Professional Documents
Culture Documents
J. Samuel Barkin - The Social Construction of State Power - Applying Realist Constructivism-Bristol University Press (2020)
J. Samuel Barkin - The Social Construction of State Power - Applying Realist Constructivism-Bristol University Press (2020)
CONSTRUCTION OF STATE
POWER
Applying Realist Constructivism
Edited by
J. Samuel Barkin
First published in Great Britain in 2020 by
The right of J. Samuel Barkin to be identified as editor of this work has been asserted by
him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved: no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of Bristol University Press.
Every reasonable effort has been made to obtain permission to reproduce copyrighted
material.
If, however, anyone knows of an oversight, please contact the publisher.
The statements and opinions contained within this publication are solely those of the editor
and contributors and not of The University of Bristol or Bristol University Press. The
University of Bristol and Bristol University Press disclaim responsibility for any injury to
persons or property resulting from any material published in this publication.
Notes on Contributors
Andreea Iancu has a PhD in Political Science from Alexandru Ioan Cuza
University of Iaşi, Romania. She has also been a research fellow and
Fulbright Visiting Researcher in the Department of Conflict Resolution,
Human Security and Global Governance at the University of Massachusetts
Boston. She currently serves as a diplomat with the Romanian foreign
service. Her research interests include constructivist approaches to
international relations theory, the evolution of norms in the international
system, human security and the responsibility to protect, on which she has
published several papers.
Oppositions
There can certainly be non-constructivist realism and non-realist
constructivism. For example, Kenneth Waltz simply assumes his agents into
existence, and builds his structures from them (Waltz 1979). There is no
intersubjectivity and no co-constitution in his model. Conversely, many
constructivisms assume that a secular normative progress in the construction
of international political institutions is possible (Price 2008). But how
compatible are the assumptions, the scientific ontologies, of constructivism
and realism? Before discussing ways in which they might be compatible, it is
worth debunking briefly arguments that they are incompatible. The first of
these arguments is that realism is necessarily materialist while constructivism
is idealist. The second is that realism focuses on a logic of consequences, and
constructivism on a logic of appropriateness.
An opposition between realist materialism and constructivist idealism
(understood here as being about ideas, not ideals) plays a major role in
arguments distinguishing the two, both in key early works of constructivist
theory (eg Wendt 1999) and in various recent realisms, both of the structural
and neoclassical varieties (eg Mearsheimer 2001 and Ripsman, Taliaferro and
Lobell 2016 respectively). The basic claim underlying this opposition is that
constructivism, grounded as it is in the concept of intersubjectivity, is
necessarily about ideas, specifically about those that political actors hold in
common at any given time. However, realism, so the argument goes, being
grounded in the concept of power, is focused on the capabilities that are the
basis of power, such as military might and economic potential. At the
margins, non-material sources of power, such as morale or diplomatic skill,
might matter a little, but even then primarily via the ability to marshal
material resources.
This argument gets both the relationship between materialism and
idealism and the relationship between materialism and realism wrong. It gets
the relationship between materialism and idealism wrong by positing that
they are categorically distinct and distinguishable. But the purely material is
rarely a source of social power unless embedded in a set of ideas about how
the material can and should be used, and ideas often involve material
referents. Money, for example, need have no particular material
embodiment. It is in a sense a pure exercise in intersubjectivity; it has value
because its users collectively ascribe value to it. And yet financial capabilities
are often taken as indicators of power measured as capability. Phrased
differently, the material bases of power in IR are not separable from the ideas
they embody. To fully understand relational power in IR, one must therefore
understand the relationships between ideas and the material, and the ideas
that make materiel in power capabilities.
It gets the relationship between materialism and realism wrong as well. In
the most direct sense, the reason for this follows from the argument that it
gets the relationship between materialism and idealism wrong. Not all
material capabilities translate equivalently into relational power, and not all
capabilities that support relational power, not least discourse, can be
meaningfully reduced to the material. This observation speaks to realist
arguments against constructivism; the relationship between ideas and power
cannot be dismissed so easily. From the perspective of constructivist
arguments as well, materialism is being blamed for epistemological damage
that it has not caused. Specifically, it is blamed for the propensity of
neorealists to create static models of the international system, which is
incompatible with the constructivist view of political institutions as
historically contingent. But this disagreement about historical contingency is
not in fact directly related to a materialism/idealism dichotomy, and in any
case identifies an incompatibility between constructivism and certain kinds
of neorealist modelling, rather than political realism more broadly.
The second of the two oppositions often used to distinguish between
realism and constructivism is between the logic of consequences and the
logic of appropriateness (Ruggie 1998). The logic of consequences is the
logic of rational choice theory, of homo economicus, in which actors are
assumed to make decisions that maximize their individual utility. The logic
of appropriateness, which comes to IR from organizational theory, assumes
that actors behave in ways that reflect what is expected of them in given
contexts, that they follow institutional norms (March and Olsen 1998). The
dichotomy as used in IR theory is more about distinguishing constructivism
from rationalism than from realism per se, but realism’s frequent invocation
of rationality makes it a target of the argument by association.
This opposition does not effectively distinguish between realism and
constructivism, however, because realist analysis does not require assumptions
that people behave rationally, and constructivism does not require
assumptions that they behave appropriately. Many, if not most, realists speak
of rationality, but they mean a variety of different things by it, and those
meanings are often different from the narrow technical use implied by the
logic of consequences, that individuals can be assumed to be instrumentally
rational. Classical realists, for example, used the term in its colloquial rather
than economic sense, to mean reasonableness. Furthermore, they used it as
exhortation rather than assumption – arguing that statespeople should be
rational to maximize the national interest, rather than that statespeople (let
alone states) can be assumed to be rational (eg Morgenthau 1948). Even in
neorealisms that draw on microeconomic models there is not a necessary
assumption of rationality. These arguments posit that actors (generally
defined in this case as states rather than people) that respond rationally to
systemic incentives are most likely to thrive in an anarchic system, but do not
assume that all actors will necessarily do so (eg Waltz 1979).
Some constructivist analyses, meanwhile, do concern themselves more
with appropriate than consequentialist behaviour. This is particularly the case
for norms-based constructivisms and is true perhaps to a lesser extent for
habit- and practice-based constructivisms. But this concern is particular to
those constructivisms, rather than conceptually inherent in constructivism. A
focus on a logic of consequences, on strategic behaviour, is in no way
incompatible with intersubjectivity and the study of the co-constitution of
agents and structures in international politics. Political actors can recognize
socially constructed norms and rules and employ those norms and rules for
strategic ends that are themselves constituted by social institutions. They can
rhetorically deploy discourses to frame and reframe political context for their
own purposes, purposes that again are themselves constituted by social
institutions. Constructivist analysis, in other words, is not necessarily biased
to the logic of either appropriateness or consequences; both are features of
the social construction of international politics.
The failure of these two oft-cited dichotomies to establish a clear
conceptual disjuncture between constructivism and realism suggests that they
do not live on opposite ends of any particular spectrum. The conceptual
underpinnings of constructivism and realism are orthogonal to each other;
they are neither necessarily incompatible nor necessarily compatible. This
suggests that conceptual combinations of realisms and constructivisms are
viable when both sets of conceptual underpinnings are relevant to a
particular research question. The next issue, then, is under what
circumstances this is likely to happen.
References
Barkin, J. Samuel (2010) Realist Constructivism: Rethinking International
Relations Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barkin J. Samuel and Laura Sjoberg (2019) International Relations’ Last
Synthesis? Decoupling Constructivisms and Critical Approaches. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Barnett, Michael and Raymond Duvall (2005) ‘Power in International
Politics’. International Organization 59: 39–75.
Beer, Francis and Robert Harriman, eds. (1996) Post-Realism: The Rhetorical
Turn in International Relations. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University
Press.
Boucoyannis, Deborah (2007) ‘The International Wanderings of a Liberal
Idea, or Why Liberals Can Learn to Stop Worrying and Love the Balance
of Power’. Perspectives on Politics 5: 703–28.
Carr, Edward Hallett (1964) The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939: An
Introduction to the Study of International Relations. New York: Harper &
Row.
Claude, Inis Jr (1962) Power and International Relations. New York: Random
House.
Gilpin, Robert (1983) War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Goddard, Stacie (2009) ‘When Right Makes Might: How Prussia
Overturned the European Balance of Power’. International Security 33: 110–
42.
Herz, John (1957) ‘Rise and Demise of the Territorial State’. World Politics 9:
473–93.
Hoffmann, Matthew (2009) ‘Is Constructivist Ethics and Oxymoron?’
International Studies Review 11: 231–52.
Hom, Andrew and Brent Steele (2010) ‘Open Horizons: The Temporal
Visions of Reflexive Realism’. International Studies Review 12: 271–300.
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus (2010) The Conduct of Inquiry in International
Relations: Philosophy of Science and its Implications for the Study of World
Politics. London: Routledge.
Krasner, Stephen (1978) Defending the National Interest: Raw Materials
Investments and US Foreign Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Kratochwil, Friedrich and John Gerard Ruggie (1986) ‘International
Organization: A State of the Art on an Art of the State’. International
Organization 40: 753–75.
Krebs, Ronald and Patrick Thaddeus Jackson (2007) ‘Twisting Tongues and
Twisting Arms: The Power of Political Rhetoric’. European Journal of
International Relations 13: 35–66.
Lapid, Yosef (1989) ‘The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International
Theory in a Post-Positivist Era’. International Studies Quarterly 33: 235–54.
March, James and Johan Olsen (1998) ‘The Institutional Dynamics of
International Political Orders’. International Organization 52: 943–69.
Mearsheimer, John (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York:
Norton.
Morgenthau, Hans (1946) Scientific Man versus Power Politics. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Morgenthau, Hans (1948) Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and
Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Onuf, Nicholas Greenwood (1989) World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in
Social Theory and International Relations. Columbia, SC: University of South
Carolina Press.
Price, Richard (2008) ‘Moral Limit and Possibility in World Politics’.
International Organization 62: 191–220.
Ripsman, Norrin, Jeffrey Taliaferro and Steven Lobell (2016) Neoclassical
Realist Theory of International Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Risse, Thomas (2001) ‘A European Identity? Europeanization and the
Evolution of Nation-state Identities’, in Maria Green Cowles, James A.
Caporaso and Thomas Risse-Kappen, eds., Transforming Europe:
Europeanization and Domestic Change. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press:
198–216.
Ruggie, John Gerard (1982) ‘International Regimes, Transactions, and
Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order’.
International Organizations 36: 379–415.
Ruggie, John Gerard (1998) ‘What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-
Utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge’. International
Organization 52: 858–85.
Steele, Brent (2007a) ‘“Eavesdropping on Honored Ghosts”: From Classical
to Reflexive Realism’. Journal of International Relations and Development 10:
272–300.
Steele, Brent (2007b) ‘Liberal-Idealism: A Constructivist Critique’.
International Studies Review 9: 23–52.
Steele, Brent (2008) Ontological Security in International Relations: Self-identity
and the IR State. London: Routledge.
Sterling-Folker, Jennifer (2002) ‘Realism and the Constructivist Challenge:
Rejecting, Reconstructing, or Rereading’. International Studies Review 4:
73–97.
Waltz, Kenneth (1979) Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Wendt, Alexander (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
2
This chapter sets out an inquiry about the ways in which realist
constructivism (RC) may offer better causal explanations than classical
realism and constructivism on their own, framing the discussion within what
these approaches have to say for the analysis of international relations. The
main argument developed here is that RC has a strong potential for
providing more comprehensive causal explanations. It offers the possibility of
combining classical realism’s account of interactionality related to the type of
rationalism tied up to power politics, in which agency acquires a significant
causal role, and constructivism’s account of causal emergence, where social
context is analyzed in depth and the causal role of normative structures is
highlighted. Yet, it also argues that such RC potential for providing better
causal explanations faces the challenge of addressing the causal power of
agency, while simultaneously acknowledging the causal power of structure
(which in turn demands resorting to bracketing one or the other in order to
understand their process of co-constitution and causation). In addition, I
show that RC needs to incorporate interpretivism in order to give better
accounts of causation, which from a critical realist and constructivist
standpoint is crucial for understanding the causal powers of both agency and
structure.
The chapter begins by providing a definition of what is to be understood
as causation and a ‘better’ causal explanation for the argument hereby
stressed, for which a critical realist approach to it will be set out.
Subsequently, the chapter addresses the accounts of causation of some
classical realisms and constructivisms, focusing respectively on interactionality
and agents’ rationality related to power politics, and causal emergence related
to social context and normative structures. In a fourth section, the chapter
analyzes some realist constructivist approaches to particular case studies
where causal relationships are suggested, assessing both RC’s potential for
providing more encompassing causal explanations and its limitations in
simultaneously analyzing the causal powers of both agency and structure.
Finally, the chapter argues for the importance of bringing into RC an
interpretive account of causation that would help generate a better
understanding of both interactionality and emergence, as it is more in line
with a critical realist account of causation – arguably, the approach to
causation that is more coherent with a realist constructivist understanding of
international relations.
[i]f the goal were stability alone it could be achieved by allowing one
element to destroy or overwhelm the others and take their place.
Since the goal is stability plus the preservation of all the elements of
the system, the equilibrium must aim at preventing any element from
gaining ascendancy over the others. The means employed to
maintain equilibrium consist in allowing the different elements to
pursue their opposing tendencies up to the point where the tendency
of one is not so strong as to overcome the tendency of the others,
but strong enough to prevent the others from overcoming its own.
(Morgenthau 1985, p. 189)
For the case of the other power pattern, competition, Morgenthau (1985, p.
196) addresses the causal effects of rationalism in small states’ decision to
remain neutral or to buffer against greater powers, and the causal effects of
interactionality are assessed in their survival and preservation as neutral or
buffer states. In both cases (opposition and competition), the causal powers
of the balance of power – as a product (or a causal effect) of rationality and
interactionality – are posited by Morgenthau as objective laws of states’
natural political behaviour. In these terms, Morgenthau’s description of the
working of power patterns and their more or less stable results could be
methodologically in accord with critical realism inasmuch as the [thick]
description of the causal mechanism is provided. But, ontologically,
Morgenthau’s stand on causation is incompatible with critical realism, for his
approach to causation through the use of objective laws and relations of
logical necessity rule out critical realism’s principle of singularity. Yet, it is
worth noting that Morgenthau’s treatment of the balance of power is highly
adjacent to the concept of emergence, for one cannot know for certain what
is going to derive from either opposition or competition until states’ actions
have taken place. In this sense, the concept of emergence could help explain
why and how certain results derive either from opposition or competition.
This point will be further developed in a subsequent section.
Hence, it has been possible to observe the causal power of rationality and
interactionality in both Carr’s and Morgenthau’s accounts. In the case of
Carr, we have seen a stand on causation closer to the analyticist one, given
his use of ideal types and invitation to counterfactual thinking for
demonstrating causation. In the case of Morgenthau, his stand on causation
remains closer to the positivist Humean one, due to his belief in the
functioning of objective laws and logics of necessity related to nature’s
[natural] tendency to equilibrium, manifested in the natural tendency of
political systems to balances of power. As a conclusion, neither Carr nor
Morgenthau show signs of subscribing to a critical realist treatment of
causation. Yet, singularity in Carr’s work, and multicausality and emergence
(though not singularity) in Morgenthau’s, and deep description of the
working of certain causal mechanisms in the latter’s (although in the context
of explaining the functioning of an objective law) are positions on causation
that coincide with critical realism and, as we shall now see, with
constructivism.
is one that brings from classical realism a focus on power politics and
on foreign policy, and from constructivism a focus on, and a
methodology for studying, the co-constitution of structures and
agents. It builds on a common foundation on a logic of the social,
and a demand for reflexivity and historical context found in both
constructivism and classical realism. (2010, p. 7)
Barkin places the causal focus of classical realism on agency, just as it has
been shown in the present chapter in the review of Carr’s and Morgenthau’s
works. In the case of Carr, utopianism, as a property of agency (agents’
rationality), is the causal explanation of international disaster. In the case of
Morgenthau, it is power interest, also as a property of agency, that is the
causal explanation of power politics. For both authors, interactionality is
mainly determined by agency, namely the interplay of actors’ actions guided
by their interests, and neither in Carr’s nor in Morgenthau’s accounts is the
role of external structural constraints underscored. However, they both
acknowledge the existence of structural constraints: for Carr, the harmony of
interests approach does not work where states face unequal material
conditions; for Morgenthau, material resources are crucial for engaging
different power patterns (ie opposition and competition), and systems’
tendency to equilibrium and balance is a natural, structural force (though
explained by actors’ natural interest in power, at least in the case of political
systems). But both Carr and Morgenthau’s analyses focus on agents’
rationality, interests and interactionality.
Instead, constructivism’s primary focus is on structure. Ideas, in the form
of identity, norms and culture (institutions) are part of structure, not of
agency (Wendt 1999, ch. 3). Causal emergence, for critical realism, and for
constructivism, is the product of the interplay of agents’ interests (agency)
with ideas and material constraints (structures) in a particular time and place.
Reality, moreover, is not what each agent chooses to acknowledge, but what
is socially shared by two or more agents: the more agents there are sharing
particular understandings of reality, the more ‘real’ such reality is to them. It
is in the understanding of mutual constitution between agency and structure
that constructivism may provide a great contribution to classical realism,
which may in turn benefit the former in providing explanations for
structural change, based on agents’ interests and rational behaviour
(understood as the use of rationality).
Barkin narrowly affirms that in both realism and constructivism the
motor for change is agency (2010, pp. 10–11), thus suggesting that agency is
where causal power should be mainly sought. But a critical realist and
constructivist account of causation points precisely to the causal role of ideas,
those being part of structure and not agency: in other words, ideas make
agents act in certain ways and not others, and hence have causal power on
agency. And here is where RC can benefit from constructivism for
understanding why agency, and therefore causation, takes place in the ways it
does. However, classical realism’s understanding of rationality can help in
understanding why sometimes agents’ ideas tell them to reproduce ideational
structures (such as normative structures and institutional settings), and why
sometimes ideas indicate to change them. Considering the other’s material
resources and moral beliefs, as part of agents’ rationality may help to
understand why agents choose to attempt to change or to preserve the status
quo (ie opposition or competition). As Barkin (2010, p. 58) points out,
constructivism opposes methodological individualism from rational choice
theory, not rationality as the use of reason.
While it is true that constructivism addresses structure and human agency
as a process of mutual constitution, it does not offer a particular method for
studying how this process takes place (besides, of course, the wide-open
method[s] of process tracing). Realism’s rationality may provide a means for
doing this, though, clearly, engaging such a method would imply a strong
ontological commitment (one that constructivists might not be able to
accept: see the conclusion later). But a point of coincidence between
constructivism and classical realism is their focus on people as agents,
particularly decision-making elites. Both Carr and Morgenthau, as well as
Parsons and myself, focus on decision makers to understand state agency,
their rationality (the process by which actors decide on what to do) and the
ideas that inform and cause their actions.
In these terms, RC could provide better causal explanations than classical
realist and constructivist accounts on their own, for it may be able to address
the relationship between agents and ideational and material structures in a
more comprehensive fashion. Following Barkin (2010, p. 57), the logic of
appropriateness in constructivism may be an excessively structural condition
that reduces agency to an exercise of norm following. As Barkin (2010, p.
57) points out, ‘[i]f people act according to existing social norms, and do not
interact with those norms strategically, then where do norms come from,
and how do they change?’ Classical realism can complement constructivism
in showing that agents’ rational behaviour can explain how agents
strategically deal with norms. In turn, the critical realist constructivist
assumption about the causal power of reasons may help a great deal in
understanding agents’ choices about structure, where reasons may be also
explained from a constructivist perspective, and conflate with classical
realism’s rationality at different levels of analysis. At the agent’s level, power
interests may explain to a large extent agents’ choosing of power patterns.
But at the interplay of agency and structure, agents’ reasons in relation to
ideational structures (like identity, institutions, knowledge and culture) may
explain a great deal of agents’ choices.
Furthermore, the concept of emergence may help to understand why
certain results derive from interactionality and not others. As pointed out
earlier, the way Morgenthau addresses the balance of power is consistent
with the concept of emergence because we remain uncertain about the
results from agents’ struggle for power until interactionality has taken place
(note here that Morgenthau’s search for objective laws refers to how agents
behave, not to the results of their interaction). In the two constructivist
works dealing with causation discussed earlier, emergence and singularity
were key concepts for assessing the causal power of ideas, as both Parsons and
myself observed causal effects of ideas in particular circumstances without
claiming that they would repeat uninterruptedly in similar contexts. Indeed,
classical realism and constructivism’s rejection of causation as regular patterns
of behaviour facilitates the provision of causal explanations from a realist
constructivist account (although remember Morgenthau rejects the finding
of mechanical laws, but not of objective laws that can yield a general theory
of politics).
In synthesis, RC’s combination of rationality and interactionality on the
one hand, and emergence and the causal power of normative structures on
the other, can enable it to provide more comprehensive causal explanations
than classical realist and constructivist accounts on their own. In what
follows, the presence of these elements is analyzed in some works identified
by Barkin as subscribing to a realist constructivist approach. It is shown that
constructivist analyses of power can be carried out through the study of
communication and rhetoric, but that pursuing such analysis might upset the
balance between constructivism and classical realism, as communicative and
rhetorical choices and their success are addressed as being more determined
by normative structures than by power asymmetries in terms of material
resources.
Barkin (2010, p. 166, n 6) suggests Bially Mattern (2005) as one example
of a realist constructivist analysis. Bially Mattern subscribes to a constructivist
ontology, and what brings her closer to realism is her concern about the
ways in which soft power can be effectively exercised. For Bially Mattern,
what causes attraction (and the success of exercising soft power) is
communicative strategy, that is, how the speaker articulates his or her
interpretation to listeners during communicative exchanges. Accordingly,
communicative strategy ‘emphasizes the particular manner in which a
speaker links the phrases of her narrative together to form a coherent
representation’ (Bially Mattern 2005, p. 598). Bially Mattern distinguishes
different kinds of communicative strategies (argumentation, bargaining,
manipulation, seduction and representational force, among them), but
ultimately they all have something key in common directly related to
interactionality: that they always take the other into account, that is, they are
all deployed considering the other’s degree of disposal to attend the strategy.
Furthermore, interactionality also has causal power because when actors
choose their communicative strategies they locate themselves in the
sociolinguistically constructed reality that indicates who they are (how others
see them) and what may be the best way to frame their messages in order for
others to accept them, or at least find them understandable and worth
listening to (2005, pp. 599–600). In these terms, both the others’ disposal or
scope to attend the message, and their views on the chooser of the strategy,
have causal effects on the choosing of the communicative strategy. All this is
closely related to Carr’s and Morgenthau’s acknowledgement of the
importance of the others’ moral frameworks, and it is of course completely
aligned with constructivism’s ontological view of reality as a social
construction.
However, what is missing in Bially Mattern’s account in order to fit better
into a realist constructivist approach is the analysis of the determinants of the
others’ disposal to attend messages. While sociolinguistic structures may
exert significant power over agents in determining such disposal, the power
interests of those agents and their relation to material constraints (like threats
or pressures from other agents) surely have a great deal of influence over
agents’ disposal to attend others’ communicative strategies. It is this more
materialist dimension of Bially Mattern’s constructivist account – of course
seen from an emergent perspective – that could make her analysis a more
robust realist constructivist one.
Another work identified by Barkin (2010, p. 166, n 6) as adopting a
realist constructivist perspective is Krebs and Jackson (2007). For Krebs and
Jackson (2007, p. 42), ‘language has a real causal impact on political
outcomes’. In principle, what makes Krebs and Jackson’s article realist
constructivist is their interest in ‘constructivism with coercive characteristics,
focused on the exercise of power’ (2007, p. 37). Moreover, Krebs and
Jackson’s interest in providing a causal realist constructivist account is explicit
in their article’s last paragraph (2007, p. 58):
They are interested in explaining the causal power of rhetorical coercion and
in establishing the conditions under which rhetorical coercion can be
(causally) effective (like rationality, interactionality, emergence and normative
structures):
In sum, one argument ‘wins’ not because its grounds are ‘valid’ in
the sense of satisfying the demands of universal reason or because it
accords with the audience’s prior normative commitments or
material interests, but because its grounds are socially sustainable –
because the audience deems certain rhetorical deployments
acceptable and others impermissible. (Krebs and Jackson 2007, p. 47)
Theorizing the causal power of agency and structure and RC’s need
for interpretivism
The previous sections have argued for a possible – and desirable –
combination of classical realism and constructivism, for each approach
strengthens the other’s weakness in addressing the causal power of agency
and structure. While classical realism underscores the causal power of agency
by focusing on agents’ rationality and interactionality, constructivism
underscores the causal power of structure by emphasizing normative
structures and the structural constraints of power through the conception of
emergence. In this sense, an RC approach may well be able to provide better
causal explanations than classical realism and constructivism on their own, at
least engaging critical realism as a philosophy of science that may provide
solid epistemological grounds to address causation for each of them, and for
RC in a more comprehensive fashion.
However, the combination of classical realism and constructivism faces
some challenges and limitations both in methodological and ontological
terms. Regarding the former, understanding the causal power of agency over
structure and vice versa requires bracketing each of them (Finnemore 1996,
pp. 24–5; Checkel 2001, p. 579; see also Prieto 2013, p. 67), which may
imply limitations to the understanding of their mutual constitution (co-
constitution). Constructivism should provide to classical realism the
possibility of accounting for what Barkin (2010, p. 132, referring to the
work of Barnett and Duvall 2005) points to as constitutive power, namely
the effects that power has on the constitution of actors and the situations
they are involved in. This account should complement realism’s interactional
power, namely the strategies agents use to exercise power considering other
agents’ interests, morality and power resources, which in turn have effects on
the reproduction and transformation of that constitutive power (social
structures). Thus, on the one hand, constructivism tells us that agents’
interests (rationality) are constituted by normative structures and social
context. On the other, rationality tells us that agents’ choices may well
change or preserve social structures. While it is technically impossible to
simultaneously give account or grant greater weight to one or another in a
concrete case, bracketing each of them directly leads to ignoring (at least
momentarily) their constitutive effects on each other. Hence, when
accounting for the causal power of agents’ choices one needs to put aside the
constitutive effects of social context and normative structures on such
choices (rationality); and when accounting for the causal power of social
structure one needs to put aside agents’ purposive action over such
structures. In these terms, realist constructivist causal explanations
accounting for the causal power of both agency and structure might be
richer, but not particularly dynamic, and in any case hardly easier.
With regard to ontology, RC requires the assumption that agents are
(natural) power seekers, something that escapes/skips the process of social
construction. For constructivism, rationality – what is understood as such
and how to enact it – is socially constructed, and this process of social
construction all has to do precisely with the constitutive and causal effects of
structure over agency. Hence, it becomes a hard shot for constructivism to
accept that, in order to understand the causal power of agents’ choices over
structure, RC departs from the assumption that such choices are a priori
guided by power politics. If combined as realism as ontology and
constructivism as methodology (as Barkin himself suggests), RC offers the
possibility to better understand the mutual causal effects between agency and
structure. But if combined as two ontologies, it becomes difficult to match
power politics as realism’s main ontological category with constructivism’s
ideational structures like identity, knowledge, institutions, roles and culture.
Furthermore, I consider that RC needs to seriously engage interpretivism
in order to give an account of the causal power of interactionality,
particularly adopting an emergent perspective. In classical realism, exercising
power considering the other’s moral stands crucially depends on persuasion,
which in turn depends on language and communication. This is clearly
shown in Bially Mattern’s and Krebs and Jackson’s works reviewed in this
chapter. Indeed, Barkin himself acknowledges the causal power of
interpretation:
References
Adler, Emanuel (1997) ‘Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in
World Politics’. European Journal of International Relations 3: 319–63.
Barkin, J. Samuel (2010) Realist Constructivism: Rethinking International
Relations Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barnett, Michael and Raymond Duvall (2005) ‘Power in International
Politics’. International Organization 59: 39–75.
Bhaskar, Roy (2008 [1978]) A Realist Theory of Science, 2nd edn. London:
Verso.
Bially Mattern, Janice (2005) ‘Why “Soft Power” Isn’t So Soft:
Representational Force and the Sociolinguistic Construction of Attraction
in World Politics’. Millenium: Journal of International Studies 33: 583–612.
Campbell, David (1992) Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the
Politics of Identity. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Carr, Edward Hallett (2016) The Twenty Years’ Crisis. Reissued with a new
preface by Michael Cox. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Checkel, Jeffrey T. (1998) ‘The Constructivist Turn in International
Relations Theory’. World Politics 50: 324–48.
Checkel, Jeffrey T. (2001) ‘Why Comply? Social Learning and European
Identity Change’. International Organization 55(3): 555–88.
Chernoff, Fred (2007) ‘Critical Realism, Scientific Realism, and
International Relations Theory’. Millennium: Journal of International Studies
35: 399–407.
Finnemore, Martha (1996) National Interests in International Society. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press.
