1. Theories of International Relations: Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism
Spencer Peak
215388488
SLP 305
20.09.2015

2. 1
Table Of Contents
I. Aim ……………………………………………………………………… pg. 2
II. Introduction ……………………………………………………………… pg. 3
III. Realism…………………………………………………………………… pg. 3
IV. Liberalism ………………………………………………………………… pg. 5
V. Constructivism…………………………………………………………….. pg. 6
VI. Is there a ‘best’ theory? …………………………………………………… pg. 9
VII. Conclusion………………………………………………………………….pg. 10
VIII. References………………………………………………………………… pg. 11

3. 2
Throughout this essay, I will employ Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism as if they
are entities of their own. Utilizing a speech that actively attributes the theories ideas and
characteristics allow me to accurately summarize what the theories postulate. When I say
‘realism believes….’, I am actively saying that ‘a state ruled by the theory of realism
believes…’. Doing this will not only make the thoughts in this essay more clear but it will
polarize arguments as I attempt to compare and contrast different elements of each theory.
Instead of giving a description of each of the theories to show how they are similar, I will
constantly be comparing the theories based on their structure, ideology, and epistemology. Since
they are so interconnected, but also starkly different I will be constantly analyzing the ways in
which differences manifest. While similar essays that write about this prompt may summarize
each theory, I attempt to circumvent this process to better relate each theory to one another. I will
start by giving an account of realism and the key components that relate it to international
relations. I will attempt to keep other types of theory out this essay to try and give the best and
clearest description of these three theories (i.e. although liberalism and capitalism are explicitly
intertwined, I will keep capitalism out).
“To learn without thinking is in vain; to think without learning is dangerous.” - Confucius.

4. 3
Political theory has been used in the past to explain state policy and provide guidance for
legislation or decision making. Refining theories and attempting to find out what they are
actually saying is both time consuming and difficult because of the honest nature of theory.
Theories can’t be wrong. Sure, they can be in bad taste and one can disagree with them, but
theories are always explicitly true in nature; if enough evidence is given and data can back up the
theory, why shouldn't it be put into practice and popularized. Theories aren’t restricted by the
need to appear nice or just. They look past the way society should be and make attempts to
understand it for what is truly is. In this sense an ideology is an essence , an idea but an idea that
works to explain how and why the course of events in international relations takes place. For
this reason, this paper will focus on three of the main theories regarding international relations.
Realism, Liberalism and constructivism are theories that can be used to explain and support
international events. When looking at these three theories, I will separate them from one another
but also show where they have similarities.
Each theory understands and affects the world through different rationale. Although there
is some space to compare each ideology, they are still vastly different. Through realism, the key
is survival, which will always denote a struggle for power. Liberalism signals motives,
intentions, and behaviours that become clear and useful through interdependent employment.
Finally, constructivists might see anarchy as what states make it; but generate a response to the
prior theories by showing the lack of ideological humanity in theory. Because these theories are
in fact, theories, it's important to note that they all claim to be correct and true in their own
fashion. WHile they don’t outright infringe on one another, many have complementary aspects
but also vary widely based on one's mindset.
Realism in itself has many different subsets. From the orthodox understanding to the
classical view and the structural view, there are many similar characteristics. In realism, there is
a common pessimistic nature coupled with the perception of power in every aspect of life. The
pessimistic nature of realism postulates that power is in every aspect of life and forms the
relationships that are seen. Jensen notes that the idea of ‘power politics’ is a realistic notion to

5. 4
attain, retain and increase power (Jensen, 2013). The drive for power is natural and inherent to
human nature. Internationally, realism sees states as the most important actor. Within human
nature, it is normal for there to be an everlasting power struggle.
The claim for dominance is inherent among all people and beings in nature
(Mearsheimer, 2007). Realism sees the drive for power inherent to human beings. Structural
realism looks toward the source of humans to see the need for power. Realism looks toward a
future dominated by conflict and violence. Because the struggle for power is inherent among
interstate actors, realism assumes that the system is chaotic and lacking any authority. This lack
of a centralized authority give it the qualities of anarchy (Mearsheimer, 2007). Historically, the
balance of power shifts and depends on who has the biggest army and the best capabilities to
encroach on other ideas. This idea can be broken down and linked to every aspect from military
to technology and culture dynamics.
Existing in a singular multi-polar world has structured humans to constantly compete.
There are many different ways besides competition to gain power. Realism’s existence of a
survival reality leave little room for in interdependence between nation-states.
Realism’s five assumptions show to what extent realism believes in self-sufficiency.
1. Great powers are the main actors and there's never one centralized authority of power.
2. If one trusts, one dies.
3. Each state has the potential to harm its neighbor.
4. Survival is main goal.
5. States are rational actors (Mearsheimer, 2007).
Jensen notes that the state’s job is to protect and advance the state's goals. (Jensen, 2013)
However, realism draws a distinction between offensive and defensive state policies. Defensive
states believe that the acquisition of ‘all power’ is unwise. The pursuit of a hegemony is
foolhardy. There is a belief that the system itself will punish those who exclusively hold the
hegemony. Offensive Nations think the best policy is to always be increasing their share of
power. The idea of a cost would be worth the reward of owning the hegemony in place as it

