countries' conduct may be influenced by the
system's anarchic character. Identities and interests are also a
fundamental concern of constructivism. Constructivists contend
that nations may have numerous identities socially formed by
engagement with other entities. Identities are manifestations of
a state's perception of what they are that reveal their
preferences. Constructivists consider them essential since they
contend that identity produces values and behaviors. The
identification of a small nation, for instance, entail s a distinct
range of priorities than those of a huge one. It may be argued
that the little nation is more preoccupied with its existence,
while the giant state intends to control the world's political,
economic, and army events. It is believed that nations that
correspond to a particular identity would adhere to the
accompanying standards. This concept implies that certain
forms of behavior and conduct are much more appropriate than
others. It is believed that states which correspond to a particular
image would adhere to the accompanying standards. This
concept implies that certain forms of behavior and conduct are

20. much more appropriate than others.
One of the things that I find to be compelling with
constructivism is that the behavior of international actors
depends on their identity and interests. This makes the theories
look believable since, in real life, the interaction between two
or more states is dependent on the interests of the individual
actors. Most states come together with a view of gaining
something in return which is their interest. For example, many
states have come together to come up with climate change
policies.
In some instances, I believe that political interaction is not only
about an individual or state interest for the benefit of the entire
world. Therefore, I consider it unrealistic to say that
international relations depend on the actor's social interests.
Some result from a better environment for all but not only the
individual states. For example, the case controlling the climate
change impacts the whole world.