Hopf, Ted (1998) ‘The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations
Theory’. International Security 23: 171–200.
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus (2011) The Conduct of Inquiry in International
Relations. London: Routledge.
Joseph, Jonathan (2007) ‘Philosophy in International Relations: A Scientific
Realist Approach’. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 35: 345–59.
Klotz, Audie and Cecilia Lynch (2007) Strategies for Research in Constructivist
International Relations. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Krebs, Ronald R. and Patrick Thaddeus Jackson (2007) ‘Twisting Tongues
and Twisting Arms: The Power of Political Rhetoric’. European Journal of
International Relations 13: 35–66.
Kuhn, Thomas S. (2012 [1962]) La Estructura de las Revoluciones Científicas.
México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Kurki, Milja (2007) ‘Critical Realism and Causal Analysis in International
Relations’. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 35: 361–78.
Little, Richard (2007) ‘The Balance of Power in Politics Among Nations’, in
Michael C. Williams, ed., Realism Reconsidered: The Legacy of Hans
Morgenthau in International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mackonis, Adolfas (2013) ‘Inference to the Best Explanation, Coherence and
Other Explanatory Virtues’. Synthese 190: 975–95.
Morgenthau, Hans J. (1948) Politics Among Nations. The Struggle for Power and
Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Morgenthau, Hans J. (1985) Politics Among Nations. The Struggle for Power and
Peace, 6th edn. Revised by Kenneth W. Thompson. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf.
Parsons, Craig (2003) A Certain Idea of Europe. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Price, Richard and Christian Reus-Smit (1998) ‘Dangerous Liaisons?
Critical International Theory and Constructivism’. European Journal of
International Relations 4: 259–94.
Prieto, Germán C. (2013) Collective Identity and Regional Institutions in the
Andean Community. Thesis presented for obtaining the degree of PhD in
Politics, University of Manchester. Available at:
www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/uk-ac-man-scw:207671
Prieto, Germán C. (2015) ‘Collective Identity in the Andean Community:
An Institutional Account’. Papel Político 20: 585–604.
Prieto, Germán C. (2016) Identidad Colectiva e Instituciones Regionales en la
Comunidad Andina: Un Análisis Constructivista. Bogotá: Editorial Javeriana.
Ruggie, John Gerard (1998) ‘What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-
utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge’. International
Organization 52: 855–85.
Wendt, Alexander (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wendt, Alexander (2015) Quantum Mind and Social Science. Unifying Physical
and Social Ontology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wight, Colin (2006) Agents, Structures and International Relations: Politics as
Ontology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, Michael C. (2005) ‘Hans Morgenthau and the Historical
Construction of Realism’, in Williams, ed., The Realist Tradition and the
Limits of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yee, Albert S. (1996) ‘The Causal Effects of Ideas on Policies’. International
Organization 50: 69–108.
Zehfuss, Maja (2009) ‘Jacques Derrida’, in Jenny Edkins and Nick Vaughan-
Williams, eds., Critical Theorists and International Relations. Abingdon:
Routledge.
3
Neoclassical realism
The term ‘neoclassical realism’ was first coined in 1998 by Gideon Rose to
describe a growing body of literature that attempts to incorporate both the
systemic thinking of neorealism and the foreign policy focus of classical
realism (Rose 1998). He was speaking of a body of work that had not
previously been seen as a coherent approach and therefore did not have a
clear and coherent set of assumptions and methodological tools in common
(including Wohlforth 1993; Brown, Lynn-Jones and Miller 1995;
Christensen 1996; Schweller 1998; Zakaria 1998). But he did identify
among them a common commitment to developing a systematized and
generalizable theory of foreign policy. He also identified a preferred
methodology, of theoretically informed narratives, process tracing, and
counterfactual analysis, which he identified as occupying a middle ground
between structural theory and constructivism (Rose 1998, pp. 153–4).
Neoclassical realism has been variously described as a general approach, a
research community (Sterling-Folker 2009b), and more recently as a research
programme (Ripsman et al 2016, p. 1). A recent attempt to codify the
approach has identified a set of assumptions held in common by most
(although not all) of the community. This project resulted first in an edited
and then an authored volume by Steven Lobell, Norrin Ripsman and Jeffrey
Taliaferro (Lobell et al 2009; Ripsman et al 2016). They identify three key
elements to the approach. The first is the assumption that neorealism is an
accurate theory of international politics and that it provides sufficiently clear
guidance to foreign policy decision makers that they should in at least some
circumstances be able to identify the proper policy to maximize security
and/or power (Taliaferro et al 2009, p. 19). The general point of reference
for neorealism is Kenneth Waltz’s version as elaborated in Theory of
International Politics (Waltz 1979) but they do not explicitly argue that it is
this, rather than other versions of neorealism, that must be the starting point
for determining systemically appropriate policy.
The second is what they identify as the neoclassical realist conception of
the state. They begin with the assumption of human sociality, that people act
in, and identify with, groups, and suggest that sovereign states are the
relevant groups for the purposes of studying foreign policy making. They
then look at two groups of actors within states. The first is those directly
tasked with making or advising foreign policy, a group they refer to as the
foreign policy elite, or FPE. This group is assumed to act, or at least try to
act, in the national interest, or at least in the national interest as they perceive
it. The second group, elements of domestic society that pressure or lobby the
FPE, are assumed to think in terms of their own private and parochial
interests, rather than the broader group or national interest. The FPE is thus
seen as the focal point of tension between the international system and
particular domestic interests, and as an honest proponent of the national
interest (Taliaferro et al 2009, pp. 23–8).
The third element is what they call soft positivism but which fits into
Patrick Thaddeus Jackson’s definition of neopositivism, a commitment to a
set of ideas about how social science should be conducted (Ripsman et al
2016, pp. 105–7). They claim that neoclassical realists ‘aspire to a greater
methodological sophistication than their classical realist predecessors’
(Taliaferro et al 2009, p. 19). It is not always clear what counts as
methodological sophistication, for which they seem to draw on sources
ranging from King, Keohane and Verba (1994) to Lakatos (1970). But it
seems to be consistent with the use of inferential logic to test deductive
theories. It draws on Rose’s observation about generalizable theory but is
not compatible with the methodology he identifies, as will be discussed later.
System structure
These three elements provide the starting points for the three critiques
presented here of the mainstream neoclassical realism that Lobell, Ripsman
and Taliaferro’s work represents (the order of their names is different across
publications, so in reference to the general body of their work I refer to
them in alphabetical order). The first of these critiques is that neorealist
arguments about system structure are a bad starting point for understanding
foreign policy and foreign policy making. As Jennifer Sterling-Folker notes,
neorealism is simply too underdetermining of policy – it is designed to
identify constraints on, rather than to predict specific, foreign policies
(Sterling-Folker 2009a, p. 111). As such, it does not provide the sort of
analytical anchor that most neoclassical realists call upon it to provide. The
standard starting point of neoclassical realist analysis is that the system will in
some cases, or at minimum in the ideal case, identify a clear, preferred policy
option, and that domestic politics as a category then needs to be used to
explain situations in which states fail to choose this policy option, or when
system imperatives are unclear. But systemic imperatives, for reasons
discussed later, never dictate a clear and objectively preferable foreign policy.
Therefore, to assume the existence of such a policy as an analytical starting
point and to try to explain divergences from it is to build an analysis on
ground that does not exist.
Lobell, Ripsman and Taliaferro accept that neorealism does not always
specify a clear policy outcome. They argue that systemic imperatives will be
clearer in some sorts of cases than in others, and it is when systemic policy
imperatives are less clear that we must look to domestic politics to predict
outcomes (eg Ripsman et al 2016, p. 5). But this is problematic in three
ways. The first is that most neoclassical realists study cases that involve
serious security threats, where systemic imperatives should apply most
clearly. This is odd in the context of an argument that it is precisely to these
cases that neoclassical realism should apply least well. The second is that it
introduces a potential tautology into the argument. If one assumes that states
will follow systemic imperatives when they are clear, the best way to tell how
clear systemic imperatives are is to see to what extent states are following
them. But then divergence from systemic imperatives becomes both an
explanatory factor and that to be explained. And the third way in which it is
problematic is that it undermines the role of neorealism at the core of the
argument. It assumes that neorealism works except when it does not work.
To the extent that neoclassical realists do study core security crises, the
implication is that systemic imperatives are unclear even with respect to these
crises. If this is the case, what useful role is neorealism really playing in the
analytical process, and therefore as a starting point for neoclassical realism? In
this sense, neoclassical realism is in fact a pointedly weak realism.
Furthermore, even should the system provide clear guidance for the
general direction of policy, it does not provide guidance for the actual
content of policy. Neorealist theories, and neoclassical realist theories in their
portrayal of systemic imperatives, speak of such things as balancing and
bandwagoning (eg Waltz 1979; Schweller 1994), and at their most specific of
alliances (eg Walt 1987). Colin Elman (1996) argues that if activities such as
balancing can be defined precisely enough, they can act as variables in a
neorealist theory of foreign policy. But ‘balancing’, whether external or
internal, is a goal, not a foreign policy. External balancing can happen
through a broad range of mechanisms, from tacit political understandings to
the institutional integration of military structures. Balances can happen
through formal alliances or informal coalitions. And it is not clear ex ante
which format will be more effective – formal alliances are often designed as
much to deal with internal political disputes as to promote external political
effectiveness, and ad hoc coalitions may turn out to be more effective
organizational tools for war fighting (Weitsman 2004, 2010). Systemic
imperatives are unlikely to give clear guidance as to which of this range of
institutional forms of external balancing is ideal for any specific
circumstance.
Nor can external and internal balancing be taken as distinct categories.
External balancing, after all, creates clear collective action problems, and to
be effective requires efforts at internal balancing on the part of major (and
minor) powers as well (eg Christensen and Snyder 1990). Even if we accept
defensive neorealism unproblematically, therefore, we cannot look to
systemic imperatives to predict specific trade-offs between military
expenditures and economic development, between internal and external
balancing, and between alliances and coalitions, let alone among specific
strategies of pre-emption or containment. For example, Mark Brawley
(2009) discusses the strategies of Britain, France and the Soviet Union in
response to a growing but temporally distant threat from a resurgent
Germany in the 1920s and 1930s. He clearly allows that the systemic logic of
balancing leaves space for a wide variety of specific choices. But he frames
his analysis as a question of why the three countries did not construct a
balancing alliance earlier. There is, however, no particular reason to believe
that a formal alliance, with the attendant risk of buckpassing, of debate
between France and the more distant Britain and Russia about defending
frontiers versus defence in depth, and of organizational ossification, would
have yielded more effective balancing than the ad hoc approach adopted.
The logic of the system may well have suggested balancing behaviour in
general, but it did not suggest a formal alliance per se, or any other specific
form of balancing.
Not only is policy under-specified by neorealism, but the most
fundamental of realist concepts, power, is under-specified as well (Guzzini
1993). Classical realists tell us that political science is the science of power,
but they also tell us that power is a psychological relationship, and that what
counts as power is contextually specific (eg Morgenthau 1985, pp. 34–6).
Some theorists of power in international relations, and in political science
more broadly, define power as the ability either to get what one wants or to
get others to do things they otherwise would not, a category of definitions
that speaks of power in terms of outcomes (Dahl 1961; Baldwin 1979). But
because of the focus on outcomes, this category understands power in a post
hoc way, useful in constructing explanatory narratives after the fact, but not
particularly useful in prescribing specific policies in specific contexts.
Neorealists avoid the contextualism of early realist understandings of power
and the pitfalls of the post hoc operationalizations of some later realists by
defining power in terms of capabilities (eg Waltz 1979, pp. 56–60). This has
the ostensible advantage of measurability. But unless a clear relationship can
be shown between a specific algorithm of capabilities and outcomes in
international relations, even this neorealist definition of power does not
point to specific foreign policies. Neorealist theory tends to look at
capabilities as a disaggregated mass, with an emphasis on material capabilities
but without any discussion of which such capabilities are likely to matter
most in which contexts, or the time scale across which they should be
maximized (Brawley 2009 makes this point). As such, it gives little guidance
for how power can most effectively be maximized with respect to specific
foreign policy decisions or needs. And without such guidance, neorealist
theory does not usefully identify ideal foreign policies in specific contexts.
None of these observations should be taken as critiques of neorealism per
se. To argue that the system does not determine specific foreign policies
would only be a critique if neorealists claimed that the system is
determinative of foreign policy. And for the most part they do not do so.
Neorealist theory tends to be about patterns of polarity and structure in the
system over the long term, not about specific foreign policies. Kenneth
Waltz, for example, specifically cautions us not to ‘mistake a theory of
international politics for a theory of foreign policy’ (Waltz 1979, p. 121).
More broadly, to read Waltz as a starting point for predicting foreign policy
making may be to fundamentally misconstrue his argument. In fact, he
warns us in this context not ‘to commit what one might call “the numerical
fallacy” – to draw a qualitative conclusion from a quantitative result’ (Waltz
2000, p. 38), a warning specifically against what Taliaferro, Lobell and
Ripsman (2009, p. 20) call ‘competitive hypothesis testing’. Stacie Goddard
and Daniel Nexon (2005), for example, argue that Waltz should be read as
an exercise in structural functionalism, and Patrick Thaddeus Jackson (2010)
argues that his argument is intended as an ideal type, not as an exercise in
prediction. Both of these arguments read Waltz as arguing that systemic
outcomes cannot be understood as an aggregation of foreign policies, but at
the same time foreign policies cannot be understood as reducible to the
system. The system, in this view, affects outcomes over time despite policy
choices, rather than by determining policy choices. In other words, Waltz
claims that we cannot understand the system from the actions of its parts, but
nor can we understand the actions of its parts from the system. Even Colin
Elman (1996, pp. 30–1), in making the argument that neorealism can be
used as a theory of foreign policy, suggests that because of its internal
inconsistencies, Waltz’s version of neorealism is among the least well placed
to do so. But Waltz is the most frequent starting point for neoclassical realists.
The claims of this sort of neorealist theory, then, are at the same time
sufficiently strong that they are not sensitive to particular foreign policy
decisions, and sufficiently weak that they cannot be applied meaningfully to
everyday politics. They are strong to the extent that outcomes in the long
term are not sensitive to national foreign policies. For Waltz (1979), bipolar
systems are more stable than multipolar systems, and systems tend naturally
towards balancing, regardless of the foreign policy competence of particular
states. For Robert Gilpin (1981), changes in the balance of power
undermine hegemony and drive change in the international system, again
regardless of the foreign policy competence of the hegemon or its
competitors.
It is true that if the system determines great power success in the long
term, then states in this category whose foreign policies systematically
diverge from systemic imperatives will be punished by the system. In Waltz’s
terms, they will either be socialized by the system to the appropriate foreign
policies, or they will be marginalized as powers by the system, or in the
extreme will cease to exist (Waltz 1979, pp. 127–8). From the perspective of
neoclassical realism, this argument cuts two ways. On the one hand, this
provides the argument by which neorealism is the logical starting point for
the analysis of foreign policy. States (or at least adequately socialized ones)
should figure out the appropriate foreign policies and act accordingly. Failure
to do so therefore needs to be explained, although from a neorealist (as
opposed to neoclassical realist) perspective there is no inherent reason that
systemic imperatives should mandate particular foreign policies rather than
sets of better or worse foreign policy choices. Reading neorealism as a source
of clear foreign policy imperatives is for the most part something more likely
to be ascribed to neorealists than to be claimed by them.
On the other hand, however, the argument presents a logical dilemma for
attempts to study systematic divergences of national foreign policies from
those demanded by systemic imperatives. To the extent that system structure
determines outcomes in international politics over the long term, states
whose foreign policies diverge systematically from those into which the
system should have socialized them should be punished by the system. If
they do not reform their policy making to eliminate the domestic
pathologies that are undermining their foreign policy effectiveness, they
should ultimately be eliminated by the system. The system here plays the
same disciplining role with respect to states as the market does with respect
to firms in economics (Boucoyannis 2007). This introduces an internal
contradiction into any attempt to look for patterned divergence from a
neorealist baseline, as many neoclassical realists claim to do (Oren 2009). The
sorts of systematic foreign policy-making pathologies that these scholars are
looking for should not, according to the logical starting point of their
approach, be able to persist over time.
The argument to this point has focused on Waltz’s theory, but there are of
course many other versions of neorealism. Among the best known of these is
offensive realism, a school of argument of which John Mearsheimer (eg
2001) is the best-known proponent. The existence of different neorealist
theories, with different specific claims about foreign policy, is itself
problematic for neoclassical realism. If one is to take the constraints of the
system as a starting point for analysis of foreign policy, and different
neorealist theories posit different constraints, how does one know which
constraints to begin with? A neoclassical realist who begins with neorealism
as a predictor of foreign policy must take a particular version of neorealism
on faith as a starting point because the neoclassical realist exercise itself is
premised on the assumption that the system has failed in a particular instance
to generate the policy suggested by systemic theory. And in applying the
theory to specific cases, scholars cannot be sure if divergences from
theoretical predictions are driven by flaws in the neoclassical realist theory of
foreign policy or in the neorealist theory of the international system on
which it is built.
Unlike Waltz, Mearsheimer does, within fairly broad parameters, predict
great power foreign policies. But his predictions are problematic as a starting
point for neoclassical realism, for two reasons: they are tautological and they
are wrong. They are tautological inasmuch as he defines great powers as
those whose foreign policies are generally in accord with his predictions for
the foreign policies of great powers (Mearsheimer 2001, pp. 5, 37). A
country the foreign policy of which systematically diverges from his
predictions, therefore, can be simply dismissed as not a great power. One
could then reasonably ask why that country did not choose to become (or to
try to become) a great power, but there is within Mearsheimer’s logic no
reason to believe that the answer to this question lies at the systemic level of
analysis.
The predictions are wrong to the extent that countries that would
colloquially be considered to be great powers often do not act as predicted
by the theory. With respect to the United States since the Second World
War, this is true by Mearsheimer’s own admission (eg Mearsheimer and Walt
2007). More broadly, few neoclassical realists begin with offensive realism as
an analytic starting point in part because states since the Second World War
have so often not acted as the theory predicts, despite its claims to predict
foreign policy. One exception to this generalization is Randall Schweller
(2009), who starts with Mearsheimer despite admitting that offensive realism
is successful only at predicting the foreign policies of fascist powers, and no
one else, in the 20th century. He then goes on to argue that it is the failure
of other countries to behave according to the dictates of the theory that
needs explaining, rather than the failure of the theory to predict as it
purports to do. He concludes that most states these days are insufficiently
fascist. By this rhetorical sleight of hand, a theoretical approach that claims to
be empirical rather than normative ends up making normative prescriptions
in the face of its own empirical failure.
The use of systemic theory as a starting point for a neoclassical realism
that makes specific predictions about foreign policy is therefore problematic
at two levels. The first is that most neorealisms provide an expected
constraint of foreign policy decision making, rather than a specific expected
foreign policy. To the extent that neoclassical realism is talking about
deviations from the foreign policy behaviour predicted by neorealism, the
absence of such predictions in the first place is a fatal flaw. The second is that
there exist a number of specific neorealist theories, and there is no a priori
mechanism for deciding among them. Furthermore, beginning with one of
these and building a neoclassical realist argument on it yields a conceptually
untestable result because we cannot know if any errors of prediction come
from the specific neoclassical realist argument about foreign policy, or from
its neorealist systemic anchor.
Social constructs
The second core critique of a neoclassical realism that takes systemic theory
as an analytical or predictive starting point is that it often ends up drawing on
arguments about various kinds of social constructs (eg Ripsman et al 2016,
ch. 3), from the formal (domestic political institutions) to the informal
(strategic culture and beliefs), but cannot address these constructs adequately
from its theoretical and methodological starting point. Some neoclassical
realist work, of course, deals with social constructs directly without
embedding the discussion in inferentialist language. This work is often
constructivist in its method, sometimes self-descriptively so (eg Sterling-
Folker 2009a). But much, and perhaps the majority, of work from the
neoclassical realist community has an awkward relationship with the social
constructs that are at the core of its explanatory logic. A useful example of
such a construct is the idea of the national interest.
Many works of neoclassical realism posit the concept of a national
interest, but the concept is often left un- or under-defined. There is often
the implication that there is a single, clear and objective national interest,
following neorealist arguments. But not all neorealists agree on what the
national interest is, and most posit a minimalist definition of its content.
Waltz, for example, argues that states have at minimum an interest in survival
(Waltz 1979, p. 126). But this only applies when state survival is directly
threatened, and even then can mean different things. For example, states can
face choices between territorial and institutional integrity, and neorealist
logic does not give a clear answer to which should be, or is likely to be,
prioritized. This minimalist definition is not a problem from Waltz’s
perspective – he is arguing that even with such a minimalist definition, the
system affects outcomes.
But it is a problem for neoclassical realism because it is an inadequate basis
on which to build a theory of foreign policy. This is the case for two reasons.
The first is that a concern for state survival does not, as a general
proposition, create sufficient content for the national interest to usefully
inform foreign policy making. States are rarely if ever confronted with a
clear policy choice between surviving and perishing. As such, even though
states may share survival as a common element of their national interests,
they will have other elements to their national interests that they do not have
in common, different things the preservation and promotion of which they
value differently. States may value a cultural or religious identity, a political
or economic structure. These symbols and foundations of nationhood
cannot be separated from the national interest because they are constitutive
of the nation that is to be preserved. Different populations are likely to have
different theories about the long-term efficacy of various policy types, and
different ideas of the most comfortable place to be in the international
system (Morgenthau 1985, pp. 31–2). All of these differences in interest are
ideational rather than material and are particular (or, in Waltz’s terminology,
reductionist) rather than systemic. In other words, to understand the national
interests of a particular states requires looking at the beliefs about foreign
policy and international politics within, and particular to, that state.
The second reason that a national interest in survival is an inadequate
basis on which to build a theory of foreign policy is that, to the extent that
the details of the national interest are ideational rather than objectively given,
there may not be a single commonly held national interest within a
particular state. In other words, to the extent that the national interest is in
part based on beliefs, and beliefs can reasonably differ across people, we can
expect that understandings of the national interest will also differ across
people and groups within a state. Even if all the relevant players in national
politics agree on a common interest in state survival, there can be
disagreement over what constitutes state survival and how it can best be
achieved. As such, there may well be no clear single national interest (but see
Krasner 1978). Disagreement over foreign policy priorities and strategies
may stem from legitimate conflict over what constitutes the national interest,
rather than attempts by particular interests to subvert the national interest to
their particular interests.
As an example, Colin Dueck (2009) looks at the implementation of
decisions by US presidents to go to war in Korea and Vietnam. He begins by
assuming that the respective presidents acted in their perception of the
national interest, after dispensing with the idea of an objective interest in the
first place (Dueck 2009, pp. 139, 146). In both cases implementation of war
plans was affected by domestic opposition. But much of this opposition was
itself cast in third-image and national interest terms – Waltz himself opposed
the war in Vietnam for neorealist reasons (Waltz 1967). Dueck’s historical
analysis of the effects of domestic opposition on the implementation of the
wars is sound. But his claim that these are cases of domestic, particularistic
interference with the pursuit of the national interest is not. Rather, these are
cases of clashes between two different interpretations of the national interest,
interpretations based on different beliefs both about what the national
interest should be, and about how to maximize American power in the
international system.
This tension between the assumption of a single objective national
interest that underlies much neoclassical realist logic and the reality of
national interests based on beliefs and subject to contention and redefinition
is mirrored in the tension between neoclassical realism’s assumptions about
politics and sociality, and its frequent use of two-level games to model
foreign policy making. Without the assumption of sociality, the assumption
that people form, think in terms of, and act as members of political groups,
the idea of a national interest rather than an aggregation of individual
interests that informs policy making, does not make sense (Sterling-Folker
2002). Lobell, Ripsman and Taliaferro note this explicitly (Taliaferro et al
2009, p. 24), and it is an idea well within the historical mainstream of realist
thinking. But at the same time, they posit a two-level game approach to
modelling foreign policy decision making, viewing the FPE as a fulcrum
between the demands of the international system on the one hand and of
domestic politics on the other (Putnam 1988). Not all neoclassical realist
work explicitly adopts this model but it appears to inform the thinking
behind much of it (eg Christensen 1996; Zakariah 1998).
It is a fundamentally liberal model, drawing as it does on rational choice
theory’s assumptions that individuals will act in their own, exogenously
given, interests. And in doing so, it presents an awkward mix of liberal and
realist assumptions about human nature and human behaviour. Realist
assumptions apply to the FPE, which is assumed to make decisions in the
national interest when allowed to do so by other politically potent people
within the country. But those other people, in effect everyone who is not a
member of the FPE, are all assumed to act in their particular parochial
interests, even when these conflict with or undermine the national interest.
There is no real justification for the assumption that members of the FPE
think primarily of the national interest, and everyone else does not.
Members of the elite may well be acting in parochial interests, whether these
be economic, political or ideological. And realist assumptions about sociality
should apply nationally, not just to the elite, otherwise free rider problems
would inevitably undermine the elite’s efforts to marshal resources for use in
the creation of the mechanisms of national power. Norrin Ripsman justifies
the distinction by pointing to a difference in access to information – the FPE
is better informed about the demands on foreign policy and therefore is able
to make better decisions (Ripsman 2009, p. 172). But a rational domestic
audience that accepts that decision makers are acting in the national interest
will realize this informational disparity and should as a result defer to the
FPE. And there is no a priori reason to expect that the FPE is rational (as it
must be to respond appropriately to systemic constraints) and the rest of the
population is not. The fact that neoclassical realist research shows that it
often is not suggests that either the logic or the assumptions of Rispman’s
justification is flawed.
Constructivism
Constructivism provides a useful set of methodologies for the historical
narratives that neoclassical realists generally prefer. An example of such a
historical narrative argument that will be familiar to most readers is Max
Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. He uses an argument
about a social norm widely held in a particular society, what he calls the
Protestant ethic, to explain a particular but historically important case, the
emergence of Holland as a core player in the global political economy in the
16th and 17th centuries (Weber 1958). This study is of little inferential value
– Weber makes no attempt to create a generalizable argument about
Protestant ethics – but it is of significant explanatory value. This is not an
example from international relations per se, but it is relevant to a discussion
of neoclassical realism inasmuch as he is arguing among other things that it is
the Protestant ethic that allowed Holland to become a (sort of) great power
for a time. It is also, obviously, not a work of self-described constructivism,
having been written almost a century before the term came into use to
describe an approach to the study of international relations. But it
nonetheless fits neatly within constructivist assumptions. And it locates
constructivism within a long tradition central to the development of
contemporary social science.
Explicitly adopting a constructivist methodology would deal with all
three of the general critiques of neoclassical realism. It deals with the tension
between method (specific techniques for collecting and analyzing
information) and methodology (the logic by which these techniques fit
together) by providing a methodology that fits the core empirical method
that most neoclassical realists already use. Constructivist analysis aims to
explain particular cases through detailed empirical analysis, much the same as
historical narrative. It does not make inferential claims that historical
narrative is generally unable to support. It is also well placed to use
specifically those types of theoretical models, such as schematic and garbage-
can models, that neoclassical realists often generate. These models, while
they cannot serve effectively as a basis for specific predictions, are useful in
telling the analyst where to look in establishing causal relationships in specific
cases. They can also be used prospectively as well as retrospectively – they
can tell the analyst what the important causal relationships are likely to be in
current or future foreign policy situations. In other words, while they cannot
be used for inferential prediction in the narrow neopositivist sense, they can
be used effectively to support policy analysis, in concert with details of the
social construction of the international politics relevant to that case.
Historical narrative need not be constructivist, of course, inasmuch as it
need not focus on intersubjectively held ideas and norms. Biography as
historical narrative, for example, may focus primarily on purely subjectively
held ideas. And not all constructivism need be in the form of historical
narrative. It can use methods as varied as discursive analysis and quantitative
measurement (eg Barkin and Sjoberg 2017). The two do, however, overlap
strongly (eg Klotz and Prakash 2008). Adoption of a constructivist
methodology would require of neoclassical realists that they abandon
neopositivist claims of inferential prediction, testability and paradigmatic
superiority. But at the same time it would allow them to make
methodological claims that they can back up.
Constructivist logic allows the researcher to determine what the
principals in a case consider the national interest to be, rather than positing
an interest in state survival so minimalist that it provides little specific policy
guidance either for statespeople or scholars. In other words, it deals with the
national interest as an empirical matter, as that which the nation considers its
interest to be, rather than as a deductive principle, thereby providing a much
sounder basis for studying why policy makers make the policy that they do.
It also obviates the tension between liberal and realist assumptions about
human nature by allowing that different groups within a polity might have
legitimately different beliefs about what constitutes the national interest.
Finally, it allows for contestation of the national interest. It allows for the
possibility that political actors will promote their visions of the national
interest, and convince others, and thereby change the vision underlying
foreign policy making. Changes in policy can therefore come from changes
in belief or culture, rather than only from changes in the international
system. Constructivism would thereby give the neoclassical realist a greater
scope for explaining change in policy without calling on the deus ex machina
of the system.
