International Relations Theory

 

 Essay Outline

Topic: International relations theory

Thesis statement: International relations theory which is branched into constructivism and the English theory helps to understand the past behavior of the state as well as predict the future state behavior.

 Comparison between constructivism and the English school

• Resemble in terms of their commonality in the social extents of universal life.
• Constructivism does not show the process the system uses whereas the English school does.

 The approach of Constructivism to the study of international politics

• Places its focus on norm concepts, structure improvement, and the association between actors and the structures.
• Focuses on rational and consistent constructivism
• International politics thrives due to the existence of interacting.

The approach of the English school to the study of international politics

• Accounts for international relations that consists of history and theory, power and morality, agency and structure.
• Focuses on historical understanding and values

 Similarities between the two theories

• Both repute the inter-state mandate as an essential social domain.
• Both see norms and associations as terms of common values and knowledge.
• Base their work on history, agency, and social interactions and relationships.

 Differences between the two theories

• They view actors and forces differently.
• Roots of both theories differ.

How the two theories would view the Problem of enforcing the building of the international human rights regime.

• Constructivism theory would explore the problem through the process of interaction.
• The English school theory would focus on the historical understanding.
• They would focus on the impact of between pluralists and solidarists.

Conclusion

• International relations is branched into constructivism and the English theory.
• The two theories help to analyze international relations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

International relations theory is the study of international relations that tries to provide a conceptual framework in which international relations can be analyzed. Types of theories that help in the analysis include constructivism and the English school. The two theories see norms and associations as terms of common values and knowledge. International relations theory which is branched into constructivism and the English theory helps to understand the past behavior of the state as well as predict future state behavior.

Constructivism and English school have striking resemblances in terms of their commonality in the social extents of universal life. The English school is known as the approach of international associations that suggests the existence of a society that is made up of states. The society of states comes from the interaction of states that are more alike in terms of the political systems, whereby they can agree on norms, structures and values. Constructivism on the other hand fails to show the process the system uses (Fierke 2016). It explains the way structures and forces that are in the system are socially established by actors. The two theories are similar in regards to the inter-state which establishes states as an agency and makes them follow its policies. The differences occur in the way each of them views the works of the actors and forces. 

            Constructivism places its concerns with realists and liberalists in terms of the anarchism and the international structure. It places its focus on norm concepts, structure improvement, and the association between actors and the structures. Constructivism describes the international system as the way the forces and structures in the system are socially improved by actors (Fierke, 2016). The structures shape the identity of the actor through imagination, communication, and constraint. It also focuses on the way identity impacts actions among actors and the way rules shape the behavior of an actor. There are two types of constructivism, the rationalist constructivism who accepts the rational actor but views rationality as social interaction. The interaction between the social structure and an individual is significant for constructivism and rationalism. The way an actor develops concepts of what is rational will be influenced by the interaction with other actors that share common values and norms. Consistent constructivism focuses on the role of a language as a social activity that gives meaning to reality. International relations deals with particular forms that are related to history, culture, and politics and are as a result of the human interrelations with the general world. Constructivists have emphasized the general aspect of the international associations and showed the influence and importance of norms, policies, and language. Constructivists believe that international politics thrives due to the existence of interacting. Actors are the determiners in the process of interaction with other people and this results in bringing historically, culturally, and politically different certainties to life. Therefore international associations are social developments and not the existence of human action independency. States and other actors function through interactions with the world and not as individuals. Constructivism should be used to evaluate the change of significant aspects such as norms, and ideas among others as they transform from a certain period to a different one.

            The English school seeks to move away from the traditional debate between realism and liberalism and purports to give an account of international relations that consists of history and theory, power and morality, agency and structure. It is known as the theory that outlines the existence of a society that is made up of states in the system (Dunne, 2016). The existence of a society occurs when several states that share the same interests and values create a society because they believe they are ruled by the same set of rules by the way they relate to each other. The English school is more concerned with forming a body of public proposals about the national political structure by states, other areas, individuals, organizations, and the wider society of mankind. This approach emphasizes the importance of having a historical understanding for example in matters such as the law and power. Historical understanding generates different priorities and ideas. There is no escape from values in the English school because values help to select topics to be studied and this will have an impact on the political process. Values are significant in international relations because it is of the utmost significance to develop a form of society that is organized and fair. Despite the English school attributing agency to states, they also trust the notion that true agents in the society are the people of power who deliberate and act in place of the state and other establishments. The English school offers a different way of learning about international interrelations which are based on past and current structures. It is also steered by ethical issues about how adequate the existing interstate mandate is. The collective works of the English school are based on history, morals, and agency.

            Constructivism and the English school both repute the inter-state mandate as an essential social domain that founds states as agents and influences them to follow its policies. They both see norms and associations as terms of common values and knowledge. They both consider states as the key actors and they are as human beings too (Fierke, 2016). In both, there exists a society of states who by the consciousness of having shared interests and knowledge establish a society because they believe that they are put together by the common values. In both approaches, they base their work on history, agency, and social interactions and relationships. They both focus and discuss the role of society and any kind of society has been socially constructed. They both promote the sense of common orientation and cross-examine the significance of international society (Dunne, 2016). The English school and constructivism share some commonality in terms of their interest in state identity, the nature of governance of the international society, and the adaptable forms of life under the anarchy.

            There is a difference in the way the English school and constructivism view actors and forces (Fierke, 2016). The English school comprehends that states, norms, and values that shape and determine the way they behave is in existence whereas the constructivists strive to demonstrate how the values and norms result from being developed by actors and forces. The English school does not know about the practice of socialization which is used by constructivists to explain how social facts are developed (Dunne, 2016). In this case, the English school describes what is and what could be whereas the constructivists demonstrate the way these notions transform and why the transformations occur. The English school is not able to give justifications for the critical factors that form its theory while the constructivists can justify and give explanations about why the features can develop. The roots of both theories are different because constructivism comes out from the values of knowledge. The English school on the other hand comes from the theory of politics, history, and international rule.

            A constructivist theory would explore the problem through the process of interaction. It would explore how actors engage with each other, their definition of themselves and other people, and how it would help curb the problem (Fierke, 2016). The English school theory would explore the problem by first getting a historical background about the issue. Constructivists and the English theorists will benefit from working together due to their internal conflicts between pluralists and solidarists (Dunne, 2016). The pluralists argue that in the universal society, the institutional charter is pushed towards the freedom of states and maintaining order. Pluralist’s rules and norms make available a structure of coexistence that is founded on the mutual recognition of states and legally equal members of the society. Pluralism states that states should have equal rights despite their capabilities. The solidarists assume that the range for the universal society is big and embraces common values with respect to the association between states and the people living there. It is defined as the combined implementation of universal policies and the protection of human rights. By working together, each theory could learn from the other and use the lessons to reinforce their internal strategies and hence be able to comprehend better the problem, what it entails and the way forward. Both theories will be guided by agency, social interactions, and relationships.

Conclusion

International relations theory is branched into constructivism and the English theory that helps to analyze international relations. The two theories resemble in terms of their commonality in the social extents of universal life. They also differ in the way each of them views the works of the actors and forces. Constructivism is more concerned with realists and liberalists in terms of the anarchism and the international structure. The English school on the other hand focuses on historical understanding and values. Both theories are similar in how they repute the inter-state mandate as an essential social domain and differ in the way they view actors and forces. In terms of the Problem of enforcing the building of the international human rights regime, the constructivist would explore the problem through social interactions whereas the English theory would focus on the historical understanding. Both of the theories would explore the impact between pluralists and solidarists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Dunne, T. (2016). The English School.

Fierce,  K., M. (2016). Constructivism.