6. 5
would be able to reap the benefits. These countries often think that the owning the hegemony is
worth the perceived cost (Jensen, 2013). This cost can manifest in the capital and effort it takes
to remain on top of competition (Navari, 2013). When one country is at the top, other countries
expect this country to be the first to act. Intervention and being the ‘world police’ does not come
cheap. It effectively makes the country a large target should any other country feel the need to
establish their share of power.
In the US, liberalism is a much more known and utilized international theory. Used in
everyday context, liberalism has been warped to be understood as an opposite to conservatism.
But the roots of liberalism are much more intricate. Internationally, liberalism’s two main
characteristics are anarchy and rationality. Similar to realism, and yet strikingly different,
liberalism exists under the impression that there is no dominant authority with a legitimate use of
force over others (Navari, 2013). Similarly to realism, liberalism believes in the critical use of
self help when positioned in the global economy. Liberalism believes that states represent social
groups that comprise those state’s preferences. Unlike realism, liberalism treats the existence of
state preferences as a variable (Moravcsik, 2010). While realism monopolizes on power,
liberalism treats these preferences as a volatile subject that can’t be fixed.
Because each state is treated as a variable, liberalism notices the advantage of working
together to create better terms for everyone. Unlike Realism, liberalism doesn’t believe that
politics is absolutely zero sum at all times (Navari, 2013). There can often be a harmony between
interests of different state actors. Liberalism believes that each state seeks to realize distinct
preferences under constraints imposed by other states. This makes alliances and interdependency
rather accommodating when faced with economic decisions. While realism believes in self help,
liberalism will look toward nations with similar interests and ideologies to help one another,
politically and economically. After WWII, many nations came together in finalized combination
of interests. The cooperation between nations has formed the IMF, the World bank, NATO and
the United nations.
Liberalism looks toward realism’s pessimistic nature and flips it around. Where realism
views security through possession of power in order to ensure state survival, liberalism views

7. 6
institutions and material norms capable of creating peace without an inherent security dilemma
(Navari, 2013). Another way to compare the two would be looking at the existence of state
behavior. For realism, the distribution of state capabilities decides how a state will act. On the
other hand, liberalism’s variation of preference explains state behavior. Liberalism argues that
each state seeks to realize distinct preferences or interests under constraints imposed by the
different interests of other states. (Moravcsik, 2010) In this way, liberalism is similar to realism.
The realization that the actions of those that surround a state will directly impact the way that
state actors make decisions.
However, realism and liberalism fail to incorporate the human side of international
relations. The theories presented are ideologies that hold space for interstate actions to make
their own choices and postulate how actors incorporate the space in which they inhabit.
(Moravcsik, 2010) However, with the accumulation of the 21st century, increasing globalization
has heavily increased the interdependency everyone feels. This is why constructivism is, by
nature, not an ideology, but rather an ontology. It is not a system of ideas and ideals but rather a
study of knowing (Gherardi, 2001). Constructivism is one single way of applying the theories
that liberalism and realism provide for. It admonishes the lack of humanity in liberalism and
further attempts to redefine world views that have been set in place by realism’s material
concerns (Tsai, 2009).
Furthermore, constructivism stresses the concept of ideas norms and identity that make
up a culture (Tsai, 2009). This culture gives shape to identity and defines one’s interests.
Constructivism acknowledges the existence of complex human beings that are affected by their
environment (similar to realism who say that the environment creates the drive for power). But
further distinguishes itself from the polarity of power in itself. According to Tsai,
constructivism’s identity and interests are constantly growing, and changing according to one’s
position in life.
Constructivism’s social approach to theory allows for it to grow beyond the bounds of
rationality and enter the bounds of everyday life. Looking at the European Union, we see
liberalist ideals taken one step further. State cooperation goes beyond the security and economic

8. 7
realms and broaches the cultural and legal issues. Constructivism studies the ethical foundation
and identities of states and world leaders to better understand the relationships. The process of
interaction among states and actors (MNCs, NGOs) is what determines the structure of the
system. For realism and liberalism, this ‘structure’ is predetermined.
Constructivism looks at all the components behind globalization, (military, tech,
trade)but these aren't the focus of constructivism because these things are objective. These things
will occur in any state regardless of the ideology they follow. Constructivism is rather a social
construction of theory (Raskin, 2002). It has similarities with realism and liberalism. It shares an
identification of power relations with realism. essentially ower- history, ideology, ideas, norms,
behavior, beliefs- how they create power- how they influence what we think.
Realism believes that power is everything. As previously mentioned, realism sees the
eventual power struggle ‘natural’ to international relations. However, constructivists would
mention that it's not nature or structure, it’s the human element (history, ideas, values, ideas,
beliefs) - the humanity side of relations that form the intent behind actions.
Because realism fails to look at the human element of any characteristics, constructivism
provides for the concurrent need of humanity in theory of international relations.
The things that realism states will be there regardless. we have to look at what people believe in
that make people use it. Constructivism doesn’t argue against the power politics that both
liberalism and realism provide for, but rather looks toward the role of ethics, norms and culture
that allows leaders to hold the values that dictate policy and international relation.
Constructivism doesn’t believe we can blame the nature of the world and the structure for what
we see in international relations (Raskin, 2002). It is a concurrent approach to these theories that
notices that we influence and encompass the world with so many different values and cultures.
Constructivism looks at the people and the effects of the place that states and MNCs find
themselves. In terms of what they do or don’t do. If we look at the example of Multinational
Corporations we see their primary focus is to establish revenue. Because this is the primary focus
in businesses, people hide behind this purpose to extrapolate and exploit people, countries and
resources. While realism looks to the nature of business, constructivism looks to the value and