On a related note, explicitly adopting a constructivist methodology deals
with the problem that system structure is underdetermining of policy, by
reading the system as a background condition rather than as a direct
determinant of policy. Neopositivist (or soft positivist) neoclassical realism
needs a fixed starting point against which to measure policy behaviour, in
order to make claims of scientific precision. Neorealism is called upon to
provide that starting point, even though it cannot for the most part
meaningfully do so. Constructivist methods do not require this sort of fixed
starting point and thereby take the pressure off neorealism, allowing system
structure to be the background constraining condition that most neorealists
intended it to be (and that many neoclassical realists in practice take it to be).
Note that this does not entail a rejection of neorealism, or even a demotion.
It could remain central to a constructivist neoclassical realism. But the role of
systemic constraint on specific foreign policies would be treated as part of
the question being asked, rather than being assumed from a badly under-
specified baseline.
Power
A potential criticism of constructivism as a methodology for neoclassical
realism is that it is unable to deal adequately with power because power is a
fundamentally material phenomenon (Ripsman et al 2016, p. 174). Realists
on the one hand and both critical theorists and some constructivists,
particularly of the postmodern variety, on the other, often talk past each
other when discussing power because they mean different things by the
term. The latter group often speaks of what might be called structural
power, the constraints on individual behaviour imposed by social institutions.
This is power as constraint, the power of an impersonal system rather than
power used by political actors. Realists, conversely, speak of power as
relational, as something used by one actor or social group on another
(Barnett and Duvall 2005). These are, in effect, two related but different
concepts that share the same word. Constructivist methodology can
encompass both kinds of power, and in doing so might serve as a useful
means of communication between realists and critical theorists (eg Guzzini
2005). More central for the purposes of the argument here, however, is that
constructivist methodology can address relational power in ways that act as a
useful bridge between classical and neoclassical realism, and that it offers a
richer view of power than a simple counting exercise.
Power for classical realists was not a simple matter of measuring material
capabilities. For theorists such as E.H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau, power
was a measure of control, a measure of the ability to get others to do (or to
not do) things. This ability might come from possession of military or
economic capabilities but it might also come from institutional position or
rhetorical skill. For Carr, power over public opinion was a key category of
analysis (Carr 1964, pp. 132–45). For Morgenthau, issues of national
character and morale were key components of national power (Morgenthau
1985, pp. 146–55). In other words, for classical realists, who focused on
foreign policy rather than system structure, beliefs were a central component
of power. Neorealists can (and generally do) gloss over the relative
importance of various components of national power because they are not
concerned with particular policy outcomes (eg Waltz 1979; Gilpin 1981).
For neoclassical realists to effectively reconnect system with foreign policy
outcomes, they may well need to draw on those insights about power and
foreign policy that neorealists could abstract away from. And key among
these insights are that non-material factors, such as culture, beliefs and
discourse, matter as power resources.
Constructivism is well placed to provide the methodology to make this
connection. It can address not only what beliefs are and how they come to
be formed in a particular case, but also how discourse can be deployed to
change beliefs, both domestically and internationally, in a way that serves a
particular interpretation of the national interest. It provides the tools, in
other words, to analyze words as power, in the realist, relational sense of the
term. This is particularly important in the analysis of foreign policy making
because discourse is a key mechanism by which particular understandings of
the national interest are disseminated. The FPE cannot effectively generate
the material power resources that neorealists speak of as capabilities without
convincing the population at large that the investment in national material
power is worthwhile. The politics of foreign policy making is thus as much
about conflict over definition of the national interest as it is about clashes
between the national interest and particular and private interests. And that
conflict is both ideational and discursive.
Finally, a neoclassical realism informed by constructivist methodology can
have a much broader empirical scope than one informed by a neopositivist
methodology, and can do more justice to the basic realist premise that power
matters in international relations. Ripsman, Taliaferro and Lobell argue that
their neoclassical realism works in those circumstances when neorealism does
not determine outcomes (Ripsman et al 2016, p. 5). In other words, they
argue that when power analysis fails we must look to domestic institutions to
explain outcomes. This argument, driven by an impetus to neopositivist
methodology rather than by commitments to realist theory per se, sells short
the potential not only for neoclassical realism, but for realism more broadly.
They argue that realism is simply not particularly useful when information
about potential threats is unclear (Lobell et al 2009, p. 286). This implies that
in such situations neither considerations of power nor the constraints of the
international system matter much. But both classical realists and neorealists
would disagree. Classical realists argue that power always matters, that the
study of politics is about power. When threats are not clear, foreign policy
makers nonetheless continue to think of foreign policy goals in terms of
power. In the absence of clear threats they may be motivated by
opportunities, or simply by prudent planning, but in either case power is the
means of effecting the national interest. And constructivist methodology is a
good way to get at the content of the national interest, even more so when
there is no generally accepted immediate threat.
Similarly, neorealists argue that the system always matters (or, at least, that
it always matters for great powers). In a bipolar system, internal balancing
needs no clear threat – a great power knowing only that the system is not
multipolar should face systemic incentives to balance internally. In a
multipolar system, balancing logic should always predominate, and in the
absence of a clear threat, balancing logic requires the maintenance of
strategic flexibility, in itself as clear a set of policy choices as balancing. Either
way, systemic imperatives are towards maximizing power capabilities,
regardless of the clarity or immediacy of the threat. The key insight of
neorealism, in fact, is that the system always matters, even when it is not
sending clear signals, even when the strategic setting does not indicate a clear
or immediate threat. A neoclassical realism informed by constructivist
methodology could address the question of the effect that system structure
has on foreign policy, even in the absence of a clear threat. In short,
constructivist methodology allows a neoclassical realist approach to make a
much broader set of claims, both with respect to when it is useful (in all cases
of foreign policy making) and with respect to what it can tell us (a generative
explanation of policy, rather than just a default explanation).
Conclusion
In occupying a space between the sparse systemic theorizing of neorealism
and the richer but more prescriptive theorizing of classical realism,
neoclassical realism has great potential to expand the scope of realist
explanation of world politics. But it is too often hobbled by the commitment
of many of its proponents to a methodology that simply does not fit either
their theoretical claims or their empirical focus. Were neoclassical realists to
focus on average foreign policy outcomes, forego meaningful discussion of
beliefs or culture as a causal element, systematize a precise definition of
foreign policy, and codify outcomes quantifiably on the basis of such
definition, then neopositivism would work better as a methodology. But
adopting these commitments would require eschewing precisely the sorts of
important cases and nuanced historical analysis that neoclassical realists
generally focus on.
The alternative is to maintain a focus on important cases and historical
nuance and apply to these a more appropriate methodology. And
constructivism, with its focus on the intersubjective, fits the bill. It would
allow for the study of the actual contents of beliefs. It would allow for a
richer and more nuanced analysis of such core realist concepts as power and
the national interest. And it would allow neoclassical realists to apply the
insights of systemic realism, without needing to pretend that the system ever
gives perfectly clear signals about specific policies. Applying constructivist
methodology to neoclassical realist research foci would enable neoclassical
realism to provide better answers to the questions it is really interested in,
and to better explore foreign policy beliefs, processes and outcomes as
complex rather than one-dimensional phenomena. Only then might
neoclassical realism begin to achieve its full potential as a research
programme.
References
Baldwin, David (1979) ‘Power Analysis and World Politics: New Trends
Versus Old Tendencies’. World Politics 31: 161–94.
Barkin, J. Samuel (2015) ‘On the Heuristic Use of Formal Models in
International Relations Theory’. International Studies Review 17: 617–34.
Barkin, J. Samuel and Laura Sjoberg, eds. (2017) Interpretive Quantification:
Methodological Explorations for Critical and Constructivist IR. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
Barnett, Michael and Raymond Duvall (2005) ‘Power in International
Politics’. International Organization 59: 39–75.
Boucoyannis, Deborah (2007) ‘The International Wanderings of a Liberal
Idea, or Why Liberals Can Learn to Stop Worrying and Love the Balance
of Power’. Perspectives on Politics 5: 703–78.
Brawley, Mark (2009) ‘Neoclassical Realism and Strategic Calculations:
Explaining Divergent British, French, and Soviet Strategies Toward
Germany Between the World Wars (1919–1939)’, in S. Lobell, N.
Ripsman and J. Taliaferro, eds., Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign
Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 75–98.
Brown, Michael E., Sean M. Lynn-Jones and Steven E. Miller, eds. (1995)
The Perils of Anarchy: Contemporary Realism and International Security.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Buzan, Barry, Charles Jones and Richard Little (1993) The Logic of Anarchy:
Neorealism to Structural Realism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Carr, Edward Hallett (1964) The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939: An
Introduction to the Study of International Relations. New York: Harper and
Row.
Christensen, Thomas J. (1996) Useful Adversaries: Grand Strategy, Domestic
Mobilization, and Sino-American Conflict, 1947–1958. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Christensen, Thomas J. and Jack Snyder (1990) ‘Chain Gangs and Passed
Bucks: Predicting Alliance Patterns in Multipolarity’. International
Organization 44: 137–68.
Dahl, Robert (1961) Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dueck, Colin (2006) Reluctant Crusaders: Power, Culture, and Change in
American Grand Strategy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Dueck, Colin (2009) ‘Neoclassical Realism and the National Interest:
Presidents, Domestic Politics, and Major Military Interventions’, in S.
Lobell, N. Ripsman and J. Taliaferro, eds., Neoclassical Realism, the State,
and Foreign Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 139–69.
Elman, Colin (1996) ‘Horses for Courses: Why Not Neorealist Theories of
Foreign Policy’. Security Studies 6: 7–53.
Fordham, Benjamin (2009) ‘The Limits of Neoclassical Realism: Additive
and Interactive Approaches to Explaining Foreign Policy Preferences’, in
Lobell, Ripsman and Taliaferro, eds., Neoclassical Realism, the State, and
Foreign Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gilpin, Robert (1981) War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Goddard, Stacie and Daniel Nexon (2005) ‘Paradigm Lost? Reassessing
Theory of International Politics’. European Journal of International Relations 11:
9–61.
Guzzini, Stefano (1993) ‘Structural Power: The Limits of Neorealist Power
Analysis’. International Organization 47: 443–78.
Guzzini, Stefano (2005) ‘The Concept of Power: A Constructivist Analysis’.
Millennium: Journal of International Studies 33: 495–521.
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus (2010) The Conduct of Inquiry in International
Relations: Philosophy of Science and Its Implications for the Study of World
Politics. London: Routledge.
King, Gary, Robert Keohane and Sidney Verba (1994) Designing Social
Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Kitchen, Nicholas (2010) ‘Systemic Pressures and Domestic Ideas: A
Neoclassical Realist Model of Grand Strategy’. Review of International
Studies 36: 117–43.
Klotz, Audie and Deepa Prakash, eds. (2008) Qualitative Methods in
International Relations. New York: Palgrave.
Krasner, Stephen (1978) Defending the National Interest: Raw Materials
Investments and U.S. Foreign Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Lakatos, Imre (1970) ‘Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific
Research Programmes’, in Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, eds., Criticism
and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lobell, Steven E. (2009) ‘Threat Assessment, the State, and Foreign Policy:
A Neoclassical Realist Model’, in S. Lobell, N. Ripsman and J. Taliaferro,
eds., Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign Policy. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 42–74.
Lobell, Steven E., Norrin M. Ripsman and Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, eds. (2009)
Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Mearsheimer, John (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York:
W.W. Norton.
Mearsheimer, John and Stephen Walt (2007) The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign
Policy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Morgenthau, Hans (1985) Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and
Peace, 6th edn. New York: Knopf.
Oren, Ido (2009) ‘The Unrealism of Contemporary Realism: The Tension
Between Realist Theory and Realists’ Practice’. Perspectives on Politics 7:
283–301.
Putnam, Robert (1988) ‘Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of
Two-Level Games’. International Organization 42: 427–60.
Ripsman, Norrin M. (2009) ‘Neoclassical Realism and Domestic Interest
Groups’, in Lobell, Ripsman and Taliaferro, eds., Neoclassical Realism, the
State, and Foreign Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ripsman, Norrin M., Jeffrey W. Taliaferro and Steven Lobell (2016)
Neoclassical Realist Theory of International Politics. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Rose, Gideon (1998) ‘Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy’.
World Politics 51: 144–72.
Schweller, Randall (1994) ‘Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the
Revisionist State Back In’. International Security 19: 72–107.
Schweller, Randall (1998) Deadly Imbalances: Tripolarity and Hitler’s Strategy of
World Conquest. New York: Columbia University Press.
Schweller, Randall (2003) ‘The Progressiveness of Neoclassical Realism’, in
Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman, eds., Progress in International
Relations Theory: Appraising the Field. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Schweller, Randall (2009) ‘Neoclassical Realism and State Mobilization:
Expansionist Ideology in the Age of Mass Politics’, in S. Lobell, N.
Ripsman and J. Taliaferro, eds., Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign
Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 227–50.
Sterling-Folker, Jennifer (2002) ‘Realism and the Constructivist Challenge:
Rejecting, Reconstructing, or Rereading’. International Studies Review 4:
73–97.
Sterling-Folker, Jennifer (2009a) ‘Neoclassical Realism and Identity: Peril
Despite Profit Across the Taiwan Strait’, in S. Lobell, N. Ripsman and J.
Taliaferro, eds., Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign Policy.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 99–138.
Sterling-Folker, Jennifer (2009b) ‘Realist Theorizing as Tradition: Forward Is
as Forward Does’, in Annette Freyberg-Inan, Patrick James and Ewan
Harrison, eds., Rethinking Realism in International Relations: Between
Tradition and Innovation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Taliaferro, Jeffrey W., Steven E. Lobell and Norrin M. Ripsman (2009)
‘Introduction: Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign Policy’, in S.
Lobell, N. Ripsman and J. Taliaferro, eds., Neoclassical Realism, the State,
and Foreign Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 194–226.
Walt, Stephen (1987) The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Waltz, Kenneth (1967) ‘The Politics of Peace’. International Studies Quarterly
11: 199–211.
Waltz, Kenneth (1979) Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Waltz, Kenneth (2000) ‘Structural Realism after the Cold War’. International
Security 25: 5–41.
Weber, Max (1958) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New
York: Charles Scribner’s Son.
Weitsman, Patricia (2004) Dangerous Alliances: Proponents of Peace, Weapons of
War. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Weitsman, Patricia (2010) ‘Wartime Alliances versus Coalition Warfare: How
Institutional Structure Matters in the Multilateral Prosecution of Wars’.
Strategic Studies Quarterly 4: 113–38.
Wohlforth, William Curti (1993) The Elusive Balance: Power and Perceptions
during the Cold War. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Zakaria, Fareed (1998) From Wealth to Power: The Unusual Origins of America’s
World Role. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4
Huadu
There is no shared national past for Taiwan before September 1945, when
the island was ‘gloriously returned’ (guangfu) to the ROC after 50 years of
Japanese colonial rule. That is not to say the island was not ‘Chinese’ before
then; no study of Taiwanese identity can ignore constructed Chinese
identities (Brown 2005; Andrade 2008). However, presenting the island as
‘an open-hearted, forward-looking society that has incorporated diverse
elements of civilization from around the world in a distinctive and
harmonious manner’, Taiwan’s government qualifies that Chinese-ness:
The resolution mentions neither the ROC nor Taiwan. In 1972 the US
‘acknowledged’ and did ‘not challenge’ Beijing’s claim that ‘all Chinese on
either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that
Taiwan is a part of China’ (Taiwan Documents Project 1972). The ROC
haemorrhaged diplomatic allies and, in 1979, following the PRC’s 1978
Open Door Policy, the US normalized relations with Beijing and ended
official relations with Taipei. Beijing offered Taipei One Country Two
Systems (OCTS), which Taipei rejected, officially maintaining its Chinese
state identity under the Three Nos of ‘no contact, no compromise and no
negotiation’ (Wu 2005). However, the US did not abandon Taipei; instead,
it passed the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, which guaranteed Taiwan’s military
security. The stand-off continued throughout the 1980s until the end of the
Cold War changed the international system again.
In the domestic realm, Taiwan under the authoritarian KMT was a
Leninist, corporatist, anti-Communist state. Paternalistic sinification,
patronage and the developmental state model facilitated economic growth
and created a modern, industrial nationalist Chinese state with Mandarin as
the official language and a Hoklo-speaking Taiwanese bourgeoisie. Land
reform in 1950 had created a benshengren small-farmer client class, beholden
to the KMT and removed from its rural Taiwanese elite, which transferred to
industry. Yet, this development model also constructed an international
Taiwanese identity for the ROC through ‘Made in Taiwan’. In 1964
dissident benshengren elites published a Declaration of Formosan Self Salvation,
condemning the ROC as illegitimate and arguing for Taiwanese statehood
on the grounds of modernist conceptions of the nation (Peng et al 1964).
They were imprisoned and exiled. KMT sinification campaigns in the 1960s
embedded Mandarin as the national language and forced the islanders to
identify nationally with China and Chinese nationalism. However,
demographic change, reformist political pressure and the co-opting of young
benshengren technocrats into the KMT elite meant that the Taiwanese became
a political force.
The death of Chiang Kai-shek in 1975 led to limited liberalization under
his son, Chiang Ching-kuo. A social process known as bentuhua –
localization, or Taiwanization – had been spreading from the arts to politics
since the 1960s, driven by the dangwai (outside the Party) movement.
Bentuhua was ‘a type of nationalism that champions the legitimacy of a
distinct Taiwanese identity, the character and content of which should be
determined by the Taiwanese people’ (Makeham and Hsiau 2005, p. 1). As
Chiang Ching-kuo drew on bentuhua to Taiwanize the KMT and the
provincial government, he liberalized Taiwan’s political culture, spawning
Taiwan-identifying DIGs.
The definitive domestic shift in power from Chinese to Taiwanese
occurred with the Zhongli Incident in 1977 (Gold 1986). The dangwai had
already won 34 per cent of the votes in Taiwan’s provincial assembly when a
benshengren KMT politician, Hsu Hsin-liang, stood as an independent
dangwai candidate in a by-election and openly espoused taidu. In response to
KMT ballot rigging, a Taiwanese crowd rioted and burned down the
Zhongli police station. The KMT mobilized local conscripts, and the crowd
responded with chants of ‘don’t beat your fellow Taiwanese’. The dangwai
galvanized around Formosa magazine (meilidao) and in December 1979 the
KMT put the dangwai leaders before a military court in a purge known as
the Kaohsiung Incident. Espousing taidu and parliamentary democracy, the
Kaohsiung defendants lambasted the ROC as nationally and internationally
illegitimate, since bentuhua and international derecognition meant the ROC
could credibly represent neither China nor Taiwan. The family of one of the
defendants, Lin I-hsiung, was brutally murdered on 28 February 1980, while
he was in detention being tortured. The devastating symbolism of the date
cannot be underestimated and it sparked annual pilgrimages to the Lin
family graves on the anniversary of the original 228 massacre. International
observation prevented death sentences, but the Kaohsiung defendants were
given life sentences for sedition (Hughes 1997).
During the 1980s the KMT continued rhetorically to assert legitimacy as
China, while instituting limited democratic reforms. At the 13th National
Congress in 1981 it announced defiantly that ‘the Chinese Communist
regime is at death’s door’ and reasserted its mission as an ‘anti-Communist
revolutionary party’ that sought to ‘unify China under the Three Principles
of the People’ by completing ‘the economic development of the Taiwan
bastion’ for ‘the people’s well-being’ (Taiwan Review 1981). Yet, the
context indicates that ‘the country’ and ‘the people’ referred to were shifting
from China to Taiwan.
With no ties to the Mainland, benshengren KMT technocrats and dangwai
activists aimed at common political ground between Mainlanders and
Taiwanese (Hughes 1997) In 1987 the KMT ended martial law. The dangwai
had already formed the opposition DPP, presaging a broadly Taiwanese
nationalist (pan-Green)–Chinese Nationalist (pan-Blue) liberal-democratic
political spectrum based loosely on the benshengren–waishengren distinction.
Given the KMT’s corporatist identity, however, it could still count on broad
benshengren electoral support. The benshengren KMT leader, Lee Teng-hui,
became president in 1988, began democratic reforms and initiated secret
unofficial talks with Beijing. Given that both sides claimed to be China,
from 1991 talks were conducted through ‘white-glove’ semi-governmental
organizations, the ROC’s Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and the PRC’s
Association for Relations across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS). Talks
culminated in Hong Kong in December 1992 with OCRI, a verbally
delivered statement that had been composed by the ROC Office of the
President and thus ‘represented Taiwan’s internal consensus toward the One
China question at the time’:
The two sides of the Taiwan Strait uphold the One China Principle,
but the interpretations of the two sides are different … Our side
believes that One China should mean the Republic of China
established in 1912 and existing today, and its sovereignty extends
throughout China, but its current governing authority is only over
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matzu. Admittedly, Taiwan is a part
of China, but the mainland is also part of China. (Su 2009, p. 13)
The terms OCRI and ‘consensus’ spread among ministers on both sides but
were not articulated as the 1992 Consensus until KMT minister Su Chi
coined the term in 2000 on the grounds that ‘it enjoyed the beauty of
ambiguity’ (Su 2009, p. 91). The term began to accrue discursive power after
2005 when KMT–CCP talks proposed it as a basis for rapprochement.
By 1992 loss of legitimacy and the end of the Cold War had led the
ROC to reassess its identity. Democratization and de facto interstate relations
through cross-Strait diplomacy were constructing a Taiwanese nation and a
Taiwanized ROC, even though Taipei maintained that it was the legitimate
government of China. In doing so, Taipei acquired a new identity, moving
away from China while staying close to it. Chinese-ness was no longer
perceived as a core element of Taiwanese political identity although Taiwan
and the Mainland shared a cultural background (Makeham and Hsiau 2005,
p. 33).
In 1991 the KMT under Lee Teng-hui introduced constitutional reforms
that effectively limited the ROC’s sovereignty to the Taiwan Area and the
electorate of Taiwan while implicitly recognizing the PRC and officially
envisaging unification as a long-term aim. In the same year, the DPP
inserted a Taiwan Independence Clause in its Party charter. As the ROC
continued to Taiwanize, however, taidu became a straw man. In 1999 the
DPP Resolution on the Future of Taiwan stated:
Independent and autonomous sovereignty is the prerequisite for
national security, social development and the people’s welfare. Taiwan
is a sovereign independent country, not subject to the jurisdiction of
the People’s Republic of China. This is both a historical fact and a
reflection of the status quo. It is not only a condition indispensable to
Taiwan’s existence, but also a crucial element to the development of
democratic political practices … although named the Republic of
China under the current constitution … any change in the
independent status quo must be decided by all residents of Taiwan by
means of a plebiscite. (DPP 1999)
This Grand Compromise acknowledged that the shell of the ROC with its
Chinese Nationalist symbols was to be retained. It was struck because only a
minority of Taiwan’s population supported a declaration of taidu. Systemic
factors aside, an independent Taiwan would require a new national identity
and a new state.
In 1994, in response to DPP and pro-Taiwan DIG concerns, Lee
imposed restrictions on burgeoning informal cross-Strait trade, to the
chagrin of economically liberal business interests (Lin 2016). This created
space for the ROC to diverge further from China politically. By retiring
waishengren legislators and co-opting others while working with the DPP on
a top-down Taiwanese nation-building project, Lee acted as a political
entrepreneur. He made provocative statements on Taiwan’s political status.
Lee’s words and deeds led to a split between the Taiwanized mainstream, or
zhulipai, KMT faction and the Chinese Nationalist anti-mainstream, or
feizhulipai. Yet, Lee maintained unification as the long-term goal and
rejected the DPP’s taidu stance. However, on a private visit to Cornell
University in 1995, Lee stated: ‘What actually is the goal of Taiwan’s
democratisation? Speaking simply, it is the “Taiwanization of Taiwan”
(taiwande bentuhua)’ (quoted in Jacobs 2005, p. 7). Beijing was angered and
responded with verbal threats and missile tests before Taiwan’s first full
democratic elections in 1996. The US sent a carrier battle group and
Taiwanese voters elected Lee. Lee’s KMT faction, with DPP support,
continued with their Taiwanese nation-building project. In 1998, in
supporting the waishengren KMT candidate Ma Ying-jeou as Taipei mayor,
Lee articulated a New Taiwanese, or xin taiwanren, identity:
Today, all of us who have grown up and lived together on this island
are Taiwanese. No matter whether you are aboriginal or came here
hundreds of years ago or in the last few decades, we are all masters of
Taiwan … [H]ow to transform our love of Taiwan and our feelings
towards our compatriots into specific action … is the mission of
every New Taiwanese. (Quoted in Harrison 2016, p. 197)
the Beijing authorities ignore the very fact that the two sides are two
different jurisdictions and that the Chinese mainland continues to
pose a military threat against us. The historical fact is that since the
establishment of the Chinese communist regime in 1949, it has never
ruled Taiwan – the territories under our jurisdiction … the
legitimacy of the rule of the country comes from the mandate of the
Taiwan people and has nothing to do with the people on the
mainland … the 1991 constitutional amendments have designated
cross-strait relations as a state-to-state relationship or at least a special
state-to-state relationship, rather than an internal relationship
between a legitimate government and a renegade group, or between
a central government and a local government. Thus, the Beijing
authorities’ characterization of Taiwan as a ‘renegade province’ is
historically and legally untrue. (New Taiwan 1999)
By 1998 SEF–ARATS talks had broken down and would remain suspended
until 2008. In 2000 the DPP’s Chen Shui-bian assumed the ROC presidency
and called for cross-Strait talks without preconditions, but the PRC insisted
he recognize the One China principle. Despite leading an ostensibly pro-
taidu party, Chen Shui-bian stressed shared Chinese culture and history and
promised not to declare independence (Chen 2000). Chen liberalized cross-
Strait trade, ending the 50-year ban on direct trade and investment and
displeasing pan-Green DIGs. Yet, Chinese non-cooperation and threats
continued. In 2002 Chen stated: ‘with Taiwan and China on each side of the
Taiwan Strait, each side is a country’ (Chen 2002). In 2004 he proposed and
shelved an Independence Referendum. Beijing responded in 2005 with
military drills and an Anti-Secession Law that explicitly threatened Taiwan
with invasion if it declared taidu. These were perceived as direct threats by
pan-Blue as well as pan-Green DIGs and Chen Shui-bian responded by
restricting cross-Strait trade and further Taiwanizing the ROC through a
Name Rectification Campaign. Beijing’s animus towards the DPP
administration, diplomatic isolation of Taiwan and Taiwan’s own economic
downturn prompted back-door CPP–KMT talks and the return of the KMT
to power in 2008.
The KMT’s 2008–2016 cross-Strait policy was characterized by
rapprochement with Beijing, cosmetic re-sinification and an attempt to drive
through a comprehensive free trade agreement (ECFA) and several follow-on
agreements – notably a trade-in-services pact (CSSTA). These policies were
framed in terms of OCRI, the 1992 Consensus and cross-Strait peace and
prosperity. They were responded to by two broadly oppositional DIGs; the
pan-Blue taishang – Taiwanese businesspeople in China – and the pan-Green
Sunflowers – a student-led protest movement. Despite the rhetorical turn to
China, the 2008–2016 KMT administration was characterized by a
crystallization of Taiwanese national identity and a huadu discourse. This is
apparent in SEF support missions to taishang, which frame rapprochement in
liberal terms as crucial to Taiwan’s economic security while framing the
Taiwanized ROC state as defender of taishang interests in a threatening
Chinese environment. Taishang were perceived as unpatriotic by pro-Taiwan
DIGs and certainly, they tended to vote KMT and express an interest in
economic convergence. However, the data shows their national identity as
Taiwanese, and taishang business groups donated more to the DPP than to
the KMT in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, suggesting that the
DPP had become the party of the Taiwanese bourgeoisie.
Despite post-2008 Chinese conciliation and rapprochement under an
ostensibly Chinese-identifying KMT, Taiwan’s interest in unification
continued to wane. The island’s national identity shifted from predominantly
Chinese at the start of democratization to a prevailing Taiwanese identity
during Ma’s second term. In 1992 over 25 per cent perceived themselves as
exclusively Chinese. This fell to under 11 per cent in 2001 at the start of
Chen Shui-bian’s DPP administration and was just 3 per cent in 2016.
Conversely, exclusive Taiwanese identity rose dramatically from under 18 per
cent in 1992 to over 41 per cent in 2001 and almost 60 per cent in 2016.
Joint Taiwanese-Chinese identification also declined steadily from just over
46 per cent to 34 per cent percent in the same period (Election Study
Center 2017). In other words, nearly two thirds of Taiwan’s population
identify as exclusively Taiwanese, and this crystallized under Ma Ying-jeou.
Even KMT elites suggest that Taiwanese national self-identification stands at
85 per cent and Chinese at less than 5 per cent (Jiang 2017, p. 27).
