Introduction
Realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism are the three key branches of international relations (IR) theory. Most of the IR theories are centered on the concept that asserts always acting following their national interest or the interests of that given nation. The essay explores the strengths and weaknesses of realism, liberalism, and constructivism, showing what kind of evidence makes each theory more or less plausible.
Realism
Realism is a perspective of international politics that emphasizes its conflicting and competitive side. It highlights states as unitary actors that rationally pursue their national interests when they act within an anarchic global system. The first strength of realism is the recognition that every nation is a sovereign power. Since the actors in the global system, every nation makes resolutions that seek to safeguard its citizens and own interests (Mingst & Mori, 2019). The second strength is it offers an influential explanation of the kind of wars in the international system. It is noted that there is no power above countries to maintain peace. Hence, countries fear one another as any country might attack another at any time. Further, another strength that makes realism more plausible is it entails other models, which permit better power distribution and understanding of the current circumstances of the balance of power. However, proof that makes realism less plausible or its weaknesses include, first, the failure to forecast the peaceful end of the International social change and Cold War (Mingst et al., 2019). Second is the disregard for transnational relations and last are the insufficiencies in resolving the new pressing issues of international relations.
Liberalism
The liberalism theory stresses the significance of individuals, institutions, and ethical principles. Politics in liberalism is seen as a struggle for consensus other than authority. This theory, its strengths in the recognition that actors have different interests that may play into their deeds. In addition, it identifies that war is expensive, with both lives and money; hence, it is best to strive for cooperation before opting for war (Mingst et al., 2019). Further, it emerges as a better guide for global leaders due to its promotion of commerce. Trade is the best way to support cooperation and peace as it offers a chance to consider and interact with diverse cultures. However, the evidence that makes liberalism less plausible or its weaknesses are the basic presumptions are unrealistic. Furthermore, liberals artificially differentiate economics from other societal aspects and accept current socio-political structures as a given (Hay, 2020). Another weakness is liberals overlook the justice of economic activities; they tend to be static. It has resulted in capitalist societies pursuing aggressive foreign policies.
Constructivism
Constructivism challenges liberal and realistic assumptions of anarchy and the global system. The theory stresses the social over the material as the causal aspect of behavior. Firstly, the players’ behavior is supported by ideational factors. The second is ideas become knowledge if they are jointly agreed upon it (Mingst & Mori, 2019). Intersubjectivity is formed from interaction among players, and it also comprises the environment they should operate in, showing that constructivism starts its analysis of how norms and the identity of players are established. Neo-realists are skeptical concerning the significance that constructivists associate with norms agreeing they exist, although they are often disregarded when that is in the powerful states’ interest. Constructivism’s weakness stems from its issue with the experience of the state anarchy is an issue that is not adequately examined (Hay, 2020). It is an issue of uncertainty and the aspect of deception escalates the issue of uncertainty.
Conclusion
International theories such as realism, liberalism, and constructivism may help people understand the way the global systems work and how states engage with each other and perceive the world. The theories have their strengths and weaknesses that make them more or less plausible in explanations of international relations. Hence, they give meaning and guide meaning to what people see.
References
Hay, C. (2020). International relations theory and globalization. International Relations Theories, 3(1), 284-303. Web.
Mingst, K. A., & Mori, K. (2019). Teaching international affairs with cases. Web.
Mingst, K., McKibben, H., & Arreguin-Toft, I. (2019). Essentials of international relations (8th ed.). W.W. Norton & Company.