9. 8
ethics that cause those individuals to think in the way they do. What about company businesses
is inherent in the humanity side of corporations.
At the heart of liberal theory is the theory of rationality. Political leaders engage in
foreign policy to secure benefits provided from foreign sources. This idea is common between all
three international theories. It is common among the theories that a justification will be required
to put resources at stake (Tsai, 2009). A social purpose is required to guarantee a state entrance
into a situation. Realism also believes in the rationality being a primary function to act (Jensen,
2013). Because entities will always act in their own self-interest, one can never trust their
neighbor. If all states were to act in their self-interest there would never be a safe country as
always states look to other resources that could benefit the host country. this is the key theory
behind imperialism and foreign subsidiaries in MNCs.
Realism simply sees the state preferences as seeking security and wealth. Liberalism and
constructivism notice the ever-changing nature of state preferences. Liberalism does not seek
power in the sense of domination as realism suggests. Instead, they see the interdependence of
countries as further complicating interstate preferences. In fact, liberalism explicitly sees the
interdependence of states as directly related to the preferences of a state.
Liberals argue that the universal condition of world politics is globalization. States are,
and always have been, embedded in a domestic and transnational society, which creates
incentives for economic, social and cultural interaction across borders. State policy may facilitate
or block such interactions. Some domestic groups may benefit from or be harmed by such
policies, and they pressure government accordingly for policies that facilitate realization of their
goals.
International relations constantly is structured between different theoretical ideologies.
there is a constant struggle to identify the the “best” theory of world politics or rather to use a
pluralist approach that includes variation of theories. The need to identify one single use of
theory has successfully fragmented many countries and mindsets. When one country believes

10. 9
their way is best, it then only serves to let others know how they are wrong. With a singular
mindset, one creates distinctions between themselves and others. This perceived ‘otherness’ is a
fabrication of differences that further hampers the abilities to work with different countries.
If countries were able to put aside their differences in favor of mutual benefit, less
conflict would arise as people respect the differences in ideology. Instead countries successfully
create this idea of the ‘other’ that further separates and destroys relationships with those
distinguished. In my own opinion, i believe that an eclectic approach is best to ensure that
optimal conditions exist. Utilizing different theories for different ideas and situations is best for
cross cultural communication and international relations. Those who are in favor of identifying a
single theory fail to capture the complexity and messiness of real world situations. Its best to
respond to the situations with the theory that best fits into the position required.
Power relations often are at the base of all political actions. A state’s only requirement is
protection and advancement. Luckily, this definition encompasses all ideologies and it's
something everyone agrees. How one protects and advances depends on what theory one looks
at. As realism embraces the idea of power politics, they are unwilling to bend to the idea that the
needs and reasons that countries would protect and advance is more developed than the idea of
‘power’. Liberalism embraces the interdependent nature of international relations and cross
cultural communications. While liberalism doesn’t outright refute the ideologies behind realism
they do differ slightly on structure of knowledge. These differences relate to international
relations as they are seen utilized all over the global scale. Utilizing these theories is essential to
understanding the actions and policies of different countries.

11. 10
References
Bueno de Mesquita, B. (2014) Principles of International Politics. Los Angeles: CQ Press, pp.
195-204 (Power transition theory)
Elman, C., & Jensen, M. (2013). Realisms. In P. D. Williams (Ed.), Security Studies. New
York: Routledge.
Gherardi, S. (2001). From organizational learning to practice-based knowing. HUMAN
RELATIONS-NEW YORK-, 54(1), 131-139.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2007). Structural realism. International relations theories: Discipline and
diversity, 83.
McDonald, M. (2013). Constructivisms. In P. D. Williams (Ed.), Security Studies. New York:
Routledge.
Nau, H. (2012) Perspectives on International Relations, Washington, D.C., CQ Press, pp. 1-9
(The Role of Perspectives and Levels of Analysis)
Navari, C. (2013). Liberalisms. In P. D. Williams (Ed.), Security Studies. New York:
Routledge.
Raskin, J. D. (2002). Constructivism in psychology: Personal construct psychology, radical
constructivism, and social constructionism. American communication journal, 5(3), 1-
25.
Tsai, Y. T. (2009). The emergence of human security: A constructivist view. International
Journal of Peace Studies, 19-33.