Intense DIG opposition to the KMT’s cross-Strait policies came to a head
in 2014 when the Sunflower students and civic groups occupied Taiwan’s
legislature and effectively blocked the CSSTA, alleging lack of due diligence
and democratic process. Pan-Green DIGs claimed it threatened national
security, acquiesced in Beijing’s efforts to achieve unification by stealth and
was a KMT attempt to sell out Taiwan. This study found no evidence in
ROC government text to support the last claim. If anything, the KMT’s
discourse was scrupulously huadu throughout cross-Strait negotiations. At the
SEF–ARATS talks in 2012, for instance, the ROC stated:
Conclusion
A two-level, three-dimensional realist-constructivist framework may lack
parsimony, but it does account for the Taiwan problematique. It sees Taipei
accommodating rising Chinese power while using the power of its identity
to shape its strategic choices in the political context. First, huadu represents a
Lockean culture of anarchy that is sustained through the power of Taiwan’s
identity. Second, power operationalizes identities and interests at the
interstate and domestic levels; the power of state identity change changes the
national interest and foreign policy. Third, intersubjective co-constitution
operates all the way down. Fourth, in Taiwan’s case, state identity change
occurred in the space created by the systemic balance of power and has
resulted in cross-Strait peace.
Taiwan’s cross-Strait policy was seen to have changed dramatically after
2008. Ma Ying-jeou’s election symbolized a break with the perceived anti-
Chinese Taiwanization of previous administrations. NCR readings in
particular allege KMT underbalancing, a reversal to a Chinese Nationalist
state identity and DIGs perceiving a Chinese threat, pulling the KMT back
to the status quo (Lindemann 2014; Lin 2016; Chen 2017). However, such a
bottom-up liberal view ignores the power of huadu. An alternative realist-
constructivist view, informed by the longer historical picture from 1945
through democratization to rapprochement, foregrounds the continuities in
Taiwan’s state identity and security interests. It also makes salient the ROC’s
top-down Taiwanese nation–state-building project and the co-constitutive
state–nation relationship that developed. Underlying the KMT’s post-2008
strategic diplomatic rhetoric of sinification was a genuine huadu discourse
which drew on a longer-term macro-structural bentuhua discourse. This
strengthened Taiwan’s autonomy in three interrelated ways. First, it forced
China to socialize with Taiwan as a state and to recognize the KMT not as
Schmittian Civil War enemies, but as Lockean rivals. Second, by signalling a
diplomatic turn in Taipei’s approach, sinification rhetoric softened China’s
image of Taiwan’s leadership. Third, it drew policy lines by linguistically
securing Taiwan’s sovereignty and legitimacy. Such rhetoric had been used
by Lee and Chen. However, read in the context of Ma’s perceived identity
and rapprochement, such rhetoric alarmed pro-Taiwan DIGs, who took
them as policy signals, and this tension prompted a DIG reading that
contributed to the KMT’s loss of power. At the same time, however, it
signalled to China Taiwan’s adherence to the status quo.
Of course, this view does not deny suboptimal policy proposals; on the
contrary, by exploring their rhetorical underpinnings, it places them in
context. People are political actors who organize into conflictual groups.
Domestic and ideational variables affect foreign policy decisions and it is
foreign policy choices, not structure, that explain political outcomes.
However, it argues that, while elite and DIG preferences are important,
huadu has prevailed. The state is the primary politically defined group and
only it can provide security (Gilpin 1981). As a state, the ROC provides
Taiwan with security on the basis of a collective Taiwanese national interest,
distinct from DIG and elite interests (Krasner 1978). It does this knowing
that Beijing may ultimately kill it. So, Taipei’s cross-Strait policy is motivated
primarily by fear of danger and a desire for security before other interests.
So, this realist constructivism is state-centered. However, the state is
contingent and constructed. Taiwan’s autonomy is intersubjectively co-
constituted within and across cross-Strait and domestic politics. This
framework looks at two levels and three dimensions. But it shows that the
relationship between realism and constructivism is not linear, but orthogonal
and multidimensional. This realist constructivism treats power as social and
historically contingent. In focusing on identities, interests and discourses, it is
prescriptive and problem focused (Barkin 2010, pp. 125, 166). This realist
constructivism shows how power can be used relationally in the conduct of
policy and also that it acts as a constraint. Thus, relational power politics can
determine the foreign policy that constitutes the structure that then
constrains the operation of those relational power politics. Rather than
boxing them into a corner, identities may create unintended leeway for
states.
Taiwan’s state identity change represents a move from ethnic Chinese
nationalism to a pluralistic Taiwanese nationalism that exhibits aspects of
Chinese cultural and Taiwanese political identity. Loss of legitimacy made
Chinese nationalism flexible enough to metamorphose. Taipei could not
create a Republic of Taiwan in the early 1990s owing to systemic and
domestic constraints. Instead, Taipei followed a different path from that taken
in the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s: the state waited for national
identity to catch up and the balance of power gave it that space.
Huadu represents a form of legitimacy and political power, guaranteed
structurally through US power – a creative solution to Taiwan’s challenge to
Chinese identity. Huadu allowed the international system to incorporate this
challenge by providing somewhere international for the ROC to go, thus
relieving the PRC of a challenge to its own legitimacy. Huadu is implicitly
recognized by powerful Taiwanese DIGs who act on it and transfer it into
the national interest. More surprisingly perhaps, despite its formal stance,
Beijing also tacitly acknowledges huadu in its de facto diplomacy with Taipei.
As such, huadu impedes any attempt to use national identity to change the
status quo.
Constructivism provides a dialectic epistemology that aligns to classical
realism. Power is not just material and relative; it is ideational and relational
and contingent; shifts over time matter more than distribution. Hence,
changes in relative power generate perceptions and influence socialization.
The system, as well as China, constrains Taiwan’s choices and Taiwan cannot
sacrifice as much as China in the face of these constraints. Taiwan is rational,
purposeful and motivated but its cross-Strait policy is shaped by other non-
structural factors, including domestic politics, history, identity, culture,
ideology, norms and perceptions of legitimacy. These are co-constitutive of
structure and Taiwan must balance structure against them in its cross-Strait
policy decisions and it makes choices informed by vulnerability in the
context of uncertainty. Cross-Strait interdependence may help maintain
peace but does not prevent war; identity-driven policy responses to it shape
future economic relations and reinforce political foundations (Abdelal and
Kirschner 1999). By moving away from NCR, this framework shows how
the national interest is normatively, ideationally and domestically constructed
by political actors and that the cross-Strait discourse of ‘peace and prosperity’
aligns to Morgenthau’s claim that the national interest is the maintenance of
peace and that power has social purpose. Morality shapes Taiwan’s behaviour
in so far as it deploys norms instrumentally; neither Taiwan’s nor China’s
actions are good or bad (Carr 1946, pp. 65, 69). Prudence is ‘the supreme
virtue in politics’ (Morgenthau 1978, pp. 10–11). The ‘recognition of power
realities’ is ‘the gentle civilizer of national self-interest’ (Kennan 1951, pp.
47, 50).
References
Abdelal, Rawi and Jonathan Kirshner (1999) ‘Strategy, Economic Relations,
and the Definition of National Interests’. Security Studies 9: 119–56.
Andrade, Tonio (2008) How Taiwan Became Chinese: Dutch, Spanish, and Han
Colonization in the Seventeenth Century. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Baker, Paul, ed. (2012) Contemporary Corpus Linguistics. London: Continuum.
Barkin, J. Samuel (2010) Realist Constructivism: Rethinking International
Relations Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barnett, Michael (1996) ‘Identity and Alliances in the Middle East’, in Peter
Katzenstein, ed., The Culture of National Security. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Barnett, Michael and Raymond Duvall (2004) Power in Global Governance.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barrington, Lowell (1997) ‘“Nation” and “Nationalism”: The Misuse of Key
Concepts in Political Science’. Political Science and Politics 30: 713.
Bozdağlıoğlu, Yücel (2007) ‘Constructivism and Identity Formation: An
Interactive Approach’. Uluslararas› Hukuk ve Politika 3: 121.
Brooks, Stephen and William Wohlforth (2008) World out of Balance:
International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Brown, Melissa (2005) Is Taiwan Chinese? The Impact of Culture, Power and
Migration on Changing Identities. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Carr, Edward Hallett (1946) The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939. New
York: St Martin’s Press.
Chen, Dean (2017) US-China Rivalry and Taiwan’s Mainland Policy: Security,
Nationalism, and the 1992 Consensus. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Chen, Shui-Bian (2000) Taiwan Stands Up: Presidential Inauguration
Address, 20 May. Available at: http://china.usc.edu/chen-shui-bian-
%E2%80%9Ctaiwan-stands-presidential-inauguration-
address%E2%80%9D-may-20–2000
Chen, Shui-bian (2002) President Chen: ‘One country on each side’ Our
own Taiwanese road. Taiwan Communique, September. Available at:
www.taiwandc.org/twcom/tc102-int.pdf
China Daily (2019) Highlights of Xi’s speech at Taiwan message anniversary
event, 2 January. Available at:
www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201901/02/WS5c2c1ad2a310d91214052069_2
.html
Copeland, Dale (2000) ‘The Constructivist Challenge to Structural
Realism’. International Security 25: 187–212.
Corcuff, Stephane (2002) Memories of the Future: National Identity Issues and
the Search for a New Taiwan. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Dahl, Robert A. (1957) ‘The Concept of Power’. Behavioral Science 2: 202–
10.
Dittmer, Lowell, ed. (2017) Taiwan and China: Fitful Embrace. Oakland, CA:
University of California Press.
Doty, Roxanne Lynn (1999) ‘Sovereignty and the Nation: Constructing the
Boundaries of National Identity’, in Thomas Biersteker and Cynthia
Weber, eds., State Sovereignty as Social Construct. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
DPP (Democratic Progressive Party) (1999) Resolution on Taiwan’s Future,
8 May. Available at: www.taiwandc.org/nws-9920.htm
Edmonson, Robert (2002) ‘The February 28 Incident and National
Identity’, in Stephane Corcuff, ed., Memories of the Future: National Identity
Issues and the Search for a New Taiwan. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Election Study Center (2019) ‘Changes in the Taiwanese/Chinese Identity
of Taiwanese as Tracked by Surveys of the Election Study Center
(NCCU)’, National Chengchi University. Available at:
https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/course/news.php?Sn=166#
Gilpin, Robert (1981) War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Gold, Thomas (1986) State and Society in the Taiwan Miracle. Armonk, NY:
M.E. Sharpe.
Harrison, Mark (2016) Legitimacy, Meaning and Knowledge in the Making of
Taiwanese Identity. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Holzscheiter, Anna (2013) ‘Between Communicative Interaction and
Structures of Signification: Discourse Theory and Analysis in International
Relations’. International Studies Perspectives 15: 142–62.
Hopf, Ted (1997) ‘The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations
Theory’. International Security 23: 175.
Hughes, Christopher (1997) Taiwan and Chinese Nationalism: National Identity
and Status in International Society. Abingdon: Routledge.
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus (2010) The Conduct of Inquiry in International
Relations: Philosophy of Science and Its Implications for the Study of World
Politics. London: Routledge.
Jacobs, Bruce (2005) ‘“Taiwanization” in Taiwan’s Politics’, in Makeham and
Hsiau, eds., Cultural, Ethnic and Political Nationalism in Contemporary Taiwan:
Bentuhua. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
James, Patrick (2002) International Relations and Scientific Progress: Structural
Realism Reconsidered. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
Jiang, Yi-hua (2017) ‘Taiwan’s National Identity and Cross-Strait Relations’,
in Lowell Dittmer, ed., Taiwan and China: Fitful Embrace. Oakland, CA:
University of California Press.
Katzenstein, Peter J. (1996) ‘Introduction: Alternative Perspectives on
National Security’, in Katzenstein, ed., The Culture of National Security.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Keng, Shu and Emmy Ruihua Lin (2017) ‘Mingling but Not Merging:
Changes and Continuities in the Identity of Taiwanese in Mainland
China’, in Lowell Dittmer, ed., Taiwan and China: Fitful Embrace. Oakland,
CA: University of California Press.
Kennan, George (1951) American Diplomacy 1900–1950. New York: Mentor
Books.
Kirshner, Jonathan (2010) ‘The Tragedy of Offensive Realism: Classical
Realism and the Rise of China’. European Journal of International Relations
18: 53–75.
Krasner, Stephen (1978) Defending the National Interest. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Li, Yitan (2014) ‘Constructing Peace in the Taiwan Strait: A Constructivist
Analysis of the Changing Dynamics of Identities and Nationalisms’. Journal
of Contemporary China 23: 119–42.
Lin, Syaru Shirley (2016) Taiwan’s China Dilemma. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Lindemann, Björn Alexander (2014) Cross-Strait Relations and International
Organizations. Wiesbaden: Springer.
Lobell, Steven E., Norrin M. Ripsman and Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, eds. (2009)
Neoclassical Realism, The State and Foreign Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ma, Ying-jeou (2010) CNN Interview, 28 October. Available at:
http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1004/30/ampr.01.html
Mainland Affairs Council (2012) Opening Up and Guarding the Country
Benefits of the 16 Cross-Strait Agreements, Results of the Seven Rounds
of Chiang-Chen Talks. Available at:
www.mac.gov.tw/public/Data/2101911582271.pdf
Mainland Affairs Council (2015) Full text of ROC President Ma Ying-jeou’s
remarks in meeting with Mainland Chinese leader Xi Jinping, 7
November 7. Available at: www.mac.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=113323
Makeham, John and A-chin Hsiau, eds. (2005) Cultural, Ethnic and Political
Nationalism in Contemporary Taiwan: Bentuhua. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of China (Taiwan) (2017) People.
Available at: https://taiwan.gov.tw/content_2.php
Morgenthau, Hans J. (1978) Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and
Peace, 5th edn. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Narizny, Kevin (2017) ‘Paradigms and Domestic Politics: A Critique of the
Newest Realism’. International Security 42: 155–90.
New Taiwan: Ilha Formosa (1999) Interview of Taiwan President Lee Teng-
hui with Deutsche Welle Radio, 9 July. Available at:
www.taiwandc.org/nws-9926.htm
Onuf, Nicholas (2013) Making Sense, Making Worlds: Constructivism in Social
Theory and International Relations. Abingdon: Routledge.
Peng, Ming-min, Hsieh Tsung-min and Wei Ting-chao (1964) Declaration of
Formosan Self-Salvation, 20 September. Available at: www.hi-
on.org.tw/ad/peng_0707_z05.html
Presbyterian Church in Taiwan (1971) Statement on our National Fate, 29
December. Available at:
http://english.pct.org.tw/enArticle_public_main.htm
Reus-Smit, Christian (2005) ‘Constructivism’, in Scot Burchill, ed., Theories
of International Relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Ripsman, Norrin M., Jeffrey W. Taliaferro and Steven Lobell, eds. (2016)
Neoclassical Realist Theory of International Politics. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Rose, Gideon (1998) ‘Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy’.
World Politics 51: 144–72.
Sterling-Folker, Jennifer (2009) ‘Neoclassical Realism and Identity: Peril
Despite Profit Across the Taiwan Strait;, in Lobell, Ripsman and Taliaferro,
eds., Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign Policy. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Su, Chi (2009) Taiwan’s Relations with Mainland China: A Tail Wagging Two
Dogs. Abingdon: Routledge.
Taiwan Documents Project (1972) Joint Communique of the United States
of America and the People’s Republic of China, 28 February. Available at:
www.taiwandocuments.org/communique01.htm
Taiwan Today (2019) ‘President Tsai affirms Taiwan will not accept “one
country, two systems”’, 3 January. Available at:
https://taiwantoday.tw/news.php?unit=2,6,10,15,18&post=148108
Taiwan Review (1981) The Kuomintang’s 12th National Congress, 1 April.
Available at: https://taiwantoday.tw/news.php?
unit=4,29,31,45&post=4857
Tsay, Ting-kuei (2016) Facebook, 23 February. Available at:
www.facebook.com/tingkuei.tsay/posts/967539406664616
United Nations (1971) General Assembly Resolution 2758 (XXVI):
Restoration of the Lawful Rights of the People’s Republic of China in the
United Nations, 25 October. Available at:
https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/2758(XXVI)
Walt, Stephen (1985) ‘Alliance Formation and the Balance of World Power’.
International Security 9: 3–43.
Waltz, Kenneth (1979) Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Wendt, Alexander (1992) ‘Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social
Construction of Power Politics’. International Organization 46: 391–425.
Wendt, Alexander (1994) ‘Collective Identity Formation and the
International State’. American Political Science Review 88: 385.
Wendt, Alexander (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Widdowson, Henry (2004) Text, Context, Pretext. London: Blackwell.
Wodak, Ruth and Michael Meyer (2009) Methods for Critical Discourse
Analysis. London: Sage.
Wu, Joseph (2016) ‘Assessing the Outcomes and Implications of Taiwan’s
January 2016 Elections with Joseph Wu’. Center for Strategic and
International Studies, 18 January. Available at:
www.csis.org/events/assessing-outcomes-and-implications-taiwans-
january-2016-elections-joseph-wu
Wu, Yu-shan (2005) ‘Taiwan’s Domestic Politics and Cross-Strait Relations’.
The China Journal 53: 35–60.
Yeh, Chieh-ting (2016) ‘“Taiwan Independence” Doesn’t Mean What You
Think’. Foreign Policy, 11 April. Available at:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/11/taiwan-independence- china-
republic-huadu-taidu/
5
Definitions
Realist constructivism as used here aims to understand how norms emerge
out of a particular power relationship and how new norms change existing
power structures. It emphasizes the role of agency in explaining normative
change (Barkin 2010). It allows analysis not only of the impact of the nuclear
deal on the regime, but also of how other factors have influenced the
changes by tracing the process of meaning construction of this norm. Realist
constructivism’s assumption that powerful agents can generate a change but
at the same are constrained by normative structure broadens our
understanding and explains why the United States modified the non-
proliferation regime to conclude the India–US nuclear agreement and
presented these changes as India-specific to discourage other states from
following this precedent. Since the announcement of the deal in 2005, the
United States has tried to keep these changes India-specific. Realist
constructivism helps to explain the subsequent developments in the nuclear
non-proliferation regime and the extent to which the United States is able to
present these changes as India-specific.
Realist constructivism emphasizes that power and norms are best
understood as mutually constitutive. Samuel Barkin argues:
Agents resist or advocate norms and by doing so they not only give norms
varied meanings, but also try to link or separate various norms in a broader
normative structure. This shows that power is essential in the processes of
social construction, highlighting why powerful agents are in a privileged
position. Power, however, does not determine that everything is possible;
rather powerful agents have to take into account the existing power relations
and normative structure. These constraints force powerful agents to interpret
norms, to justify violations or exemptions, in a way that is socially
acceptable.
Power disparities do matter and influence the meaning construction of a
norm. Powerful states usually dominate the discursive structure and are more
influential in this process of social construction and meaning interpretation
of a norm. Ignoring the role of power leads to oversight of argumentation
processes in which powerful states are in a dominant position to make their
case. Powerful states interpret norms and frame issues in such a way that
empowers their arguments at the expense of others. Discourses are
developed to serve one’s interest and not others, endorsing a certain meaning
and discrediting others. Therefore, it is important to analyze dominating
discourses and how their meanings are structured for later practices to make
them legitimate. However, even dominating discourses do not work on their
own; they have to be articulated and rearticulated to keep them relevant and
legitimate (Milliken 1999, p. 229).
It is important to take into account how power disparities affect norm
contestation. Powerful states interpret and reinterpret norms to justify their
self-interested behaviour and have vast material resources for strategic
construction of social acceptance. They are in a privileged position to
propagate their interpretation and forum shopping in search of an institution
in support of their position. The realist constructivism approach explores the
interaction of norms and power in the sense that they affect change in one
another. In norm contestation the power of an interpreter matters and
significantly affects the pattern of normative change.
Power is the ability to frame strategic actions in a legitimate manner.
International regimes not only provide effective forums to achieve states’
strategic interests in an acceptable way, but also serve to constrain naked use
of force or the taking of arbitrary actions. The realist constructivism
approach emphasizes the role of legitimacy in strategic actions. The process
of legitimation in norms’ construction involves power relations, the
normative context and the need for broad consensus (Clark 2005, p. 4).
When states violate norms, they try to justify their breach by linking that
behaviour in compliance with some other accepted standards of conduct
rather than publically accepting their contravention (Wheeler 2000, pp. 9,
24). In so doing, they seek to reconstruct and reinterpret the norms in ways
that will serve their self-interests, but they need to build a broad consensus
(Hurd 2007, p. 196). When states reinterpret norms, in response other states
evaluate the fit of these claims to the established normative structure
according to their own interests and assess how legitimate these claims are.
The audience either will approve the reinterpretation of rule adherence or
penalize violation. Powerful states persuade a majority of states to accept
their position to make the reinterpretation of a norm tolerable within the
institutional environment (Hurd 2007, p. 197). Legitimation of a normative
order hence requires a broad consensus and this acts as a restraint on
powerful states. The process of legitimacy is not something that operates by
itself, rather it is a soft power and requires constant work of taking into
account existing power relations, normative context and institutional
structure. These constraints prevent powerful states from taking arrogant and
unilateral actions (Hurd 2002, p. 47).
International legitimation processes demonstrate state practice and its
impact on international norms because agents and structure influence each
other. Consequently, although powerful states are in a position to influence
norms disproportionately as compared to weaker states, they must do this
within the normative structure. In each legitimation process, a broad
consensus has to be developed among all stakeholders on how norms are to
be interpreted and applied (Clark 2005, p. 201). Due to this constraint
powerful states cannot change norms repeatedly. There is a limit to using the
existing normative structure to interpret and reinterpret norms. Moreover,
once a state has interpreted a norm and developed a broad consensus then it
may constrain that state’s future deviation from that shared norm (Wheeler
2000, pp. 25, 26). In this way, norms are both constraining and enabling of
state power.
Power is also an ability of powerful states to use discourses for their self-
interest. They convince other states of the rightness of their interpretation of
norms and shape international opinion in their favour. But powerful states
must link their subjective interpretation to existing intersubjective normative
structures. Powerful states cannot change the norms unilaterally but they
must construct an intersubjective consensus among relevant states to gain
legitimacy for their practice. Therefore, the powerful states participate in
language games to develop the required intersubjectivity. Norms do not exist
in a vacuum but are contested in a given institutional context. The most
effective way to promote one’s preferred interpretation is to demonstrate
coherence between a new interpretation and existing collective standards of
appropriate behaviour. Hence, states must convince others that their
interpretation is reasonable. The presence of a gap between subjectivity and
intersubjectivity of norms opens up opportunities for different
interpretations. It is on the basis of the resulting intersubjective
understanding that norms are produced and reproduced.
This social construction of norms gives powerful states a privileged
position to shape normative structure. They have power to intervene at
critical moments to shape a new norm or reinterpret an established norm.
They also shape understanding of how a norm is to be implemented and
whose practice is to count within a normative structure. Thus, it is
important to understand the choice of arguments as part of a strategic social
construction: in the case of the India–US nuclear deal the aim is to gain a
degree of legitimacy, but to avoid precedents that would damage the non-
proliferation regime.
Methodology
Applying a realist constructivist approach to the non-proliferation and
disarmament norms requires that power disparities, normative structure, elite
perceptions, and intersubjective dominant discourses be taken into account.
These factors provide a comprehensive framework to analyze norm changes
and evolution within a regime through contestation. The fundamental
norms in the nuclear non-proliferation regime are influenced and shaped by
power structure, normative factors, domestic culture and elite perceptions.
The proliferation and disarmament norms are influenced by power
disparities in which powerful states exert decisive influence in the meaning
construction and interpretation of these norms. The United States has always
remained the most influential actor in the regime. The United States and the
group of guardians it leads mostly initiate only those norms that are
consistent with its strategic interests, and ensure its sway. The non-
proliferation norms first evolved from the principles espoused by the Atoms-
for-Peace plan and subsequently were debated during the NPT negotiations.
Though the NPT was not a consensual affair many states subsequently
joined despite reservations about its bargain in the belief that it was the most
reasonable way to avoid a nuclear conflagration. Therefore, the regime is an
unfair bargain shaped by the interests of the powerful states.
The United States spent decades requiring the NPT NNWSs to place
their entire nuclear programmes under permanent FSS through material
incentives and normative arguments. Most countries have allowed intrusive
inspections into their nuclear programmes because they stand to gain in two
respects. First, by opening up these programmes, countries obtain access to
external suppliers of nuclear fuel, reactors and other essential technologies.
The NSG has agreed to condition sales of nuclear fuel and technologies on
NNWSs’ acceptance of FSS on their nuclear programmes. Second, as part of
this bargain, countries under safeguards help assure their neighbours that
they are not making nuclear weapons.
After the beginning of the nuclear age, marked by the power
demonstration of nuclear weapons’ destruction capacity during the Second
World War, the international community realized that a spread of nuclear
weapons would pose a major threat to international security. The normative
structure is based on the belief that proliferation increases the likelihood of
war and a peaceful use of nuclear technologies is compatible with the aim of
non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The NPT has provided the normative
basis underpinning the regime: this is an explicit recognition by the
international community that it is undesirable that additional states should
acquire these weapons and an implicit acknowledgement that it is
undesirable that any state should possess them. This normative basis is also a
source of considerable contestation among NPT parties and of criticism by
states which still refuse to adhere to it. This is because the treaty distinguishes
between NWSs and NNWSs. While the former are only required to
negotiate ‘in good faith’ on measures of nuclear disarmament, the latter are
forbidden to possess nuclear weapons. States still criticize the perceived
discrimination inherent in this distinction.
The non-NPT states never signed the NPT and remained under
sanctions due to their refusal to accept the FSS. US policy towards India
focused nearly entirely on nuclear weapons concerns, with Washington and
New Delhi on opposite sides of the issue. The Bush Administration viewed
India as a strategic partner and offered it a nuclear deal to counter a rising
China. The United States also had economic interests in capturing the
potentially huge Indian nuclear market. Both the Indian government and the
Bush Administration had to build consensus at domestic level in order to
negotiate and sign this deal. The Indian government had to assuage the
concerns that the deal would in any way restrain the nuclear weapons
programme. The Bush Administration, on the other hand, had to convince
Congress that the deal would not weaken the nuclear non-proliferation
regime and would not help India in boosting its nuclear weapons
programme. Domestic politics substantially impeded – and may have entirely
prevented – US nuclear accommodation with India; when domestic
obstacles were overcome, US–India negotiations advanced; and even after
negotiations advanced, domestic factors placed conditions on and affected
the scope of the deal. In the end, US–India negotiations only advanced
when the conditions of nuclear cooperation satisfied key domestic
constituents in both countries in order to conclude a historic and politically
contentious nuclear deal.
Building a dominant intersubjective discourse at the international level
was an uphill task for the United States because the deal was against the
existing shared understanding of acceptable forms of behaviour. The United
States had to build a normative fit in order to get consensus at the NSG. The
deal was presented as an energy agreement and an essential step in order to
help India to meet its energy requirements. It was argued that the deal would
decrease New Delhi’s reliance on fossil fuel and would minimize
environmental damage. India’s non-proliferation credentials were highlighted
and the consensus was built by arguing that the deal would not damage the
NPT. The deal was presented as India-specific and it was argued that the
NPT does not prohibit civilian nuclear cooperation with non-NPT states.
The United States convinced the NSG member states that the deal would
not contribute to the Indian nuclear weapons programme and the non-
proliferation commitments would increase New Delhi’s stakes in the regime.
At the end, the United States had to threaten a few member states that
blocking the consensus would have implications for its relations with those
states. Therefore, the India-specific NSG waiver was obtained through
normative arguments and material threats.
Now the United States is trying to limit the damage to the regime by
keeping the deal and its attendant developments as India-specific. Looking at
power structure, normative factors, domestic politics of other non-NPT
states and reservations of the NNWSs at domestic and international level
would help to determine the implications of the deal for the fundamental
non-proliferation and disarmament norms.
It is important to take into account material, normative and cultural
factors in analyzing the process by which norms are affected and changed.
An analysis of the narrative of the contestation in building a dominant
discourse helps to determine the implication of the norm contestation for
the regime. The India–US nuclear deal met with considerable resistance at
the normative level. The United States promoted the deal and was able to
override resistance through normative arguments by presenting it as an
energy deal and through material factors by making it a top priority and
investing considerable diplomatic efforts. The United States is keeping the
deal India-specific by arguing that India was a special case and the other
three non-NPT states do not qualify for this special treatment. Norm
contestation theory in combination with realist constructivism provides a
framework to analyze the extent to which the United States has been
successful in keeping the deal India-specific.
This chapter analyzes the creation and content of the Indo–US Nuclear
Deal (India, Ministry of External Affairs 2007), the Hyde Act (US
Government 2006), the NSG waiver for India (Nuclear Suppliers Groups
2008), the IAEA-India Safeguards Agreement (IAEA 2008), the NPT review
conferences (2010, 2015), NSG meetings, and the Indo–US Reprocessing
Agreement (India 2010), among other documents (eg official statements,
testimony and press releases). I also conducted 31 interviews with US
policymakers who were involved in the India–US deal negotiations, and
with the non-proliferation community during my three-month research
fellowship at the Stimson Center in Washington, DC in the summer of
2015. Apart from these primary sources, this study will also rely on
secondary sources in which nuclear non-proliferation experts and academics
argue either in favour or against the deal.
Italy along with France was also supporting the idea of lifting sanctions on
India. ‘Seeing France and Italy breaking ranks, the United Kingdom and
Germany showed signs of being tempted to step up the pace of restoring to
normal their own relations with India’ (Talbot 2004, p. 143).
Russia and India have enjoyed strong strategic, military and economic
relations since the Cold War, and Russia has always been in favour of lifting
sanctions against India. In May 2000 Mikhail Ryzhov, a Russian Atomic
Energy Ministry official, argued in favour of the recognition of the nuclear
status of India and Pakistan and reasoned that both countries have nuclear
weapons and could no longer be expected to sign the NPT as NNWSs. He
called this situation ‘unnatural’ and needing to be addressed in such a way
that ‘it does not promote and encourage further proliferation of nuclear
weapons in the world’ (The Hindu 2000). Russia, France, Germany, the
United Kingdom and Italy knew that, without US help, it would not be
possible to lift these sanctions against India and had been proposing this idea
but this proposition was dismissed outright by the Clinton Administration,
which refused to compromise its non-proliferation agenda.
The Bush Administration discarded the Clinton Administration’s
approach and adopted a flexible strategy to bring India closer to the non-
proliferation regime without its being a signatory to the NPT. Secretary of
State Rice concluded that progress towards an across-the-board strategic
partnership would require decisively resolving the issue of India’s relationship
to the non-proliferation regime (Zelikow 2015). During her visit to New
Delhi in March 2005, she indirectly noted to Indian officials the possibility
of civilian nuclear cooperation to mitigate New Delhi’s reaction to the US
decision to sell F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan (Mistry 2006, p. 682). The thaw
in Indo–US relations led to the unprecedented nuclear deal when Indian
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President George W. Bush signed
a joint statement on 18 July 2005. This joint statement was the framework of
the Indo–US nuclear deal, under which India agreed to undertake several
obligations to strengthen its commitment to the nuclear non-proliferation
regime and, in exchange, the United States agreed to civil nuclear
cooperation (Mohan 2005).
India agreed to separate its military and civilian nuclear facilities, placing
the latter under IAEA safeguards; this required an India-specific safeguards
agreement with the IAEA. This provision is against the FSS norm but is
consistent with the item-specific safeguards norm which was applicable
before the NSG and the NPT adopted comprehensive safeguards in the early
1990s. This is also consistent with the NWSs’ practice of separating military
and civilian nuclear facilities and accepting voluntary safeguards on the latter.
India also agreed to sign the IAEA Additional Protocol, which is consistent
with the United States’ effort to make this measure universal.
India committed to refraining from transferring enrichment and
reprocessing (ENR) technology to states that do not have it. This
commitment is consistent with the ENR technology ban norm, but there is
a difference of opinion as to whether India should be getting this technology.
India’s interpretation of the ‘full civil nuclear cooperation’ includes the
transfer of such technology while the US interpretation does not allow New
Delhi to access this technology.
For its part, the United States had to change its domestic law to
accommodate a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with India. This
touched on the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), which governs US nuclear
cooperation with other countries, and its section 123, which requires FSS.
On 18 December 2006 President Bush signed the Hyde Act into law to
provide a waiver for India from the relevant provisions of the AEA (White
House 2005).
The zeal with which the deal has been driven forward in India and the
United States has been met with a matched response of opposition, criticism
and suspicion. The deal generated a controversy with diverse opinions not
only within India and the United States. The non-proliferation community
in general also argued against the deal. The supporters called the deal a net
gain for the non-proliferation regime by pointing to India’s commitments to
the regime as a result of it, while the opponents pointed to the flaws in the
deal, which they argue would undermine the regime. The problems
highlighted by the opponents of the deal explain why the United States
presented the deal as India-specific and discouraged other states from
following this precedent.
Ashley Tellis contends that ‘[o]ne of the issue that we have to deal with in
2005 was whether we provide this exceptionalism to all three parties that is
India Pakistan and Israel or only to India alone and the decision for various
reasons was made only offer to India alone’ (Tellis 2015). Similarly,
Ambassador Richard Boucher argues that ‘[t]here was a concern [in the
Bush Administration] that [the deal] might open doors for other states to
develop nuclear weapons and get them accepted later or set a precedent …
this is the reason we made it very clear that this deal is only for India’
(Boucher 2015).
On 6 September 2008, the NSG agreed on an India-specific exemption
to its nuclear export guidelines after complex negotiations. The exception
initiated by the Bush Administration and strongly backed by France, Russia
and the United Kingdom, was a remarkable development in the non-
proliferation regime, reversing the NSG policy requiring FSS as a condition
of export, which was adopted in 1992. India is now the only country with
nuclear weapons which is allowed to engage in nuclear trade with the rest of
the world, enjoying the benefits of nuclear trade reserved for NPT states
without being required to sign the treaty. Many countries, such as New
Zealand, Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Norway, criticized the
exemption as lacking any conditions and proposed amendments to its various
drafts in view of their non-proliferation concerns. Their proposed
amendments included clauses concerning a ban on the transfer of ENR
technologies to India, termination of the waiver if India detonated a nuclear
weapon, and a ‘review’ mechanism to assess India’s compliance with non-
proliferation commitments. India’s insistence on a ‘clean and unconditional’
waiver, due to domestic opposition, made negotiations complicated, and the
United States had to redraft the proposal draft three times in order to meet
the some of the objections and reservations.
The NSG exempted India from its nuclear export guidelines, which
require FSS, after complicated negotiations. The NSG waiver was essential
for the completion of the Indo–US Nuclear Agreement, announced in July
2005. The requirement of consensus for the NSG decision made it difficult
for the United States and India to bring all the members on board −
especially the ‘like-minded’ states, which have strong non-proliferation
commitments.
Anish Goel, the former US State Department official, recalls the strategy
of the US negotiations:
Conclusion
The realist constructivism approach can explain the importance of particular
agents in generating change in patterns of international politics. It can also
look at structural constraints on agency and mechanisms through which
agency might generate change. It has the following four benefits for norm
studies: first, it can explain normative change by focusing on the interplay of
structure and agency. Second, this approach gives more space to agency and
can analyze how agents handle opportunities and constraints created by
structures to produce change or maintain the status quo. In this way this
approach can explain the importance of specific agents in generating change
in patterns of international regimes. Third, this approach takes power as
relative and relational. Fourth, by taking domestic factors into account, this
approach highlights the neglected relationship between culture and agent.
Interrelated beliefs and ideas have an influence over actors and in order to
understand agency it is important to understand the context of these beliefs
and ideas and the placement of actors within the social structure and the
material resources they can bring to bear on each other.
It is in a better position than other forms of constructivism to account for
changes and stability in international regimes by looking at power structure,
normative factors, domestic culture and elite perception. Constructivists can
hardly use the logic of appropriateness independently from power
considerations to explain why in a certain situation, a state or any other
international actor occupies a particular role or acts according to a particular
norm and not others that may have competing or even contradictory
imperatives. According to the logic of appropriateness the United States
should not have offered this deal to India and realism cannot explain why the
United States went to such pains to legitimize this deal through international
institutions rather than simply ignoring this normative structure.
The contestation over the non-proliferation and disarmament norms
demonstrates that state interests and norms affect each other. More powerful
states are able to interpret norms according to their own state interests but
their actions are not unilateral: rather they have to construct a mutual
understanding with others through the normative structure. Powerful states
have more leverage to develop that understanding and can provide more
positive and negative incentives to other states to obtain their preferred
interpretation. In this process, however, they have to accommodate the
interests of other states and this in turn brings changes in the norms they are
attempting to advance. Power affects the evolution of norms and norms
affect the power structure.
A realist constructivist approach provides a power-sensitive approach in
taking into account material factors, normative structure, domestic factors
and elite perceptions of national interests. State interests are social
constructions that are open to redefinition. State elites define national
interests through constructing mutual understanding at domestic level.
Domestic structure and culture influence the bargaining process and the way
these perceived national interests can be achieved.
The Bush Administration perceived India as a strategic partner and
decided to lift nuclear sanctions against New Delhi to build that partnership
on a solid basis. This was against the ‘shared understanding’ of US domestic
law and the non-proliferation regime. The Bush Administration had to make
a normative fit and presented this deal as being in compliance with the other
accepted norms of the regime. That is why Washington highlighted the
energy and environmental aspect of the deal and downplayed the strategic
aspect.
The realist constructivism approach suggests that norms provide
legitimacy and it is important to seek legitimacy and moral justification in
power politics. An ideological mask for strategic interests can serve the
purpose of legitimacy and acceptability at the international level. In order to
seek this legitimacy the Bush Administration had to modify its domestic law
by convincing the US Congress to approve the deal at domestic level, and at
international level it had to invest huge political and diplomatic efforts to get
a consensus decision at the NSG.
Power influences the norm contestation process via the key role played by
states to develop, maintain or change norms. State practice is crucial to
implement norms and that helps to uphold a fixed meaning of a norm or
construct a new interpretation. Powerful states disproportionately influence
norm interpretation but the existing normative structure and peer approval
impose restraints upon the unhindered exercise of power. When states
violate a norm or deviate from the accepted standard of behaviour they try
to justify that deviation by drawing upon legal, moral or political arguments.
The discourses are used carefully to defend the deviation and to win the
support of relevant states. Now it depends on the reaction of other states
whether they accept the presented arguments with explicit support or reject
them through outright condemnation.
Powerful states have resources at their disposal to popularize their norm
interpretation on the level of discourses. They possess discursive power.
Through discourses they try to shape the values, perceptions, preferences and
consequently the behaviour of other actors. This is how power is diffused
and embodied in discourses and produces ‘regimes of truth’ (Foucault 1991).
This contributes to the stabilization of existing structures of inequality.
Powerful states have plenty of resources to appeal to the incentive structure
of weaker states. By providing incentives they can acquire the required
consent from weaker states. Sometimes they also rely on threats to deter
opposition from the relevant states. Consequently, powerful states
significantly shape the incentives and disincentives for other states to
acquiesce in their norm interpretation, and their resources provide them
with a variety of options which can be used to induce consent and deter
opposition.
Norms are not opposites to power but rather a vehicle through which
states can achieve their self-interest through legitimate means. While
powerful states possess discursive power, this power is by no means
unlimited. They must construct a tolerable consensus among their peers to
achieve acceptance for their preferred interpretation. The efforts to create
this broad consensus put certain constraints on their unlimited use of power.
The United States was in a position to engage in extensive diplomacy to
build consensus for the deal. The Bush Administration had extensive
consultations with major countries to get support for the deal. At the NSG
the United States was also in a position to shape the context in which like-
minded states assessed that blocking the consensus at the cost of their
relations with Washington is not in their interest.
Powerful states promote norms collectively that serve their interests. They
not only coordinate the efforts of this promotion among themselves, but also
pressurize their subordinate states within their areas of influence and alliance
system by exploiting their unequal power with them. When major powers
have a collective interest in promoting a norm then it is possible to change a
heavily institutionalized norm. Defenders of the heavily institutionalized
norm have certain strategic and tactical advantages in defending the
entrenched normative structure. Institutional designs and voting systems also
empower states in different ways. For example, a two thirds majority voting
system empowers major states and it is convenient for them to attain their
objectives. On the other hand, consensus voting favours smaller states by
giving them veto power. It was easier for the United States to get approval
for the India–IAEA safeguards agreement by means of the two thirds
majority rule than getting a consensus decision at the NSG. Due to this
consensus rule the United States had to accommodate the concerns of the
like-minded states, though these accommodations had little impact on the
final draft. In the end, Washington threatened these states that their decision
to blockade the consensus would negatively impact their relations with the
United States. The level of resistance, despite India’s arguably good non-
proliferation record, rules out the possibility for similar deals for other non-
NPT states and this deal is likely to remain India-specific for the foreseeable
future.
International regimes provide a useful forum where states seek legitimacy
and in this way regimes are effective tools to achieve national interests.
Powerful states effectively use international regimes for their interests but
regimes also constrain the great powers’ capacity for excessive use of force.
In order to develop and maintain legitimacy, regimes need to be seen to
possess a certain degree of independence. Powerful states strive to keep a
balance in providing regimes with sufficient independence on the one hand,
and retaining a control of regimes for their self-interests on the other hand.
The exercise of power is about shaping a context in which actors redefine
their preferences and interests. International regimes provide a context in
which powerful actors frame issues in a normative structure and through
persuasion and coercion seek to develop consensus in the legitimation
process. Realist constructivism provides a power-sensitive approach to norm
contestation theory in which powerful states are in a better position to shape
and reshape international norms through intersubjective standards of
appropriate behaviour. This approach is beneficial in norm contestation
theory to assess normative change and stability by taking into account
domestic factors, the interplay of structure and agency, and power as relative
and relational, and giving more space to agency and how agents can handle
opportunities and constraints.
The United States framed the deal through an acceptable normative
structure and reshaped the norms to bring India closer to the regime.
Despite the collective interest of all major powers in lifting nuclear sanctions
against India, it was not easy for the United States to build that consensus
and it had to invest considerable political and diplomatic effort. Washington
presented the changes as India-specific and similar waivers for other non-
NPT states are unlikely.
References
Barkin, J. Samuel (2003) ‘Realist Constructivism’. International Studies Review
5: 325–42.
Barkin, J. Samuel (2010) Realist Constructivism: Rethinking International
Relations Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boucher, Richard (2015) Interview with author, Washington, DC, 26
August.
Burns, Nicholas (2007) ‘America’s Strategic Opportunity with India’. Foreign
Affairs 86: 131–46.
Burns, Nicholas (2015) Interview with author, Washington, DC, 22 June.
Chellaney, Brahma (2000) ‘The Clinton Visit: Hype and Reality’. Rediff.com,
28 March.
Clark, Ian (2005) Legitimacy in International Society. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Einhorn, Robert (2005) Witness for ‘The U.S.-India Nuclear Deal’, US
House International Relations Committee, Washington, DC, 26 October.
Foucault, Michel (1991) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of a Prison. London:
Penguin
Gallucci, Robert (2006) Testimony of Robert Gallucci (Dean of the
Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University)
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, DC, 26
April.
Goel, Anish (2015) Interview with author, Washington, DC, 30 June.
The Hindu (2000) ‘Legalize India’s N-Status, Says Russia’. The Hindu, 31
May.
Hurd, Ian (2002) ‘Legitimacy, Power and the Symbolic Life of the UN
Security Council’. Global Governance 8: 35–51.
Hurd, Ian (2007) ‘Breaking and Making Norms: American Revisionism and
Crises of Legitimacy’. International Politics 44: 194–213.
IAEA (2008) Agreement between the Government of India and the
International Atomic Energy Agency for the Application of Safeguards to
Civilian Nuclear Facilities. International Atomic Energy Agency
INFCIRC/754/Add.2, 9 July. Available at: www.iaea.org
India, Ministry of External Affairs (2007) Text of the Indo–US Nuclear
Agreement. Available at: https://mea.gov.in/press-releases.htm?
dtl/2529/fact+sheet+on+the+india+us+civil+nuclear+energy+cooperatio
nconclusion+of+the+123+agreement
India, Department of Atomic Energy (2010) India–US Civilian Nuclear
Cooperation-Reprocessing Agreement. Available at: www.dae.gov.in/
Kimball, Daryl (2006) Witness for ‘Legislative Options for Congress
Regarding the Proposal for Full U.S.-Indian Nuclear Cooperation’, US
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, DC, 11 May.
Mathai, Manu V. (2013) Nuclear Power, Economic Development Discourse and the
Environment: The Case of India. New York: Routledge.
Milliken, Jennifer (1999) ‘The Study of Discourses in International
Relations: A Critique of Research and Methods’. European Journal of
International Relations 5: 225–54.
Mistry, Dinshaw (2006) ‘Diplomacy, Domestic Politics and the U.S.-India
Nuclear Agreement’. Asian Survey 46: 675–98.
Mohan, Raja (2005) ‘Singh, Bush, Press Civilian Nuclear Button’. The
Indian Express, 19 July.
Muppidi, Himadeep (2004) ‘Colonial and Postcolonial Global Governance’,
in Michael Barnett and Robert Duvall, eds., Power in Global Governance.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
NPT Review Conference (2010) ‘2010 Review Conference of the Parties to
the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)’, 3–28
May. Available at: www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2010/
NPT Review Conference (2015) ‘2015 Review Conference of the Parties to
the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)’, 27
April–22 May. Available at: www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2015/
Nuclear Suppliers Group (2008) Text of US NSG Proposal on India, 13
August. Available at: https://carnegieendowment.org/2008/08/13/text-
of-u.s.-nsg-proposal-on-india-pub-20388
Singh, Vikram (2015) Interview with author, Washington, DC, 15 July.
Talbott, Strobe (2004) Engaging India: Diplomacy, Democracy and the Bomb.
Delhi/Washington: Viking/Brookings.
Tellis, Ashley (2006) Testimony for U.S.-India Atomic Energy Cooperation:
Strategic and Nonproliferation Implications, Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, Washington, DC, 26 April.
Tellis, Ashley (2015) Interview with author, Washington, DC, 21 July.
US Government Printing Office (2006) Text of the Hyde Act. Available at:
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-109hr5682enr/pdf/BILLS-
109hr5682enr.pdf
Victor, David J. (2006) ‘Nuclear Power for India is Good for Us All’.
International Herald Tribune, 16 March.
Warren, Christopher, David A. Hamburg and William J. Perry (1999)
Preventive Diplomacy and Preventive Defense in South Asia: The US Role. New
York: Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict.
Wheeler, Nicholas (2000) Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in
International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
White House (2005) Joint Statement between George W. Bush and Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh, White House Press Release, Washington, DC,
18 July. Available at: https://2001-
2009.state.gov/p/sca/rls/pr/2005/49763.htm
Zelikow, Philip (2015) Interview with author, Washington, DC, 10 July.
6
Introduction
In the mid 1990s, the United States crafted a policy of engagement that
sought to enmesh a rising China in webs of international organizations or
regimes built upon liberal norms or rules.
Debate has since centred upon whether US efforts at engagement can
steer China onto a peaceful path. If not, why? (Bernstein and Munro 1997;
Friedberg 2000; Mearsheimer 2001, p. 402). If so, can engagement work
absent material rewards offered for Chinese cooperation or economic
sanctions levelled against Chinese obstructionism? If so, how? In other
words, through what mechanisms might engagement exert normative
influence on Beijing?
In the study of US policy towards China, a group of ‘optimistic
constructivists’, as Friedberg terms them, believes that US engagement
initiatives can manage Beijing by socializing it into accepting liberal
expectations about appropriate behaviour (Friedberg 2005). Unlike
neoliberal institutionalists and interdependence theorists, both of whom see
engagement in terms of its potential to alter the material benefits and costs of
Chinese compliance or non-compliance (eg Nye 1995; Ikenberry 2008a;
Ikenberry 2008b; Deudney and Ikenberry 2009), optimistic constructivists
maintain that engagement operates as a communicative device that softens
‘Chinese strategic culture’ (on Chinese strategic culture see Johnston 1995).
‘Communicative engagement’, as Lynch terms it, refers to ‘a dialogical
process of exchanging reasons … which does not rest upon coercion or
manipulation’ (Lynch 2002, p. 204, emphasis added). In the eyes of optimistic
constructivists, Washington persuades Beijing of the legitimacy of
internationally held norms, and Beijing in response enters into open-minded
deliberation by distinguishing good arguments from poor ones in order to
find truth claims. Eventually, Washington will likely shape Chinese interests
in line with the liberal world order. As Economy and Oksenberg (1999, p.
18) put it, ‘when intensive, high-level, strategic dialogue with China’s leaders
was conducted … progress was made in shaping Chinese thinking’. Over
time, engagement will likely transform China into a ‘social state’, as Johnston
(2008) suggests.
This chapter speaks to such a liberal-constructivist analysis of
engagement. I argue that the normative mechanism through which
engagement influences Beijing is not socialization, communication or
persuasion (which I use interchangeably). Building on recent scholarship that
presents methodological critiques of liberal-constructivist approaches, I argue
that engagement works through a realist constructivist mechanism that
several scholars call ‘rhetorical coercion’ or ‘rhetorical entrapment’ (eg
Schimmelfennig 2003; Krebs and Jackson 2007; Krebs and Lobasz 2007;
Goddard 2008–9). In the presence of antisocial behaviour on Beijing’s part,
the United States and other members of international institutions do not just
condemn Beijing’s violation of international consensus; they also set
‘rhetorical traps’ by framing Chinese non-compliance as inconsistent with
Beijing’s self-identification as a ‘responsible major power’. By appealing to
the commitments to which Beijing has agreed in public, America and its
allies lock Chinese leaders into their own words, leaving them unable to
continue with policies contrary to the ‘peaceful rise’ or ‘peaceful
development’ discourses they have proposed before international audiences.
The US–Chinese case illustrates a realist constructivism by showing what
may be called ‘coercive engagement’. While I agree with optimistic
constructivists (also referred to as liberal constructivists) that bringing China
into ‘international society’ is a better policy than isolating it, I refrain from
viewing engagement as communicative or socializing. While Crawford and
Klotz (1999; see also Klotz 1995) see sanctions as an instrument of
socialization rather than coercion, I argue that engagement exercises coercive
power (in the form of rhetoric) vis-à-vis the ‘engagee’. By integrating
Beijing into multilateral institutions, the United States increases the audience
costs of Chinese hypocrisy when the international public exposes the
inconsistency between what Beijing has promised and what it is currently
doing. Once engagement connects China with the outside world, the
United States and like-minded states will have a better chance of talking
Beijing into a corner and undermining its antisocial urges. If ‘soft power isn’t
so soft’ (Bially Mattern 2005), the same holds true for engagement.
Although engagement differs from sanctions, it is not without coercive
elements. Engagement and entrapment, I suggest, are two sides of the same
coin.
In this chapter I first define realism and constructivism, as they are used
here, in terms of power politics and the social construction of international
politics, respectively. I then discuss my methodology and provide empirical
evidence. While the American policy of engaging China covers several
issues, including human rights, security, trade, arms control, and so on, I
focus on the engagement/entrapment process that pushed Beijing to sign the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996. In response to
Beijing’s nuclear tests conducted between 1994 and 1996, America and other
states manoeuvred Beijing’s pre-existing commitments to nuclear
disarmament, thereby rhetorically compelling it into signature. To place this
case in comparative perspective, I briefly examine the post-signature period
in which US opposition to CTBT ratification has diminished the utility of
engagement, as evidenced by Beijing’s reciprocal refusal to ratify the treaty.
Norms embodied in engagement are thus not as progressive or transhistorical
as argued by optimistic constructivists. I conclude that a realist
constructivism, compared with liberal constructivisms, helps scholars
uncover (1) the coercive language lurking behind the process in which
engagement extracts Beijing’s pro-social behaviour and (2) the contextually
contingent nature of Chinese conformism.
Definitions
In this chapter, realism and constructivism are used and defined in ways that
fit both international relations (IR) theory and the study of engagement. To
begin with, the core concept underlying realism is power politics. While this
concept is embraced by nearly all realist theories, the variant of realism used
here is classical rather than structural. The structural variant is left out of
consideration for two reasons. At the theoretical level, it pays no attention to
sociality and is thus incompatible with constructivism (eg Barkin 2010, p.
167). At the explanatory level, most structural realists cannot account for
why the United States decided to adopt an engagement policy through
which Beijing would establish itself as a powerhouse (Waltz 2000;
Mearsheimer 2001). Nor can they explain why and how engagement elicits
a specific concession from Beijing, given that they usually explain
concessions as a result of the use of coercive material capabilities (eg
sanctions and containment).
Classical realism, by contrast, is better positioned to explain US
engagement with China. As a theory of foreign policy, it holds that the
impact of China’s rise on the international system is largely unwritten and
that how China acts depends on US foreign policy. Without ruling out the
possibility of conflict, classical realists suggest that engagement becomes an
option if China is willing to improve its prestige and position within the
existing world order. As Kirshner argued in 2010, ‘[w]hile classical realism
must be wary and pessimistic regarding the consequences of China’s rise, its
perspective nevertheless leads to the conclusion that engaging rather than
confronting China is the wisest strategy’ to influence Chinese behaviour in a
desired direction (Kirshner 2010, p. 65).
It follows that influence is what the classical realist definition of power
politics is mainly about. While structural realists conceptualize power in
terms of material resources and see international political outcomes as
dependent upon the distribution of material capabilities among sovereign
states, classical realists define power in terms of influence and argue that
every state has innate interests in influencing others to its advantage by
means of statecraft, be it sanctions or engagement (Baldwin 1985). For
classical realists, power as influence, as opposed to power as resources, is the
ability to get others to do something they otherwise would not do (Dahl
1957). This relational aspect of power politics underlies what Barnett and
Duvall call ‘interactive power’ (Barnett and Duvall 2005).
Power as influence is also a fundamental concept in the engagement
literature. Engagement, according to Schweller, refers to ‘the use of non-
coercive means to ameliorate the non-status quo elements of a rising major
power’s behavior … It encompasses any attempt to socialize the dissatisfied
power into acceptance of the established order’ (Schweller 1999, p. 14,
emphasis added). As the engager seeks to get the engagee to accept
something it otherwise would not accept, engagement is a form of power
politics. As Baldwin points out, ‘positive sanctions’ (namely, engagement) are
a subset of influence attempts and therefore should be analyzed via the
conventional power concepts used for the analysis of ‘negative sanctions’
(Baldwin 1971). American power is successfully exercised if engagement
influences Beijing to accept the established world order.
The sources of power, according to classical realists, are both material and
non-material. Carr, for example, distinguishes among three types of power:
military power, economic power, and power over opinion (Carr 1961). In
particular, power over opinion – the art of propaganda – lays the ground for
a conversation between classical realism and constructivism. For classical
realists, state abilities to influence others are derived as much from social
judgements about appropriate ways that power is exercised as they are from
material capabilities. While classical realists deny the existence of universal
morality or legality, they argue that moral/legal factors in a particular
condition of time or space define what constitutes legitimate power
acceptable to others. Only when the use of power is socially judged
legitimate can the power holder influence others in an effective way (Voeten
2005). Viewed in this way, power is social. The notion of sociality serves to
connect classical realism and constructivism.
Non-material, social sources of power are also integral to the politics of
engagement. As Schweller’s definition makes clear, engagement differs from
coercive material measures; although it takes the material form of economic
inducements or institutional incentives, it also spreads to the engagee the
values that the engager holds dear or the norms shared by members of
international institutions. In other words, to influence others to become like
‘us’ is the ‘social purpose’ of engagement (on social purposes see Ruggie
1982). The power that the engager pursues is social. The United States can
preserve its hegemonic power at a lower cost if China ‘becomes like
America’.
According to Schweller, engagement enforces norms through the
mechanism of socialization, and such a normative process is largely non-
coercive. This chapter, by contrast, argues that coercion or power (exercised
through the medium of language) is a salient feature of normative
engagement. The classical realist conception of power politics rejects the
argument that ideas or discourses designed to shape social opinion are
deployed in a persuasive, appropriate way. For classical realists, if a state
attempts to delegitimize others, it must invoke the language of legitimacy or
illegitimacy through coercive means. If Beijing reneges on the commitments
it has made, the United States and other states use its rhetoric to ‘teach’, in a
coercive manner, Chinese leaders that deeds should be consistent with words
(on teaching in IR see Finnemore 1993). If engagement succeeds in
influencing the engagee, that is not because the promoted values are
persuasive but rather because they are introduced in a coercive way. To the
extent that power politics is about norm-induced change in target behaviour,
coercion rather than socialization is the normative mechanism at work.
With respect to constructivism, its core concept is the social construction
of international politics. For constructivists, the material, structural factor of
anarchy has no direct effects on interstate relations, precisely because state
behaviour is driven partly by such non-material factors as ideas, discourses
and norms. If states find themselves in an anarchical world, that is because
they bring realist-type worldviews into interstate interactions. ‘Anarchy is
what states make of it’, as Wendt (1992) puts it. Of course, the culture of
anarchy may evolve from a Hobbesian one to a Kantian one if international
politics is characterized by liberal principles. (I am not suggesting a
progressive trajectory of the development of that culture, as Wendt (1999) is
prone to do.) Such an evolution suggests that a social construction is not
fixed once and for all; instead, it changes over time, depending on what
worldviews states bring into play.
The social construction of international politics is also a defining feature
of engagement. First, the utility of engagement depends in part on how
Washington treats Beijing. According to Ross, ‘if the United States treats
China as a partner, then it will not become an enemy’ (Ross 1999, p. 188).
Conversely, ‘[e]nmity would become a self-fulfilling prophecy’ should
Washington treat Beijing as an adversary, as Assistant Secretary of Defense
Joseph Nye put it in 1995 (Nye 1995). To analyze engagement thus requires
a process-based ontology. Second, engagement becomes socially constructed
when Beijing accepts liberal rules or norms, whatever the means deployed by
Washington (argumentative persuasion or rhetorical coercion). To the extent
that engagement is indicative of a Kantian culture of anarchy, its rules or
norms should be intersubjectively held between Washington and Beijing.
Engagement is thus an intersubjective politics.
To analyze social construction processes and their change over time, I use
a constructivism that sees states as both social and strategic. To put norms
and rationality in opposition to each other, as optimistic constructivists tend
to do, is not helpful in explaining change (in this case, in the degree of
Chinese compliance: signing the CTBT but then refusing to ratify it in
retaliation for US non-ratification). In fact, few constructivists hold that the
logic of appropriateness is definitional to constructivism. Such a definition
leaves little room for agent initiatives taken to construct and reconstruct
international politics. Only when states have consequentialist logics will
social constructions change. Indeed, Finnemore and Sikkink (1998) integrate
norms and rationality into an analytical framework in order to describe a
process they call ‘strategic social construction’.
Note that I am not defining constructivism in terms of the
(re)constitution of state identity or interests. Doing so would fit into a
liberal-constructivist approach that suggests a role for norms in socializing
states. In this chapter, the social construction of international politics occurs
when the target accepts the norms promoted by ‘norm entrepreneurs’ but it
does not require that the former has become socialized or internalized the
promoted norms. The target may accept a norm for instrumental reasons,
even if over the long term it never becomes convinced of the legitimacy of
that norm (eg Krebs and Jackson 2007; Goddard 2008–9).
The constructivism defined and used here has two advantages. First,
while liberal constructivisms dismiss power as secondary to the logic of
appropriateness, a constructivism that excludes the notion of socialization
helps to reveal the role of power in social construction processes. Second,
although classical realism pays some attention to power over opinion, it says
little about the social construction processes through which ‘agent action
becomes social structure, ideas become norms, and the subjective becomes
the intersubjective’ (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998, p. 914). The notion of
social construction thus distinguishes constructivism from classical realism.
While the two approaches have some compatibilities (eg their shared
emphases on non-material factors and sociality), they focus on different
aspects of international relations: power politics and social construction
processes, respectively.
Methodology
For classical realists, engagement is a form of power politics; for
constructivists, engagement is socially constructed. This chapter, by contrast,
argues that realist and constructivist variables should be combined in order to
explain how engagement works. On the one hand, because classical realism
and constructivism hold distinct core concepts, a realist constructivism will
not become a redundant framework of analysis. On the other hand, because
neither classical realism nor constructivism tells a complete story of
international relations, one needs the other in order to study those complex
phenomena inexplicable in either realist or constructivist terms. Such
synergy constitutes an important step toward what Sil and Katzenstein (2010)
call ‘analytic eclecticism’.
A way to combine classical realism and constructivism is to stress the
coercive use of norms or rhetoric by state actors who endeavour to structure
and restructure international politics. To uncover the role of power in
engagement, I avoid two methodological weaknesses associated with liberal-
constructivist approaches. First, I refrain from seeing states’ pro-social claims
or acts as evidence of socialization or internalization. To study socialization
or internalization, according to Krebs and Jackson, rests on ‘a strong
specification of the subjective motivations of individuals and [is] thus
methodologically intractable’ (Krebs and Jackson 2007, p. 36). A Chinese
claim that ceasing nuclear testing is appropriate is never an indicator that
engagement has socialized Beijing. Of course, China may be a ‘social state’
once it is trapped in its own commitments to international cooperation.
However, one cannot equate a social state with a socialized state, as Johnston
(2008) tends to do. A social state can be judged as such in terms of
observable behaviour, but to search for a socialized state involves
methodologically unanswerable questions about its intentions. When a pro-
social claim or act is mistakenly identified as a sign of socialization (namely,
when intentions are inferred from discourses or behaviour), one loses sight
of the intervention of power in pro-socialness.
Second, liberal constructivists see persuasion as the main normative
mechanism, but their empirical narratives show that what is at work is
actually some form of coercion (eg Payne 2001). Crawford and Klotz’s study
of anti-apartheid movements (1999), for example, clearly shows that
economic coercion, rather than genuine communication, was conducive to
South Africa’s compliance. Similarly, optimistic constructivists associate
engagement with socialization but they often portray Beijing as feeling under
‘social pressure’ to comply, social processes as ‘constraining’ Chinese
behaviour, and Beijing as sensitive to reputational losses caused by ‘social
opprobrium’ (eg Foot 2000; Kent 2007; Johnston 2008). These arguments
reflect coercion, rather than persuasion, at work. In other words, optimistic
constructivists identify what is actually a coercive process as socialization.
Such a misidentification occurs, I argue, because optimistic constructivists
ignore the fact that Beijing often deploys counterarguments in response to
international condemnation. In international politics, rhetorical contestations
are as common as material ones, such as arms races, diplomatic disputes and
economic competition. Social censure produces a pro-social response only
when the target is denied any socially legitimate counterarguments. It is in
such a situation that power is embedded in rhetoric. Without examining
Chinese counterclaims, optimistic constructivists too quickly assume that
Beijing becomes pro-social once it is confronted with social pressure. When
they mistakenly equate social pressure with socialization, they obscure the
role of power.
This chapter thus examines Chinese counterclaims and the dynamics of
rhetorical contestation. A key question, then, is how to uncover or
operationalize the power of rhetoric? According to Baldwin (1985, p. 38),
‘coercion refers to a high degree of constraint on the alternative courses of
action’. In the same logic, rhetoric displays coercive power when it leaves the
interlocutor ‘without access to the rhetorical materials needed to craft a
socially sustainable rebuttal’ (Krebs and Jackson 2007, p. 36).
To trace rhetorical power, I use discourse analysis and interpretive
methods. I examine what the United States and other members of
international institutions said in response to Chinese nuclear testing. I
particularly focus on their framing of Chinese testing as contrary to pre-
existing Chinese promises of nuclear disarmament. I also analyze what
counterarguments Beijing deployed and how socially legitimate or
illegitimate they were. These analyses allow us to examine the rhetorical
contestation between ‘international society’ and Beijing. I show that
rhetorical traps proved to be coercive when they deprived Beijing of any
claims with which to legitimize its testing before international audiences.
With respect to data collection, I search the United Nations Document
System for international condemnatory statements issued against Chinese
testing. Beijing’s decision making on the CTBT, by contrast, is not clear to
outsiders, due to the authoritarian nature of Chinese politics. To overcome
this difficulty, I delve into official documents, Chinese-language magazines,
and writings of China’s arms control officials.
Of course, rhetoric exerts coercive influence under certain conditions. To
investigate its scope conditions, I use comparative methods. In addition to
China’s CTBT signature, I examine the subsequent Chinese refusal to ratify
the treaty. Examining both the success and failure of engagement provides
better insights into the conditions under which rhetorical traps work.
Moreover, because the failure case came immediately after the success one,
many factors remained largely constant over such a short span of time, and
factors that varied can be identified as the conditions for rhetorical coercion.
I find that, other things being equal, rhetorical traps foreclose legitimate
counterclaims from Beijing when ‘international society’ is relatively existent.
Conversely, rhetoric becomes less coercive when other states, particularly the
United States, become antisocial.
Optimistic constructivists may counter-argue that my comparative
analyses exactly suggest that Chinese compliance is dependent upon how
strong ‘international society’ is. If social influence is what really matters, then
why bother with attention paid to rhetoric? An important case suffices here
to suggest that social influence alone is not likely to extract Chinese
compliance. The United States and other states have repeatedly urged
Beijing to peacefully settle its disputes with Taiwan. However, such social
pressure has not been effective, as evidenced by the frequent threats made by
Beijing to use force against Taiwan. There are two reasons for the Chinese
resistance to social pressure, both of which involve the role of rhetoric. First,
although Beijing has adopted a ‘peaceful unification’ approach towards
Taiwan since the 1980s, it has never relinquished its right to use force to
achieve ‘unification’. Any rhetoric of peace will thus never trap Beijing.
Second, Beijing invokes the language of sovereignty, counter-arguing that
Taiwan is China’s internal affair and that international interference is
illegitimate. In sum, one should pay more attention to rhetorical dynamics
than to social pressure alone.
Background
In the 1980s, when China sought to modernize its economy, it believed that
one way to attract international investment and foreign technology was to
promote its international image and reputation (or face, as the Chinese use
the term). With image concerns in mind, Beijing claimed that it would act
as a ‘responsible major power’ in international affairs. (While the Chinese
term emphasized responsibilities, it also revealed Beijing’s desire to be
recognized as a great power.) After the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown,
however, Beijing was met with international sanctions. To worsen its own
image, China conducted other ‘misdeeds’ in the course of its rising,
including military exercises in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea. To
break its post-Tiananmen isolation and avoid US containment, Beijing
sought to reassure other states that it was a responsible major power
dedicated to ‘peaceful rise’ or ‘peaceful development’ (Zheng 2005).
A crucial dimension of these discursive campaigns was a Chinese
commitment to non-proliferation. As Beijing sought to project its image as a
responsible, peace-loving state, arms control was a key test. At a domestic
meeting held in the early 1980s, a number of Chinese officials from various
government agencies, including the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), argued
that China’s nonproliferation policies should be more cooperative than those
adopted during the Maoist era in order to boost China’s image among
international audiences (Huang and Song 1987, p. 6). For this reason,
Beijing joined the UN Conference of Disarmament (CD) and the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 1980 and 1984, respectively.
In 1986, it also pledged to abide by the Limited Test Ban Treaty prohibiting
atmospheric nuclear tests. Even after Tiananmen, it acceded to the NPT in
1992 out of fear of becoming the lone holdout after France had agreed to
sign the treaty in 1991 (Medeiros 2007, p. 74).
In May 1995 NPT parties held a conference on the review and extension
of the treaty. They reached three important conclusions, to which Beijing
assented, though reluctantly. First, the NPT, rather than being extended for
an additional 25-year period (as preferred by Beijing), would remain in force
indefinitely. Second, in the spirit of Article VI of the NPT, which stipulated
that signatories should ‘pursue negotiations in good faith on effective
measures relating to … nuclear disarmament’, NPT parties agreed to
complete negotiations on a CTBT ‘no later than 1996’. Third, pending the
entry into force of a CTBT, all the nuclear powers should ‘exercise utmost
restraint’ with respect to nuclear testing (UN Doc. CD/PV.708, 15 June
1995, 15).
In November 1995 Beijing released its first White Paper on arms control
and disarmament. It claimed that its attitude towards the issue was ‘proactive,
sincere, and responsible’ (emphasis added). It also reaffirmed its commitments
to the NPT, the treaty’s indefinite extension, and the conclusion of a CTBT,
stressing these commitments as the ‘responsibilities’ it would bear (State
Council 2005).
Rhetorical dynamics
By 1996, however, US engagement initiatives could not curb Chinese
testing. During CTBT talks (between January 1994 and August 1996),
Beijing carried out seven nuclear tests. Particularly provocative to
international audiences was the one conducted on 15 May 1995, less than
two days after the end of the NPT Review and Extension Conference, and
before delegates departed. Three months later, Beijing carried out another
test.
Chinese tests came under attack during CD sessions. Other member
states argued that any tests flew in the face of the commitments Beijing had
made to nuclear disarmament. This charge was particularly widespread after
the two tests conducted in 1995. The United States, for example, ‘deeply
regrets this [Chinese] action, coming only days after the successful
conclusion of the NPT Extension Conference in New York where China
agreed to exercise “utmost restraint” in nuclear testing’. In 1993 the United
States had voluntarily extended a moratorium on nuclear testing. Without
conducting its own tests in retaliation for Chinese ones, the United States
now urged Chinese leaders to act on their own publicly declared pledges
(See UN Doc. CD/1315, 2 June 1995).
Similarly, New Zealand argued that nuclear testing ‘runs counter to
China’s responsibility as a major Power … There can be no justification for
any testing, especially now that China and the other nuclear weapons States
have agreed to a deadline’ for a CTBT (See UN Doc. CD/1318, 8 June
1995). Switzerland also felt ‘disappointed’ at China’s violation of its own
disarmament promises. ‘[T]here is at least a moral incompatibility between
the resumption of nuclear tests and the commitments entered into in New
York’ (UN Doc. CD/PV.709, 22 June 1995, 13). Furthermore, some states
criticized Beijing as insincere. Austria, for example, argued that ‘[o]ne of the
unfortunate consequences of China’s decision to continue testing is that
nations … will question the sincerity’ of Chinese leaders (UN Doc.
CD/PV.714, 17 August 1995, 17). Such a charge was also raised by Norway,
Ireland, Belgium, German, Canada, Chile, Argentina and the Philippines
(See UN Docs. CD/PV.683, 23 June 1994, 3; CD/PV.708, 15 June 1995,
18; CD/1319, 15 June 1995, 2; CD/PV.714, 17 August 1995, 13;
CD/PV.708, 15 June 1995, 15; CD/1342, 24 August 1995, 2; CD/1314, 31
May 1995; CD/1344, 28 August 1995).
Of course, other charges were also raised during CD sessions, but framing
Chinese tests as contradictory to what Beijing had promised was the most
significant. Of all the accusations levelled against China, 5 per cent centred
on the possibility of creating a new arms race; 20 per cent on China’s
violation of international preferences; 33 per cent on the possibility of
obstructing the CTBT negotiation process; and, most importantly, 42 per
cent on Chinese inconsistency between words and deeds (Johnston 2008, p.
14). As Johnston observed of international condemnation, Beijing was
primarily ‘accused of moral hypocrisy and of behavior inconsistent with its
(nascent) identity as a responsible major power’ (Johnston 2008, p. 14).
Confronted with the charges of hypocrisy, Beijing countered that it had
conducted the smallest number of tests among the five nuclear powers.
Utmost restraint, Beijing argued, by no means meant zero tests, and the
comparison in number among the big five indicated that China had acted
with greatest restraint (UN Doc. CD/PV.683, 23 June 1994, 24). For
Beijing, the small number of Chinese tests was not inconsistent with its
promise of utmost restraint. Beijing also sought to point out American
hypocrisy, saying that the United States had conducted the largest number of
tests and offered its allies a nuclear umbrella. For Beijing, any US criticism of
Chinese tests amounted to a double standard. As Chinese Ambassador to the
CD Sha Zukang declaimed, ‘the United States is not qualified to point its
finger at China’s extremely limited number of nuclear tests’ (UN Doc.
CD/PV.724, 8 February 1996, 26).
These two counterclaims were true in terms of the numbers of American
and Chinese tests but they lost much of their persuasiveness when Beijing
repeatedly conducted its own tests in the course of CTBT negotiations.
Every time a Chinese test was reported, non-nuclear-weapon states laid their
blame on Beijing rather than Washington. Their blame was particularly
compelling when Washington had refrained from retaliating via further
testing.
Alternatively, Beijing could admit openly its insincerity. Although most
Chinese leaders were reform minded after China opened its door in the
1980s, nationalism and realpolitik ideologies were not missing in their minds.
For them, nuclear weapons were necessary for enhancing national prestige
and bargaining leverage. Moreover, Beijing became increasingly suspicious
that Washington was enforcing a containment strategy against China. Beijing
thus concluded that keeping strong nuclear arsenals was essential to ensuring
China’s territorial integrity and defence against foreign invasions (Garrett
and Glaser 1995/6, pp. 44−9). In an interview, for example, Sha echoed
Mao Zedong’s hard-line doctrine that ‘China cannot renounce nuclear
weapons if we wish to resist foreign bullyism’ (Zhong 2000, p. 36).
Admitting insincerity, however, was not feasible because Beijing was also
concerned about its reputation. While Beijing sought to delegitimize US
criticism and insisted on its sovereign rights to develop nuclear arsenals,
international opinion that called on Beijing to make good on its promises
resonated with leaders who sought to restore China’s international
reputation. From a Chinese perspective, an act inconsistent with existing
commitments would create serious repercussions among international
audiences. Indeed, Beijing never articulated any anti-social counterclaim
when faced with international reproaches.
To the contrary, Beijing proposed a face-saving claim, arguing that it
‘fully respects and understands’ international concerns about its nuclear
testing (UN Doc. CD/PV.683, 23 June 1994, 25). It also sought to reassure
other states that ‘there is no ground to feel such concern about China’s
nuclear tests’ (UN Doc. CD/PV.733, 28 March 1996, 25). These pro-social
claims, however, fell far short of explaining away international censure.
Beijing needed more than rhetoric to convince other states of its ‘peaceful
rise’ discourses.
Left without any claims in justification of nuclear testing, Beijing was
caught in a bind created by hypocrisy charges. Consequently, it conceded
the legitimacy of international opprobrium. In explaining Beijing’s signature
to the CTBT, one member of the Chinese delegation who later held a
visiting position at Stanford University repeatedly stressed that Beijing put
much weight on the match between words and deeds. ‘Signing the CTBT
was in line with China’s consistent stand’ (emphasis added) on nuclear
disarmament. In reference to the Chinese promise of ‘utmost restraint,’ the
Chinese official admitted that ‘[t]he May 15, 1995, test inflicted the most
political damage on China’. For Beijing, appearing inconsistent (namely,
making that promise while at the same time carrying out nuclear tests) had
undermined its self-proclaimed image as a responsible major power.
Ultimately, ‘[t]he necessity of maintaining its international image was a
reason for China’s decision to adjust its position on the CTBT negotiations’
(Zou 1998).
Post-signature developments
As pointed out earlier, there was an international consensus, particularly
among non-nuclear-armed states, on a CTBT during the period of
negotiation. Another driving force was that the United States, as one of the
architects and champions of nuclear disarmament, never adopted a tit-for-tat
approach towards Chinese tests. Although France carried out nuclear tests in
1995, it soon agreed to negotiate a CTBT. Therefore, it was in the presence
of an anti-nuclear community of nations that rhetorical traps denied Beijing
any socially legitimate rebuttals.
After the CTBT signature, however, the normative environment changed
in a way that upset US efforts to engage (or entrap) Beijing. In no small part,
the change was of US making. In 1999, the Republican-controlled Congress
rejected the Clinton Administration’s call for ratifying the CTBT. Worse yet,
the treaty was met with opposition from the subsequent Bush
Administration. The Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests, conducted in 1998,
had little to do with US action, but the United States, while opposing
Pakistan, only raised mild criticism of India. In 2006 Washington even
agreed to transfer dual-use nuclear technology to India (Hayes 2009). To the
extent that ‘international society’ had existed before the CTBT signature, it
began to decline afterwards.
These US-led (or -related) events have presented a major obstacle to
Beijing’s ratification of the CTBT (Beijing has yet to ratify it as of 2019).
While cohesive social pressure foreclosed Chinese counterclaims to the
CTBT signature, US opposition to ratification has allowed Beijing to justify
its own refusal to ratify it, even though Beijing has refrained from
recommencing nuclear testing. In 2014, for example, Sha argued that ‘were
the U.S. to ratify the treaty, China would definitely follow’. He also
criticized American inconsistency: ‘The U.S. should undertake its
responsibility earnestly … In recent years, the Obama Administration has
made some positive commitments on ratification, but it is actions that count’
(Sha 2014).
Of course, Beijing has suffered some image costs of non-ratification. The
Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh, for example, accused Beijing of using
the American opposition as a pretext for not ratifying the treaty (Kent 2007,
p. 97). However, the fact that Beijing has blamed the American side indicates
that Beijing is more inclined to justify its non-conformism and less
constrained by its own commitments.
Other arms control-related cases indicate that American reciprocity, or
lack thereof, largely determines the degree of Chinese compliance. In the
1990s, for example, US leaders painstakingly urged Beijing to curb its missile
sales to Iran, Pakistan, Syria, and so on. In 1991 Beijing agreed to MTCR
guidelines, as mentioned earlier. However, Washington repeatedly detected
evidence that Beijing had violated its MTCR promises. Arguably, the
Chinese violation was of US making: the United States had been the largest
supplier of weapons to the Middle East. Of particular concern to Beijing was
US arms sales to Taiwan. In 1992 President George H. W. Bush sold 150 F-
16 fighter jets to Taiwan. Therefore, any US demand that Beijing end its
missile sales to America’s adversaries was viewed cynically by Beijing.
Indeed, Beijing counter-argued that US arms sales to Taiwan were a form of
proliferation no different from Chinese ones to America’s adversaries. Just as
US arms sales to Taiwan helped the island balance against China, so too
Chinese ones to Pakistan created a military balance vis-à-vis India (Medeiros
2007, p. 136). Because America and China held opposing understandings of
arms control, US engagement initiatives proved to be a dialogue of the deaf.
(Beijing has yet to join the MTCR as of 2019.)
These cases suggest one important implication for US China policy. If
Washington seeks to engage or entrap Beijing, it needs to act first as a role
model for China, as it did during CTBT talks. Although it is social cohesion
that renders a rhetorical trap effective, how Washington acts will have a
significant effect on how cohesive the international system is. If Washington
free-rides on the efforts of other states (as it did after the conclusion of the
CTBT), it will undermine the formation of an international ‘united front’.
In such a situation, American hypocrisy will become a target of Chinese
criticism, and any international condemnation of Chinese hypocrisy will
become less coercive.
Conclusion
In comparison with liberal constructivisms, a realist-constructivist approach
to analyzing US engagement with China has two advantages. First, it shows
that engagement exerts coercive rather than communicative or socializing
forces. In the eyes of optimistic constructivists, a policy of isolation will leave
Washington few viable means of influencing Beijing, and the United States
has ‘a far greater chance of having a positive influence on China’s actions if
we welcome China into the world community’, as President Bill Clinton
(2000) stressed. However, I argue that engagement is ironically rooted in the
exercise of power (in a rhetorical rather than material form). If Washington
continues down the path of engagement, it will likely extract Chinese
commitments step by step and eventually make Beijing a prisoner of its own
rhetoric, especially when the United States itself remains pro-social. US
power, from a realist-constructivist perspective, inheres in a seemingly
communicative process of engagement.
Viewed in this way, a US discourse on China that appears persuasive is
actually ‘trapful’. In 2005, for example, Deputy Secretary of State Robert B.
Zoellick delivered a speech on China. He urged China to act as a
‘responsible stakeholder’ in the international system. While he used the word
stakeholder instead of major power as used by Beijing, he nonetheless appealed
to pre-existing Chinese commitments to responsibilities. He also argued that
the ‘idea of a “peaceful rise” will spur vibrant debate. The world will look to
the evidence of actions’ (Zoellick 2005). While liberal constructivists would
regard what Zoellick said as communicative, realist constructivists would
argue that it conveyed a warning to Beijing that talk would carry costs if
Beijing reneged on its promises of responsibilities and a peaceful rise. To the
extent that China is too big to free-ride on the global commons, other states
will expect Beijing to take more responsibilities. Then, social expectations
about appropriate Chinese behaviour are not soft but rather put some degree
of pressure on Beijing.
In the course of engagement, power may also be exercised by Beijing. In
addition to ignoring the power-laden process contributing to the success of
engagement, optimistic constructivists assume that engagement is a one-way
process in which the United States remains a teacher vis-à-vis Beijing.
Although they notice that US engagement initiatives spread norms to China,
they imply that Washington is immune from any teaching from Beijing. A
realist constructivism, by contrast, holds that engagement is a two-way or
reciprocal process. While engagement exerts coercive influence on China,
Beijing may also apply a feedback effect on Washington. As Goddard
pointed out in 2008/9, US leaders might find it difficult to oppose China’s
economic activities in US spheres of influence if Beijing justified its
economic expansionism by appealing to free trade norms. How could
Washington legitimately oppose China’s economic involvement in the rest of
the world when it had championed free trade principles? (Goddard 2008/9,
p. 141). Whether or to what extent Washington will fall into Chinese traps is
outside the scope of this study, but a realist constructivism certainly refuses to
view the United States as exogenous to China’s attempts at rhetorical
coercion.
A second analytical advantage is that a realist constructivism challenges
the liberal-constructivist view that the norms carried by engagement are
transhistorical or progressive. Due to their emphasis on socialization or
internalization, optimistic constructivists assume that there is little chance
engagement will change directions once it hooks Beijing up to the liberal
world order. In their view, the development of engagement is linear, and
norms will endure for an extended period of time. A realist constructivism,
by contrast, suggests that neither engagement nor norms will likely be
institutionalized. As this chapter has shown, although the United States took
the lead in the conclusion of the CTBT, domestic politics has prevented it
from ratifying the treaty. Beijing then has retaliated in kind, although no
further Chinese tests have occurred. Consequently, US–China engagement
in the CTBT has not been completed, nor has Beijing internalized CTBT
norms. Instead, how Beijing responds to CTBT norms depends on what
Washington does. As Kent argues, ‘its [China’s] current compliance will not
guarantee its cooperation in the future under changed international
circumstances’ (Kent 2007, p. 97). In other words, Chinese compliance is
contextually contingent.
A realist constructivism is not without limitations, however. This chapter
focuses on the 1990s, when China was in the early stage of rising. Since
then, by contrast, China has become more and more powerful, especially
under the leadership of Xi Jinping. Therefore, whether the United States
and its allies can still trap Beijing in its own commitments seems to be an
open question. The South China Sea is a case in point. In 2002 Beijing
signed a declaration with ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations)
states on a code of conduct but it has recently adopted a series of revisionist
policies. With an interest in the freedom of navigation in the South China
Sea, the United States has criticized Beijing for violating its promise but
Beijing seems not to be deterred by any hypocrisy charges. Therefore, the
utility of rhetorical coercion seems to be contextually contingent, as is
Chinese compliance. It seems to decrease with the increase in China’s
material power. Future research, I would like to suggest, should examine the
relationships between rhetorical coercion and material power. This mission
will offer a more complete understanding of when and under what
conditions rhetoric works.
References
Baldwin, David A. (1971) ‘The Power of Positive Sanctions’. World Politics
24: 19–38.
Baldwin, David A. (1985) Economic Statecraft. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Barkin, J. Samuel (2010) Realist Constructivism: Rethinking International
Relations Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Barnett, Michael and Raymond Duvall (2005) ‘Power in International
Politics’. International Organization 59: 39–75.
Bernstein, Richard and Ross H. Munro (1997) The Coming Conflict with
China. New York: A.A. Knopf.
Bially Mattern, Janice (2005) ‘Why “Soft Power” Isn’t So Soft:
Representational Force and the Sociolinguistic Construction of Attraction
in World Politics’. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 33: 583–612.
Carr, Edward Hallett (1961) The Twenty Years Crisis 1919−1939: An
Introduction to the Study of International Relations. London: Macmillan.
Clinton, William (2000) ‘Remarks at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced
International Studies, March 8, 2000’. Weekly Compilation of Presidential
Documents 36: 487−93.
Crawford, Neta C. and Audie Klotz (1999) ‘How Sanctions Work: A
Framework for Analysis’, in Crawford and Klotz, eds., How Sanctions Work:
Lessons from South Africa. New York: St Martin’s Press.
Dahl, Robert A. (1957) ‘The Concept of Power’. Behavioral Science 2: 201–
15.
Deudney, Daniel and G. John Ikenberry (2009) ‘Myth of the Autocratic
Revival: Why Liberal Democracy Will Prevail’. Foreign Affairs 88: 77−93.
Economy, Elizabeth and Michel Oksenberg, eds. (1999) China Joins the
World: Progress and Prospects. New York: Council on Foreign Relations
Press.
Finnemore, Martha (1993) ‘International Organizations as Teachers of
Norms: The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization and Science Policy’. International Organization 47: 565–97.
Finnemore, Martha and Kathryn Sikkink (1988) ‘International Norm
Dynamics and Political Change’. International Organization 52: 887−917.
Friedberg, Aaron L. (2000) ‘The Struggle for Mastery in Asia’. Commentary
110: 17−26.
Friedberg, Aaron L. (2005) ‘The Future of U.S.-China Relations: Is Conflict
Inevitable?’ International Security 30: 7−45.
Foot, Rosemary (2000) Rights beyond Borders: The Global Community and the
Struggle over Human Rights in China. New York: Oxford University Press.
Garrett, Banning N. and Bonnie S. Glaser (1995/6) ‘Chinese Perspectives on
Nuclear Arms Control’. International Security 20: 44−9.
Goddard, Stacie E. (2008/9) ‘When Right Makes Might: How Prussia
Overturned the European Balance of Power’. International Security 33:
110−42.
Hayes, Jarrod (2009) ‘Identity and Securitization in the Democratic Peace:
The United States and the Divergence of Response to India and Iran’s
Nuclear Programs’. International Studies Quarterly 53: 977–99.
Huang, Tingwei and Baoxian Song (1987) ‘Special Characteristics of the
Current International Disarmament Struggle and Policy Proposals’, in
China and the International Arms Control Struggle, published by China
Institute of Contemporary International Relations. Beijing: Shishi
Publishing House (in Chinese).
Ikenberry, G. John (2008a) ‘The Rise of China and the Future of the West’.
Foreign Affairs 87: 23−37.
Ikenberry, G. John (2008b) ‘The Rise of China: Power, Institutions, and the
Western Order’, in Robert S. Ross and Zhu Feng, eds., China’s Ascent:
Power, Security, and the Future of International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Johnston, Alastair Iain (1995) Cultural Realism: Strategic Culture and Grand
Strategy in Chinese History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Johnston, Alastair Iain (2008) Social States: China in International Institutions,
1980−2000. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kent, Ann (2007) Beyond Compliance: China, International Organizations, and
Global Security. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Kirshner, Jonathan (2010) ‘The Tragedy of Offensive Realism: Classical
Realism and the Rise of China’. European Journal of International Relations
18: 53–75.
Klotz, Audie (1995) Norms in International Relations: The Struggle against
Apartheid. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Krebs, Ronald R. and Patrick Thaddeus Jackson (2007) ‘Twisting Tongues
and Twisting Arms: The Power of Political Rhetoric’. European Journal of
International Relations 13: 35−66.
Krebs, Ronald R. and Jennifer K. Lobasz (2007) ‘Fixing the Meaning of
9/11: Hegemony, Coercion, and the Road to War in Iraq’. Security Studies
16: 409–45.
Lynch, Marc (2002) ‘Why Engage? China and the Logic of Communicative
Engagement’. European Journal of International Relations 8: 187–230.
Mearsheimer, John J. (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York:
Norton.
Medeiros, Evan S. (2007) Reluctant Restraint: The Evolution of China’s
Nonproliferation Policies and Practices, 1980–2004. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Nye, Joseph S. (1995) ‘East Asian Security: The Case for Deep
Engagement’. Foreign Affairs 74: 90−102.
Payne, Rodger A. (2001) ‘Persuasion, Frames and Norm Construction’.
European Journal of International Relations 7: 37−61.
Rennack, Dianne E. (1997) China: U.S. Economic Sanctions (CRS Report for
Congress). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, Library of
Congress.
Ross, Robert S. (1999) ‘Engagement in US China Policy’, in Alastair Iain
Johnston and Robert S. Ross, eds., Engaging China: The Management of an
Emerging Power. New York: Routledge.
Ruggie, John Gerard (1982) ‘International Regimes, Transactions, and
Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order’.
International Organization 36: 379–415.
Schimmelfennig, Frank (2003) The EU, NATO and the Integration of Europe:
Rules and Rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schweller, Randall L. (1999) ‘Managing the Rise of Great Powers: History
and Theory’, in Alastair Iain Johnston and Robert S. Ross, eds., Engaging
China: The Management of an Emerging Power. New York: Routledge.
Sha, Zukang (2014) ‘The Entry into Force of the CTBT: The Chinese
Perspective’. Available at:
www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/commentary/the-entry-into-force-
of-the-ctbt-the-chinese-perspective/
Sil, Rudra and Peter J. Katzenstein (2010) Beyond Paradigms: Analytic
Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
State Council (2005) White Paper – China: Arms Control and Disarmament.
Beijing: Information Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic
of China. Available at:
https://fas.org/nuke/guide/china/doctrine/wparms.htm
Voeten, Erik (2005) ‘The Political Origins of the UN Security Council’s
Ability to Legitimize the Use of Force’. International Organization 59:
527−57.
Waltz, Kenneth (2000) ‘Structural Realism After the Cold War’. International
Security 25: 5−41.
Wendt, Alexander (1992) ‘Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social
Construction of Power Politics’. International Organization 46: 391−425.
Wendt, Alexander (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Zheng, Bijian (2005) ‘China’s “Peaceful Rise” to Great-Power Status’.
Foreign Affairs 84: 18−24.
Zhong, Daoyi (2000) ‘CTBT: Sha Zukang and the Negotiations’. The
History of the Chinese Communist Party 10: 36 (in Chinese).
Zoellick, Robert B. (2005) Whither China: From Membership to
Responsibility? Remarks to National Committee on U.S.-China
Relations, New York City, 21 September. Available at: https://2001-
2009.state.gov/s/d/former/zoellick/rem/53682.htm
Zou, Yunhua (1998) China and the CTBT Negotiations. Draft paper,
Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University.
7
This chapter defines a strategic ally as a foreign actor that the state supports
because officials deem that the political success of the actor would be critical
to strengthening the authority and prestige of the state and helping it to
achieve its commercial objectives. Conversely, a rival is a foreign actor that
the state seeks to contain and roll back because the political success of the
actor would appear to jeopardize the authority and prestige of the state and
impede its achievement of its commercial objectives. In contemporary US–
Latin America relations, liberal norms and identities play an important role
in US alliance building and rivalry formation because the American state
must at least create the appearance that it operates in accordance with its
professed principles to limit resistance to the pursuit of its goals.
Nonetheless, the state’s strategic and commercial objectives also shape its
alliances and rivalries in ways that will often casually conflict with its
professed liberalism.
One way of conceiving of how a Western power’s interests and identities
‘interpenetrate and work out their tentative and uneasy compromises’ is to
elucidate (1) the necessary and/or sufficient conditions for its alliances and
rivalries to develop and (2) the ways that alliances and rivalries alter the
opportunity structures of actors. Based on the patterns we have observed
since the end of the Cold War, it is evident that one necessary condition for
a Western power’s alliance with a Latin American actor is that the
prospective ally exhibit either the minimal trappings of democratic
governance or a rhetorical commitment to such trappings on the part of
political actors who do not hold executive power. The contemporary
unwillingness of the American state to ally with Latin American leaders who
have dispensed with the minimal trappings of democracy is attributable to
the identity-centred side of co-constitution, which shapes cultural discourses
in such a way as to increase scrutiny of governments that have plainly
abandoned democratic practices. The second necessary condition for a
strategic alliance is that a prospective ally act in accordance with the strategic
and commercial objectives of the Western power.
In combination, the two necessary conditions for an alliance operate in
tension with each other and thereby contribute to the fundamental
ambiguousness of the Western power’s commitments in the hemisphere. On
the one hand, the first condition (that an ally exhibit the minimal trappings
of democratic governance) creates a strong incentive for an aspiring ally to
commit to the minimum standards of democracy. On the other hand, once
the prospective ally also meets the second condition (that it support the
strategic and commercial objectives of the American state), the ensuing
alliance will reduce the dominant culture’s scrutiny of the ally’s subtler
breaches of liberal norms. The reduced scrutiny of allies derives from the
interest-centred side of co-constitution, whereby the strategic interests of the
state cause it to cue cultural elites to downplay allies’ less democratic
characteristics. Thus, alliances will diminish the Western power’s pressure on
allies to consistently adhere to liberal norms.
With respect to a Western power’s rivalries in Latin America,
contemporary US–Latin American relations suggest that there are two
conditions that generate such rivalries and that each condition alone is
sufficient to bring about a rivalry. One sufficient condition is that a Latin
American actor persistently impede the strategic and commercial objectives
of the Western power. The other sufficient condition for a rivalry is that an
actor abandon the minimal trappings of democracy for an indefinite period.
The contemporary propensity of the American state to help isolate
definitively authoritarian actors in the Western hemisphere derives largely
from the identity-centred side of co-constitution, which generates
heightened cultural scrutiny of governments that have plainly abandoned
democratic practices. Such scrutiny creates incentives for the American state
to align against flagrantly authoritarian actors as a means of projecting an
image of itself as a liberal hegemon and thereby limiting resistance to its
exercise of power abroad. However, while a regional actor’s blatantly
authoritarian practices are a sufficient condition for a rivalry with the
hegemon, they are not a necessary condition for a rivalry. Since democratic
(or semi-democratic) leaders can also impede the strategic and commercial
objectives of the American state, some at least partially democratic leaders
will become rivals of the hegemon as well.
Together, the two sufficient conditions for a rivalry also operate in
profound tension with each other and thus further contribute to the
ambiguousness of US foreign policies. On the one hand, the fact that a Latin
American government’s flagrantly illiberal turn would be a sufficient
condition for an eventual rivalry with the hegemon creates powerful
incentives for Latin American governments to refrain from abandoning the
minimal trappings of democracy. On the other hand, when a democratic or
semi-democratic government persistently impedes the strategic and
commercial objectives of the American state, the resulting rivalry will give
rise to a discursive environment that can increase the likelihood of an extra-
constitutional alteration of power. The hegemon’s rivalry with an elected
challenger will first cue cultural elites to exaggerate the challenger’s breaches
of democratic norms. In addition, because the challenger’s domestic
opposition shares the hegemon’s objective of rolling it back, opposition
leaders will take on the status of allies and therefore come under relatively
little scrutiny from the hegemon’s dominant culture while they perform their
oppositional role. In turn, a discursive environment that significantly
exaggerates a rival government’s breaches of democratic norms and
minimizes the allied opposition’s violations will signal to the opposition that
the hegemon may not actively oppose an extra-constitutional alteration of
power. While the hegemon’s signalling is not a sufficient condition for a
coup to occur (as there are other domestic variables at play), such signalling
will lessen the perceived risks of launching a coup and thereby increase its
likelihood (see Thyne 2010, p. 449).
Methods
Given that space does not permit us to closely examine more than one case,
the case we analyse should be one that provides us insight into how the
tensions between the hegemon’s interests and identities will manifest
themselves in the dominant culture’s discourses and the state’s foreign
policies. One dyad type that is likely to provide us important insights into
the relative merits of different IR approaches is the relations between the
United States and a Latin American country in which a coup takes place
against a rival government that is at least partially democratic. The value of
studying such a case is that it presents us with a situation in which there are
clear tensions between the liberal identities of the Western power and its
state’s temptations to tacitly welcome an extra-constitutional overthrow of an
elected government that has impeded its pursuit of its interests.
A study of the dyad type allows us to analyze two distinct contexts: (1) a
pre-coup phase in which strategic and commercial interests are likely to play
an important role in shaping the Western power’s cultural discourses about
the foreign country and its state’s policies toward the country and (2) a post-
coup phase in which the coup’s blatant departure from liberal-democratic
norms may spark a new set of discourses that come into some conflict with
the pre-coup narratives and identities. In essence, the expectation of the
study is that the American state’s interests will shape cultural discourses about
the foreign country in such a way as to increase the likelihood of a coup in
the pre-coup phase but that the coup itself will spark an identity-centred
shift in the discursive environment that increases pressure on the state to
disassociate itself from the coup in the post-coup phase.
Thus, the two phases of the dyad type are likely to illuminate different
problems with different mainstream approaches to the study of IR. The pre-
coup phase is likely to illustrate problems with liberal and mainstream
constructivist approaches insofar as the American state’s interests shape
cultural discourses in such a way as to facilitate the coup, thus revealing that
the culture partially lacks independence from the state and cannot be
assumed to consistently pressure the state to abide by its professed principles.
Conversely, the post-coup phase is likely to pose fewer problems for liberal
and mainstream constructivist theorists and more problems for neorealist
theorists. Since neorealism’s only assumption about culture is that the state
manages cultural identities and discourses to serve its strategic objectives,
neorealism could not explain how cultural identities and discourses might
also constrain the state by drawing some attention to the illiberal nature of
the coup once it has taken place.
If the report carries any claim that fits into at least one of the four categories,
the comprehensive dependent variable is coded 1. If the report carries no
such charge, the variable is coded 0.
I then use regression analysis of coded Times and Post reports about
Venezuela and nine other Latin American countries from 1989 to 2009 to
generate an ‘objective’ model that predicts how frequently reports would call
into question a country’s democratic status if the reports’ depictions were
solely driven by conventional measures of the country’s levels of deviation
from democratic norms. The dataset contains 1,000 randomly sampled Times
reports and 1,000 randomly sampled Post reports about Latin America’s ten
most populous member states of the Organization of American States
(OAS). The objective model thus uses the topic country’s level of deviation
from the highest polity score during the year of the report as its primary
independent variable. Given that some countries have at times elected
constitutional assemblies to rewrite their constitutions and that the
configuration of power in such assemblies could alter the level of presidential
power, the objective model also controls for how the configuration of power
in a constitutional assembly will affect the probability that a report will call a
country’s democratic status into question. The model employs Corrales’
(2009) measure of how favourable or unfavourable the distributions of
assembly seats were to the presidents of six Latin American countries during
nine processes to amend or rewrite national constitutions. After generating
the prediction of the objective model, I then compare its prediction to how
frequently the press called into question Venezuela’s democratic status.
Then, to cross-examine a counter-hypothesis that the press’s level of
scrutiny of Chávez was driven more by his controversial history than by the
American state’s interests, I compare the press’s depictions of the early
Chávez years to the press’s portrayals of the state of democracy under another
leader with a comparably controversial history: Colombian President Álvaro
Uribe. Then, to assess whether the press minimized pressure on the
American state and the allied opposition to adhere to liberal norms in the
lead-up to Venezuela’s failed coup, I employ a method of thick description
of how reports characterized the allied opposition and official US positions
toward Venezuela in the year preceding the coup.
Results
Following the end of the Cold War, Hugo Chávez was one among a series
of Latin American political figures who won presidential elections despite
having histories that would have called into question their commitments to
democratic norms. Prior to winning Venezuela’s presidential election in
1998, Lieutenant Colonel Chávez had launched a failed coup attempt against
an elected government in 1992. Similarly, before winning presidential
elections in their respective countries, Ecuador’s Lucio Gutiérrez and Peru’s
Ollanta Humala had gained their notoriety by using their positions as
military officers to intervene in their countries’ political affairs. Before
winning Bolivia’s presidential election in 1997, Hugo Banzer had been a
military dictator of his country in the 1970s. And while Colombian
President Álvaro Uribe had no military background, his previous and
controversial policies as governor of the department of Antioquia had
facilitated an increase in paramilitary vigilantism and human rights abuses in
the department (see Porch and Rasmussen 2008). In all the aforementioned
cases, US correspondents in Latin America were aware of the controversial
histories of the figures in question, as evidenced by the fact that the Times
and Post had at various times reported on their histories prior to their
presidencies.
Yet in only one of the five aforementioned cases does one find that US
officials issued statements immediately after a leader’s election that
questioned his commitment to democracy. Four days after Chávez was
elected, the Washington Post reported that ‘several administration officials’ had
told the Post that ‘they feared Chávez would attempt to use his broad support
for fighting corruption to assume near dictatorial powers …’ (Washington Post
1998). Conversely, an examination of reports in the Times, Post and Federal
News Service indicates that US officials did not express any such concerns to
the press about either Banzer, Gutiérrez, Humala or Uribe in the week
following each’s election.
In other words, a basic method of difference approach indicates that a
Latin American president-elect’s prior history of contravening democratic
norms was not a sufficient condition for the American state to decide to cast
the leader as an autocratic rival. Rather, to adequately explain why Chávez
was the only such president-elect to immediately elicit US expressions of
alarm, we must look to what distinguished him from the other four leaders:
that he had explicitly challenged the hegemon’s political and economic
leadership of the region (Washington Post 1998). US officials appeared to
selectively invoke Chávez’s controversial history to cast him as a threat to
democracy and thereby isolate his government and contain the challenge it
posed to US leadership. In contrast, after the other four leaders signalled that
they did not challenge US leadership, US officials set their controversial
histories aside in the pursuit of cooperation on matters of common strategic
and/or commercial interest. Thus, consistent with the assumptions of the
study’s approach, the evidence suggests that the American state’s strategic and
commercial interests did play an important role in shaping its own positions
and narratives about where democracy was (or was not) under threat in the
region.
Conclusion
In sum, the American state’s approach to Venezuela in the period
surrounding the failed coup of 2002 conformed to an ambiguous pattern
that only a realist-constructivist theory of co-constitution could coherently
explain. In the pre-coup phase, the state’s interests shaped US cultural
discourses in such a way as to help facilitate the coup. However, the coup
itself was so obviously irreconcilable with the liberal identities of the United
States that it sparked a momentary shift towards greater cultural scrutiny of
both the American state and the allied opposition. In turn, such scrutiny
pressured the state to disassociate itself from the coup and to signal that it
would not support another one.
Of course, the study’s realist-constructivist approach suggests that the
tensions between the two sides of co-constitution will shape many facets of a
Western power’s foreign relations, not just its relations with countries where
coups take place against rival governments. The interests of Western powers
are also likely to cause their dominant cultures to downplay the less
democratic characteristics of allied governments and to thereby diminish
pressure on allied governments to consistently adhere to liberal norms (such
as was the case in US relations with the Colombian government of Álvaro
Uribe). On the other hand, if an allied government plainly jettisons some of
the core symbols of democracy, the identities and norms of a Western society
will likely cause cultural elites to take note of such an obvious setback to
democracy and thereby bring pressure on the state to distance itself from the
government in question (such as appears to have been the case in US
relations with the Peruvian government of Alberto Fujimori).
Thus, there are many different types of relations between Western powers
and the developing world that we could study in attempting to further cross-
examine the propositions of the study’s realist-constructivist approach. In
general, this study suggests that the tensions between state interests and
cultural identities will cause Western powers to be much less consistent in
their commitment to democracy promotion than liberals and mainstream
constructivists have predicted. At the same time, the study’s realist-
constructivist approach suggests that the semi-independence of Western
cultural elites will also render blatantly illiberal foreign policies considerably
less common than neorealists would anticipate.
References
Alexseev, Mikhail A. and W. Lance Bennett (1995) ‘For Whom the Gates
Open: News Reporting and Government Source Patterns in the United
States, Great Britain and Russia’. Political Communication 12: 395–412.
Barkin, J. Samuel (2003) ‘Realist Constructivism’. International Studies Review
5: 325–42.
Barkin, J. Samuel (2010) Realist Constructivism. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bennett, W. Lance (1990) ‘Toward a Theory of Press-State Relations in the
United States’. Journal of Communication 40: 103–27.
Bennett, W. Lance and Steven Livingston (2003) ‘A Semi-Independent
Press: Government Control and Journalistic Autonomy’. Political
Communication 20: 359–62.
Carr, Edward Hallett (1940) Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939. London:
Macmillan.
Cheibub, José A., Jennifer Gandhi and James R. Vreeland (2010)
‘Democracy and Dictatorship Revisited’. Public Choice 143: 67–101.
Corrales, Javier (2009) ‘Power Asymmetries and the Origin of Constitutions:
Latin America 1987–2009’. Paper presented at the 2009 meeting of the
American Political Science Association, Toronto, Canada, 3–6 September.
Doyle, Michael W. (1983) ‘Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs’.
Philosophy & Public Affairs 12: 205–35.
Doyle, Michael W. (2005) ‘Three Pillars of the Liberal Peace’. American
Political Science Review 99: 463–6.
Golan, Guy (2006) ‘Inter-Media Agenda Setting and Global News
Coverage’. Journalism Studies 7: 323–33.
Hallin, Daniel C. (1986) The ‘Uncensored War’. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Hayes, Jarrod (2012) ‘Securitization, Social Identity, and Democratic
Security: Nixon, India, and the Ties that Bind’. International Organization
66: 63–93.
Herman, Edward and Noam Chomsky (1988) Manufacturing Consent. New
York: Pantheon.
Inthorn, Sanna (2007) German Media and National Identity. Amherst, NY:
Cambria Press.
Jervis, Robert (1976) Perception and Misperception in World Politics. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kahl, Colin H. (1998) ‘Constructing a Separate Peace: Constructivism,
Collective Liberal Identity, and Democratic Peace’. Security Studies 8: 94–
144.
Kolbe, Jim (2002) ‘U.S. Representative Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) Holds Hearing
on Appropriations for Increased Security and Anti-Terrorism
Expenditures’. FDCH Political Transcripts, 18 April.
Kreisler, Harry (2002) Through the Realist Lens: Conversation with John
Mearsheimer. Conversations with History, Institute of International
Studies at the University of California, Berkeley.
Morgenthau, Hans (1950) Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and
Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
New York Times (2002a) ‘Uprising in Venezuela: The Continent; A Vicious
Circle: Failures in Instability’, 13 April: A9.
New York Times (2002b) ‘Uprising in Venezuela: Man in the News; Manager
and Conciliator – Pedro Carmona Estanga’, 13 April: A13.
New York Times (2002c) ‘Hugo Chavez Departs’, 13 April: A16.
New York Times (2002d) ‘Bush Officials Met with Venezuelans Who Ousted
Leader’, 16 April: A1.
Niebuhr, Reinhold (1932) Moral Man and Immoral Society. New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons.
Oren, Ido (1995) ‘The Subjectivity of the “Democratic” Peace: Changing
U.S. Perceptions of Imperial Germany’. International Security 20: 147–84.
Oren, Ido (2003) Our Enemies and Us. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Owen, John M. (1994) ‘How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace’.
International Security 19: 87–125.
Page, Benjamin I. (1996) Who Deliberates? Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Parish, Randall, Mark Peceny and Justin Delacour (2007) ‘Venezuela and the
Collective Defense of Democracy Regime in the Americas’.
Democratization 14: 207–31.
Peceny, Mark (1999) Democracy at the Point of Bayonets. University Park, PA:
Pennsylvania State University Press.
Pedelty, Mark (1995) War Stories. New York: Routledge.
Porch, Douglas and Maria Jose Rasmussen (2008) ‘Demobilization of
Paramilitaries in Colombia: Transformation or Transition?’ Studies in
Conflict & Terrorism 31: 520–40.
Rosati, Jerel A. (2000) ‘The Power of Human Cognition in the Study of
World Politics’. International Studies Review 3: 45–75.
Russett, Bruce and John Oneal (2001) Triangulating Peace. New York: W.W.
Norton & Company.
Ryan, Michael (2001) ‘Journalistic Ethics, Objectivity, Existential
Journalism, Standpoint Epistemology, and Public Journalism’. Journal of
Mass Media Ethics 16: 3–22.
Sparrow, Bartholomew (1999) Uncertain Guardians: The News Media as a
Political Institution. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Thyne, Clayton L. (2010) ‘Supporter of Stability or Agent of Agitation? The
Effect of US Foreign Policy on Coups in Latin America, 1960–1999’.
Journal of Peace Research 47: 449–61.
Waltz, Kenneth N. (2000) ‘Structural Realism after the Cold War’.
International Security 25: 5–41.
Washington Post (1998) ‘U.S. Warns Incoming Venezuelan President; Radical
Political or Economic Measures Could Sour Relations, Chávez Is Told’, 10
December: A18.
Washington Post (2001) ‘Though Poor Remain Loyal, Opposition to Chávez
Grows’, 26 November: A21.
Washington Post (2002a) ‘Political Crisis in Venezuela Worries White House;
Declining Popularity of Country’s President Threatens Stability of a Key
U.S. Oil Supplier’, 23 February: A18.
Washington Post (2002b) ‘Leader of Venezuela Is Forced to Resign; Ex-Oil
Executive Takes Office as Interim President’, 13 April: A01.
Washington Post (2002c) ‘Clash of Visions Pushed Venezuela Toward Coup;
Admiral and President Were Old Rivals’, 21 April: A1.
8
Introduction
In this chapter I inquire into the evolution and implementation of the
controversial norm of responsibility to protect (R2P) in the international
community, with respect to the effects it produces in international customary
law. While I consider that the state’s security is a constant of international
relations and the state remains the main provider of human security
(Newman 2001, p. 240; Hynek 2012, p. 96), I look into the changes in the
security discourse induced by the norms that emphasize human rights,
which impact the core practices of the international system, as reasons for
(military) intervention, international security and state sovereignty. I try to
determine whether the R2P principle, as derived from human security
doctrine, is becoming an international norm that produces effects on the
practice of international security and on the meaning of sovereignty, which
would be indicative of an increasing role given to the individual in the
equation of international security. I observe both the normative evolution of
human-centred principles, by identifying their commonalities, their
institutional markers and their presence in the discourse of international
actors, and the compliance of states with the concept of sovereignty as
responsibility. A key objective of this research is to scrutinize the
international community’s internalization of the normative frameworks of
human-centred doctrines, human security and R2P, by testing them on two
hard cases: the conflicts in Libya and Syria. The premise is that if states are
invoking the conditionality of sovereignty to ensure the security of their
citizens and are disposed to act when actors fail to ensure it, then it can be
observed that a normative turn has happened in the international system,
driven by the R2P principle.
Taking into consideration the current evolution in the international
system, which seems to demonstrate a permanence of power politics and the
prevalence of the realist interest in traditional security dynamics (hybrid
warfare, asymmetric threats, the evolution of post-intervention in Libya and
the Catch 22 situation in Syria), there is a tension between the realist and
constructivist theories of international relations. This research is possible
using a realist constructivist theory (Barkin 2010), which manages to fit the
explanations of both the evolution of human-centred norms on the
international agenda and the persistence of the realist national interest and
the dilemmas of military intervention. This chapter shows that a realist
constructivist theoretical framework explains the impact of human security
doctrine and of the R2P principle on international law, by analyzing their
normative evolution and their practical operationalizing. The
institutionalization of the human-centred concepts, the presence of their
rhetoric at the level of the international discourse, but at the same time the
incapacity of the international community to implement the R2P principle
and to exercise sovereignty as responsibility, as exemplified in the case of the
Syrian conflict, indicates the coexistence of the constructivist evolution of
the norm in the international system with realist-driven policies.
This research suggests that the presence of human security and of R2P
values in the international discourses around the conflicts of Libya and Syria
demonstrates the process of socialization and the internalization of these
norms, which enter the opinio juris of the state, consequently underscoring
the customary law formation around the sovereignty as responsibility
principle. Observing the international dynamics and the rhetoric at the
United Nations Security Council level, this research suggests that the R2P
principle was invoked in the Libyan and the Syrian conflicts as a marker of
the transformed notion of sovereignty as responsibility. At the same time, this
chapter offers an image of the evolution of customary international law as
states start to comply with the principle of sovereignty as responsibility.
Hence, these findings, interpreted through a realist constructivist lens,
indicate the presence of a normative evolution with respect to a more central
role offered to the individual in international security, despite the persistence
of the realist behaviour (geopolitical interest, power politics) in international
dynamics. Apart from this inquiry into the normative evolution of the
human-centred concept, this research aims to reconfirm the practical utility
of a realist constructivist theoretical approach in the reconciliation of the
explanations with the apparent opposite and simultaneously impossible
trends, which are in reality concomitant phenomena.
Constructivism
Constructivism’s utility is determined by the fact that it offers two types of
explanation: one of identity constructivism, which defines how identities are
shaped, and consequently how the national interest is shaped (Wendt 1992);
and a norms and discourse constructivism, which gives an explanatory
perspective on ‘social construction of accepted meanings and on the social
construction of reality’ (Guzzini 2013, p. 191). Both of these dimensions are
used in testing the argument in this chapter, in observing the transformation
of security, norm entrepreneurs, and the possible inclusion of norms in
customary law, as part of the actors’ identities.
I use a mainstream (conventional) constructivism, advocated by Wendt
(1992), which has as the central reasoning the idea, contra neorealism, that
the distribution of power is influenced by social contexts, determined by
intersubjective understandings, expectations, common norms, and identities.
The constructivist paramount premise of the current research is the social
(intersubjective) character of international reality (Onuf 1989), as opposed to
the realist view of the understanding of international politics as the result of
an objective and material reality. Wendt’s (1992, p. 397) argument about the
anarchic character of the international system and the importance of self-
reflection of the actors and towards ‘the other’, in a relation of ‘distribution of
knowledge’, which demonstrates that the structure of the international
system is not a constant but an independent variable constructed on social
practices, is also a starting point of the analysis in this chapter. I rely on the
constructivist argument that the interest of the state is not a given, nor
permanent, but is a social construct, which means that it is a variable
depending on the identity of the actors (Wendt 1992, pp. 417–24; Kolodziej
2005, p. 261). At the same time, I consider Adler’s (1997, p. 322) argument
on the reciprocal transformation between the material world and human
actions, interaction which ‘depends on dynamic normative and epistemic
interpretations of the material world’, Jeffrey Checkel’s (1998, p. 325)
arguments on the social character of the international environment and on
the impact it has on leading states ‘to the understanding of their own
interests’ and Newman’s (2001, p. 248) ideas on the fact that the
international system is socially constructed and can be transformed through
ideas, discourse and identities. This constructivist logic allows research into
the fact that international rules, regulations and norms (grosso modo in
international law) are influenced by and evolve based on ideas and shared
values. Hence, I adopt Barkin’s view (2010, p. 26) on the methodological
and ontological utility of constructivism in the processes of intersubjectivity
and co-constitution. Norms and knowledge, practices or customs that are
created based on common interests or values come to have a life of their
own, regardless of the particular actors, starting instead to shape the
behaviour of the actors, which begin complying with the new rule.
Therefore, ontologically, constructivism underscores the relational form of
power (Klotz and Lynch 2007, p. 10), as the processes and interactions are
essential for emphasizing the process of co-constitution, and not the material
form, as realism explains. The utility of using the co-constitution argument
in this research consists, on the one hand, in highlighting the social
construction of international politics, and, on the other, in noticing the
changes and transformation of international institutions.
At the same time, as I engage in identifying the discursive markers of the
human-centred concepts, I also consider the discursive dimension of
constructivism, which emphasizes the role of rules as speech acts, in
influencing human behaviour (Kratochwil 1989, pp. 10–11). By the same
token, I rally to Onuf ’s (2002, p. 36) argument which maintains the role of
discourse in shaping reality, and that ‘society and people are in a permanent
reciprocal construction’. He argues that the norms which influence the
human social relations are the depositary of language and discourse.
Therefore, the discursive research conducted in this chapter is synthesized in
the idea that ‘through speech, we make the world what it is’ (Onuf 2002, p.
126).
Realism
On the other hand, realist arguments underscore the permanence of the
politics of power and seem to contradict the evolution of human-centred
doctrines such as human security and R2P, which originate in the processes
of transformation induced by shared values and ideas, co-constitution,
empowerment and agency, with an important contribution from non-state
actors (Newman 2001, p. 247).
Realism is understood in this research as focusing on power (Morgenthau
1948; Carr 1964) in international relations, as process, as means, and as a
goal (Buzan 2007, p. 14). Realism considers survival paramount (eg Waltz
1979) or at least relevant (eg Morgenthau 1948), in different circumstances.
Classical realism, in Barkin’s (2003) reading, admits that the interest of
survival of the state is not an immutable or permanent preoccupation. By the
same token, classical realism does not exclude the possibility that the power
behaviour be determined from within the state (the impact of the population
and political parties). While, at points, survival, framed in national interest, is
prevalent for the actions of the states on the international arena, as in
situations of conflict or threats, it is not the exclusive reason for the actions
and behaviour of states (Wendt 1999, p. 13; Barkin 2003, p. 328).
International actors can also act in the social international environment
driven by affinities of mutually shared values and of morality (as Carr (1964,
p. 235) explains, realism does not exclude the presence of morality in the
world order), which can pursue the security of their citizens and/or of the
individuals worldwide, as envisioned in the human rights regimes and the
subsequent normative offspring.
According to realism, the mechanism that stabilizes the international
system is the balance of power. The permanent competition for power and
military conflict are constants of international relations. Therefore, realism
does not recognize either the possibility of international law evolving or the
independent existence of this category because laws are created and
implemented by the sovereign actors (Reinold 2013, p. 12). In the
(neo)realist understanding of the anarchic international system (Waltz 1979),
it would be impossible for norms to transform the behaviour of the states.
Thus, this theory fails in explaining the success of the emancipative norms
that focus on the security of the individual in the international system, a fact
which leads to the need to consider an alternative explanation.
For realists, the state is the main actor in international relations and uses
military means to ensure, in a self-help logic, its national interest (power and
security) in the context of international anarchy. However, Carr (1964, pp.
224–35) demonstrated that even if the states were the ‘locus of power in
global politics’ (Barkin 2003, p. 328), it does not imply that they are
necessarily the central actor, a fact which permits broadening the analysis of
international dynamics. This research does not consider the state as the
immutable actor of international relations, although it remains or manifests
in different stances of the international dynamics as the locus of power and,
consequently, the provider of security. This fact brings into discussion the
power–security relation, which is one of the key aspects in analyzing the
change in the referent of international security and the place of the
individual in this equation. While the evolution of the human-centred
normative framework demonstrates an increasing preoccupation for the
security of the individual, it does not exclude the state as the provider of
security or the locus of power, as advocated in the realist theory. However,
while these realities would appear contradictory to those who claim a mutual
exclusion of realist and constructivist theories, these two realities are
coexistent and, furthermore, embedded in the same explanatory pattern.
As previously noted, both the social construction of international norms
and the distribution and influence of power are constants that have a strong
impact on the conceptualization and implementation of international
security. Therefore the analysis of human-centred normative evolution of
international relations cannot exclude the realist type of explanation which,
at the end of the day, describes the rationality behind states’ behaviour and
interaction. In this explanatory void lies the window of opportunity for
dissolving these apparent contradictory descriptions with a realist-
constructivist framework. The theoretical approach of realist constructivism
was proposed by Barkin (2003, 2010), who developed this dual
understanding of international system processes and advocates that
constructivism and realism are not antagonist theories, mentioning that the
usefulness of this approach stays on the fact that it reconciles, ‘on the one
hand, the study of power and the study of ideals in international relations
and, on the other, the study of the social construction of international
politics’ (Barkin 2003, p. 326). Hence, this theoretical framework allows the
use of both realist and constructivist explanations for international
phenomena, which helps understanding of both the states’ positions in the
international system and the evolution of norms and the impact that shared
values and discourse have on the international structure.
Methodology
This research examines whether there is a change in the referent of security,
from state towards the individual. Hence, it analyzes the evolution of the
human-centred security concept from the emergence of the human security
doctrine (UNDP 1994) and the evolution of the operational principle of
R2P, to the impact it has on the current international dynamics and on the
concept of state sovereignty, by testing its implementation in the cases of
Libya and Syria. As this research is part of a bigger project, I am not
conducting an exhaustive analysis on the topic in this chapter.
This research analyzes the constitutive (the manner in which actors
internalize the norms so that their identities and interests are redefined,
further impacting the structure) and regulatory (the behaviour of the actors
that act according to the norm due to instrumental reasons) effects of the
human-centred norms (the R2P principle). In order to analyze the evolution
of the R2P principle and its influence in international politics, this research
uses the ‘norm life cycle’ model proposed by Finnemore and Sikkink (1998).
The norm life cycle model identifies three stages in norm evolution. The
first stage is ‘norm emergence’, the second consists in ‘norm cascade’, while
the third stage is represented by the process of ‘internalization’. While this
norm evolution model is based on constructivist explanations and dynamics,
it also takes into account realist arguments, as the persistence of the
international actors’ rational behaviour and their inherent (neo)realist
calculus. Apart from the constructivist identity and discursive arguments, the
actors (especially the reluctant ones) conduct a permanent strategic calculus
on the costs and benefits of adopting the norm. This fact explains why even
the actors who refuse to conform to the generally accepted norms might be
prone to endorse them, due to the rational calculus that they could be
restricted from access to certain positions or advantages in the future. Hence,
Glanville (2015, p. 4) maintains that these tactical concessions driven by self-
interested reasons express the implicit fact that norms have social validity.
The inclusion in the norm life cycle model of this hybrid explanation makes
the research consistent with the realist constructivist general interpretative
framework.
In order to observe if the behaviour prescribed by the human security
paradigm is internalized in the discourse of the international actors in a new
transformed sovereign institution (sovereignty as responsibility), in relation
with the R2P principle evolution and implementation, an analysis of the
exercise of sovereignty is needed. In this research I consider a flexible,
transformable concept of sovereignty, whose ‘legitimate basis changes over
time’ (Barkin 1998, p. 230) and I adopt the idea that the institution of
customary international law can be (is) determined in some cases through
‘compliance with non-binding norms’ (Bădescu 2011, p. 131). Therefore,
this research applies the congruence procedure, which helps in diagnosing
the stage of the norm life cycle a principle has reached by establishing an
area of values and ideas that are derived from a norm and applying it to the
actors’ behaviour to observe if there is compliance with the former (Van
Evera 1997, p. 58). In this sense, I try to observe whether states comply with
the R2P principle and if they adopt sovereignty as responsibility through the
case studies on the conflicts of Libya and Syria. The rationale for selecting
the conflicts of Libya and Syria for testing the research hypotheses was driven
by their prevalence and common denominator – large human security
(humanitarian) crises, the violation of the R2P thresholds, and the acute
need to ensure the protection of civilians.
The methodological utility of social constructivism is determined by the
fact that it is a contingent and flexible theory, allowing the user to dismiss
the rigid-unilateral explanatory framework of the states’ behaviour based
solely on the logic of consequence and the idea that the evolution of norms
in the international system is a result of a coercion or a utilitarian process
(Reinold 2013, p. 14). Nonetheless, Krasner’s (1999, p. 6) view on the
prevalence of the logic of consequence over the logics of appropriateness is
kept as a valid possibility for the objectivity of the research. Ontologically,
constructivism is useful for this study because it problematizes the agent–
structure relationship and it broadens the lens to observe the capacity of the
system to reproduce norms and the possibility of new norms to emerge in
the established international customs.
The methods used for tracing these phenomena are the observation of the
institutional changes and customary law formation determined by the
human security idea, R2P norms, and the indicators of the sovereignty as
responsibility institution. In addition, I use foreign policy analysis, the
justifications states use for their behaviour and their response to other actors’
actions (discursive analysis), following the behaviour and speeches derived
from the values of the human security doctrine and R2P principle.
Security is concomitantly perceived as a relational concept, conditioned
more by culture than by the distribution of military capacities (Klotz and
Lynch 2007, p. 17), and it is also viewed as a ‘determinant of the structures
of power’ in the international system. In these circumstances, the
constructivist analytical framework permits me to conduct an analytical
exercise on the evolution of security norms based on a methodology situated
on the border between positivism (by analyzing the institutional markers and
positions of the international actors) and post-positivism (discursive analysis).
Hence, the current research is framed by two pillars, regarding the realist-
constructivist and constructivist epistemologies: causality and interpretation.
Methodologically, on the one hand, I am using a causal epistemology with a
process tracing method, while on the other, I use a discursive epistemology,
as a marker of the interpretative dimension. The epistemology of this
research alternates between positivism, for the analysis of institutional
changes, the evolution and operationalizing and implementation of the R2P
principle, and the course of events in the conflicts of Libya and Syria, and a
post-positivist approach, helpful in observing the normative changes,
discursive practices and emergence of the sovereignty as responsibility
concept. While the positivist approach analyzes chronological and
institutional events, the post-positivism lens is centred on the contestation of
the significations and the established meanings. The post-positivist analysis
includes the analysis of language, of discourse, and the manner in which
these theorize and reify power and the securitized reality. I contingently
analyze the discourses and content analysis regarding the reactions to the
situations that need the implementation of the norm and the justification of
(non-)action with respect to the cases of Libya and Syria. This effort is useful
in observing if the norms are internalized in the opinio juris of the
international actors.
The current study compiles and analyzes the treaties, conventions,
resolutions and reports correlated with the analyzed subjects and I conduct a
non-exhaustive foreign policy analysis based on official documents and
declarations. In addition, I use complementary documentation such as
international media, and secondary sources based mainly on the specialized
literature, which offers the possibility for validation and triangulation of data.
Nonetheless, this study, with a strong theoretical dimension, builds on
previous studies regarding the evolution of norms and the translation of the
security focus from state towards the individual (human security and R2P),
as well as on the research focusing on changing the practices of sovereignty,
for operating the necessary theoretical clarifications in the field of analysis.
Realist constructivism
The meta-theoretical IR framework of this research is realist constructivism,
the utility of which opens a twofold window of opportunity. On the one
side, it offers explanatory support for the theoretical norm evolution
arguments (human security, R2P and sovereignty) and for explaining the
willingness of the actors to adopt human-centred doctrines, based on the
processes of intersubjectivity in creating and advancing the norms on
common values, and on processes of co-constitution, determining the identity
of the actors in the international community. On the other side, it
harmonizes the tools to explain the power politics manifested in the
reactions to the conflicts of Libya and Syria, as results of the policy of power,
without denying the evolution of the analyzed principle.
The emergence of the R2P principle, which originates in just war
theory, and hence, related to classical realist explanations (Tadjbakhsh and
Chenoy 2007, p. 81), was influenced by the evolution of human-centred
doctrines in the aftermath of the post-Cold War period. The realist
constructivist framework offers a conciliatory perspective for explaining the
intersection of R2P with human-centred doctrines. In addition, the realist
constructivist approach is useful to avoid a utopian, morally prescriptive
analysis, by distancing it from a conception of morality understood in
teleological terms, which would be both counterproductive and without
utility.
Empirical analysis
The Libyan and Syrian conflicts are considered to be the R2P ‘hard cases’
(Thakur 2011, p. 19). The conflict in Libya revealed simultaneously the
capacity of R2P to mobilize force and revealed the limitations induced by
debates on sovereignty – based on legitimacy, capacity to protect citizens,
and post-conflict state building. The use of the R2P rhetoric and
justification in the case of Libya was not a novelty for the United Nations
Security Council (UNSC). Since its birth, the R2P principle has been
recalled in 64 resolutions (as of September 2017). However, Resolution 1973
of the UNSC (2011a) for Libya represented the first of this type calling for
‘all necessary measures’ for ‘protecting civilians and civilian populated areas
under threat of attack’ by their government. This event was cherished by
many supporters of R2P as being the ‘tipping point’, ‘the momentum’, ‘a
game changer’ (Thakur 2011) or ‘the perfect storm’ (Garwood-Gowers
2013, p. 595) that delineated the success and validity of R2P as being the
outpost of a new era in the international community’s engagement for
humanitarianism and protection of civilians (Ban 2011). However, the
reactions to the post-Libyan intervention, especially driven by reluctant states
(Brazil, China, Russia) which contested R2P because the initial aim of the
UNSC mandate was changed, were translated in a backlash against the norm
(Garwood-Gowers 2013, p. 595). Furthermore, the failure to rebuild after
the intervention in Libya revealed the limits of the principle (Hehir and
Murray 2013; Chandler 2015) and arguably determined the lack of
international response to the Syrian conflict, failing to provide protection of
civilians. Regarding the case of the Syrian conflict, with respect to
protecting civilians, the R2P case becomes a classic ‘tragedy of the
commons’, where ‘no one becomes responsible’ (Chandler 2011, p. 32).
Conclusion
This investigation reveals the usefulness of the realist constructivist approach,
by underscoring the fact that the normative dimensions of human security
and R2P penetrated the international agenda. It also suggests that these
dimensions were institutionalized (normalized) in other initiatives that aim to
protect the security of the individuals from the multidimensional risks they
are exposed to. The concept of state sovereignty changed its function due to
the transformative impetus of the R2P principle and of the new security
approaches which focused on the security of the individual. This emphasized
the fact that the human-centred doctrines entered both international
discourse and practice and impacted the conduct of sovereignty, by
transforming states’ behaviour and expectations. However, state sovereignty
is not diminished but has witnessed a reaffirmation in the context of the new
international discourse.
The development of the principle was challenged by states that
maintained a resistance to the change and by a reluctance driven by the
misconception that R2P was a necessarily militarized doctrine. The Reports
of the UN Secretary General on R2P reveal the institutional support for the
principle, and the fluctuations in the political decisions responsible for R2P,
depending on international circumstances. The acceptance of the R2P norm
and its inclusion in the opinio juris of international law is driven by the first
pillar of the R2P principle, the responsibility to prevent, which is embedded
in the core obligations of sovereignty and in the human rights international
law architecture (both as responsibility of the state and obligation of the
international community to assist).
The R2P principle, through the third pillar approach, the double-
sovereignty as responsibility concept, and through the clear criteria
established for military intervention (precautionary principles; jus ad bellum
and jus in bello), passes over the gap between legality and legitimacy and
establishes a new relation between human rights and sovereignty (Marks and
Cooper 2010, p. 89). The concept of state sovereignty (international legal
and Westphalian sovereignty) changed its function due to the transformative
impetus of the R2P principle and due to the new security approaches, and
the securitization of the individual, human security correlated in the world-
time variable. However, the principle of sovereignty is not diminished, but is
reaffirmed, a fact supported by the international discourse (Murthy and
Kurtz 2016, p. 40).
The pace of R2P’s normative progress has been one of the most
impressive and spectacular normative evolutions given the limited time it has
been operational (Weiss 2014). However, the practice of R2P, which I test in
this study, is problematic (Bădescu 2011, p. 136). Nonetheless, regarding the
evolution of the norm and contrasting it to the case of the dreadful Syrian
conflict, the mere fact that international actors explain the lack of
compliance with the R2P principle suggests that R2P is becoming an
accepted international norm, and it slightly starts to be present in the opinio
juris of the state. The international discourse on R2P has changed from the
accusations vis-à-vis the Western states of having an interventionist attitude,
towards the recognized incapacity of some states to ensure the protection of
their citizens from mass atrocity crimes. In addition, the role of the Western
states in humanitarian crises changed, from a central perspective to an
indirect one, a fact which aims to support the respect for the re-imagined
notion of sovereignty (Chandler 2011, p. 26). The efforts to institutionalize
R2P could generate a norm cascade. However, R2P implementation still
depends on the efforts of norm entrepreneurs (civil society at the national,
regional and international levels) that would need to emphasize its
normative-preventive dimension (Serrano and Weiss 2014, p. 17).
Weiss (2014, p. 14), a champion of the R2P principle, although calling it
a ‘norm’, mentions that in fact it is not an explanatory factor for the
different reactions to the conflicts of Libya and Syria, the international action
being driven by ‘geopolitics and collective spinelessness combined with a
difficult military situation on the ground’ (Weiss 2014). This chapter argues
for a realist constructivist explanation, in affirming that R2P reached the
status of norm, constructed on mutual shared values, but is exposed to the
realist dynamics of the international community, which acts based on rational
decisions and geopolitical interests. This fact means that the lack of reaction
to the Syrian conflict, although abominable when considering the
dimensions of the humanitarian disaster, does not mean that R2P is not a
norm, but is still contested, coming into conflict with the old practice of
defending national interests, despite the human loss.
In addition, the core presence of the rhetoric of human-centred doctrines
in the UNSC presents the prospects of reaching consensus to protect
civilians, once this responsibility of the international community is
acknowledged at the international level, as a mutual shared value of the
individual actors of the international community (states, international
organizations and NGOs).
The role of R2P in the ‘formation of habits of protection’ (Bellamy 2013,
p. 352) represents a strong argument for the fact that the R2P norm
evolution process is advanced, starting to enter the opinio juris of states. Using
realist constructivist argumentation, observing the norm evolution process
and states’ behaviour and discourse in relation to the conflicts of Libya and
Syria, I agree with Bellamy’s (2013, p. 352) conclusions that even if the R2P
principle does not have the capacity ‘by itself ’ to override state interests in
relation to specific crises, it influences the redefinition of state’s ‘identities
and interests’. Building upon the narrative developed after the end of the
Cold War on the importance of human life and the provision of security to
the individual, as institutionalized in the human security paradigm, the R2P
principle entered international discourse as a marker of the process of
internalization of this mentality by international actors. Therefore, the
process of co-constitution was activated because once the identities of the
actors started to change due to normative developments based on common
shared values (human security, R2P), states became determined to change
the structure of international mechanisms of reaction to mass atrocity crimes,
genocide, and imminent threats, becoming more prone to the protection of
civilians facing these threats. Despite its failure in the Syrian case, I consider
that the R2P norm in evolution has a prevalent function, being ‘a political
or rhetorical tool to alter state behavior’ (Garwood-Gowers 2013, p. 601).
The realist constructivist framework allows a comprehensive delving into
the birth and life of normative frameworks which impact the international
agenda, and hence states’ behaviour and their resilience to change, within
the context of a realist logic, in which geopolitical calculus and national
interest are still a constant. This research has validated the utility of the realist
constructivism analytical framework, which accommodated in the same
research model a theoretical inquiry on the evolution of human-centred
concepts and norms, and foreign policy analysis based on states’ positions
and discourses.
References
Adler, Emanuel (1997) ‘Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in
World Politics’. European Journal of International Relations 3: 319–63.
Adler-Nissen, Rebecca and Vincent Pouliot (2014) ‘Power in Practice:
Negotiating the International Intervention in Libya’. European Journal of
International Relations 20: 1–23.
Bădescu, Cristina Gabriela (2011) Humanitarian Intervention and the
Responsibility to Protect Security and Human Rights. New York: Routledge.
Ban Ki-moon (2011) ‘The Role of Regional and Sub-Regional
Arrangements in Implementing the Responsibility to Protect’. Report of the
UN Secretary General. New York: United Nations.
Ban Ki-moon (2015) A Vital and Enduring Commitment: Implementing
the Responsibility to Protect. UN Doc. A/69/981-S/2015/500. General
Assembly, Security Council, New York: United Nations.
Barkin, J. Samuel (1998) ‘The Evolution of the Constitution of Sovereignty
and the Emergence of the Human Rights Norms’. Millennium – Journal of
International Studies 27: 229–52.
Barkin, J. Samuel (2003) ‘Realist Constructivism’. International Studies Review
5: 325–42.
Barkin, J. Samuel (2010) Realist Constructivism: Rethinking International
Relations Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bellamy, Alex (2013) ‘The Responsibility to Protect: Added Value or Hot
Air?’ Cooperation and Conflict 48: 333–57.
Buzan, Barry (2007) People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International
Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era. Colchester: ECRP Press.
Carr, Edward Hallett (1964) The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939: An
Introduction to the Study of International Relations. New York: Harper &
Row.
Chandler, David (2011) ‘The Gap Between the Promise and Reality of
R2P’, in Philip Cunliffe, ed., Critical Perspectives on the R2P. Interrogating
Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge.
Chandler, David (2015) ‘The R2P Is Dead, Long Live the R2P: The
Successful Separation of Military Intervention from the Responsibility to
Protect’. International Peacekeeping 22: 1–5.
Checkel, Jeffrey T. (1998) ‘The Constructivist Turn in International
Relations Theory’. World Politics 50: 324–48.
Finnemore, Martha and Kathryn Sikkink (1998) ‘International Norm
Dynamics and Political Change’. International Organization 52: 887–917.
Garwood-Gowers, Andrew (2013) ‘The Responsibility to Protect and the
Arab Spring: Libya as the Exception, Syria as the Norm?’ University of New
South Wales Law Journal 36: 594–618.
Glanville, Luke (2015) ‘Does R2P matter? Interpreting the impact of a
norm’. Cooperation and Conflict 51: 184-99.
Guzzini, Stefano (2013) Power, Realism, and Constructivism. London and New
York: Routledge.
Hehir, Aiden and Richard Murray, eds. (2013) Libya, the Responsibility to
Protect and the Future of Humanitarian Intervention. London: Palgrave.
Hynek, Nik (2012) Human Security as Statecraft. Structural conditions,
articulations and unintended consequences. London and New York: Routledge.
Ignatieff, Michael (2016) ‘The Destruction of Syria and the Crisis of
Universal Values’. Kelman Seminar, 7 March. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Law School.
Klotz, Audie and Cecelia Lynch (2007) Strategies for Research in Constructivist
International Relations. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Kolodziej, Edward A. (2005) Security and International Relations. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Krasner, Stephan D. (1999) Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Kratochwil, Friedrich (1989) Rules, Norms, and Decisions: On the Conditions of
Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kuwali, Dan (2012) ‘Responsibility to Protect: Why Libya and Not Syria?’
Policy & Practice Brief: Knowledge for Durable Peace 16: 1–7.
Marks, Stephen P. and Nicholas Cooper (2010) ‘The Responsibility to
Protect: Watershed or Old Wine in a New Bottle?’ Jindal Global Law
Review 2: 86–130.
Morgenthau, Hans (1948) Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and
Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Murthy, C.S.R. and Gerrit Kurtz (2016) ‘International Responsibility as
Solidarity: The Impact of the World Summit Negotiations on the R2P
Trajectory’. Global Society 30: 38–53.
Newman, Edward (2001) ‘Human Security and Constructivism’.
International Studies Perspectives 2: 239–51.
Onuf, Nicholas (1989) World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory
and International Relations. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina
Press.
Onuf, Nicholas (2002) ‘Worlds of Our Making: The Strange Career of
Constructivism in International Relations’, in Donald J. Puchala, ed.,
Visions of International Relations: Assessing an Academic Field. Columbia, SC:
University of South Carolina Press.
Reinold, Theresa (2013) Sovereignty and Responsibility to Protect. The Power of
Norms and the Norms of the Powerful. New York: Routledge.
Rieff, David (2011) ‘RIP, P2P’. New York Times, 7 November. Available at:
www.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/opinion/r2p-rip.html?pagewanted=all.
S/2012/538 (2012) France, Germany, Portugal, United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft
resolution, 19 July. New York: United Nations Security Council.
S/2012/77 (2012) Bahrain, Colombia, Egypt, France, Germany, Jordan,
Kuwait, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Togo,
Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft resolution, 4
February. New York: United Nations Security Council.
S/PV.6627 4 (2011) UNSC 6627th meeting, UN Doc., 4 October. New
York: United Nations Security Council.
S/PV.6711 (2012) UNSC 6711th meeting, UN Doc., 4 February. New
York: United Nations Security Council.
Serrano, Mónica and Thomas G. Weiss (2014) ‘Introduction: Is R2P
“cascading”?’ in Serrano and Weiss, eds., The International Politics of Human
Rights. Rallying to the R2P Cause? London and New York: Routledge.
Shaikh, Salman and Amanda Roberts (2016) ‘Syria’, in Sebastian von
Einsiedel, ed., The UN Security Council in the Twenty-first Century. Boulder,
CO: Lynne Rienner.
Tadjbakhsh, Shahrbanou and Anuradha M. Chenoy (2007) Human Security.
Concept and Implications. New York: Routledge.
Thakur, Ramesh (2011) The Responsibility to Protect: Norms, Laws and the Use
of Force in International Politics. New York: Routledge.
UNDP (1994) Human Development Report 1994. New York: Oxford
University Press.
UNGA (2005) World Summit Document outcome UN GA A-60-L. New
York: UN General Assembly.
UNSC (2011a) Resolution 1973. New York: United Nations Security
Council.
UNSC (2011b) Security Council approves ‘no-fly zone’ over Libya,
authorizing ‘all necessary measures’ to protect civilians, by vote of 10 with
5 abstentions, 17 March. Available at:
www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm#Resolution
Van Evera, Stephen (1997) Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Waltz, Kenneth (1979) Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Weiss, Thomas (2014) ‘Military Humanitarianism: Syria Hasn’t Killed It’.
The Washington Quarterly 37: 7–20.
Wendt, Alexander (1992) ‘Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social
Construction of Power Politics’. International Organization 46: 391–425.
Wendt, Alexander (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
9
The chapters across this volume have made the argument that a combination
of realism and constructivism has significant theoretical promise and can
result in important payoffs in terms of understanding empirical phenomena
in global politics. They have suggested that it is important for those
interested in the social to pay attention to power, and important for those
interested in power to pay attention to its social dynamics. Each chapter, and
each theorist of realist constructivism, has put forth a slightly different
permutation of the theoretical paradigms and used it for a slightly different
end. Each is importantly fruitful. I agree with its subscribers that
combinations of realisms and constructivisms are more theoretically useful
and empirically explanatory than the deployment of theories within each
paradigm on their own would be. At the same time, overall, I find both the
theoretical commitment to realist constructivism and its deployment to
analyze events in global politics problematic. In this chapter I suggest that the
enterprise of realist constructivism itself, and the manifestations of its utility
included in this volume, are not necessarily incorrect, but instead rest on a
partial and misguided premise.
The partial and misguided premise is that the combination of realism and
constructivism has more, or different, utility than any other combination of
theories, and that the combining should stop with these two theoretical
approaches. The old adage that two heads are better than one certainly
applies to realism and constructivism, but the justificatory logic applies to
expanding further: a second approach covers more ground and exposes more
nuance than only one; adding a third, or fourth, approach would do the
same. Rather than limiting the possible combinations to realisms and
constructivisms, I argue that the idea of ‘the more the merrier’ applies to
international relations (IR) theorizing as much as it does to social gatherings,
if not more so. In this chapter, then, I suggest that, theoretically, realist
constructivism is itself too limiting a concept for thinking about global
politics. After outlining that theoretical argument, I revisit the substance of
four empirical chapters in the volume, each time adding a third theoretical
approach to suggest an increase in the theoretical and empirical leverage that
the chapter might provide. The chapter concludes by arguing for trading in
realist constructivism for ‘ism’ promiscuity.
The value-added, Barkin (2010, p. 11) argues, is ‘how realist insights about
power and constructivist method might combine to provide a more robust
tool for studying foreign policy than either is capable of alone’. Similar logic
appears elsewhere in advocacy for realist constructivism or constructivist
realism. Bing (2008) discusses the core commonalities of realism and
constructivisms as exploring different forms of power and their respective
effects on the social construction of international politics. Mattern (2005)
speaks of the power politics of identity, leveraging realist analysis to
understand identity and order in global politics. Wood (2013, p. 395) argues
that realism and constructivism are more alike than different when applied to
the analysis of prestige in global politics, which seems to him to be a
conceptual overlap of the two approaches. Germán Prieto (Chapter 2, this
volume) contends that realist constructivism ‘may offer better causal
explanations than classical realism or constructivism on their own’, where
the causal explanations of the synthesis are ‘more encompassing’ especially as
applied to the simultaneous analysis of agency and structure. Each of these
claims features the unique contribution each approach has to a synthesis
between the two, and the value-added of the application of both approaches
simultaneously.
The empirical chapters in this volume also make a case that combining
realisms and constructivisms provide a payoff that becomes more than a sum
of the combined parts. Saira Bano (Chapter 5, this volume) makes the
argument that the India–US Nuclear Deal needs to be explained by the
combination of the power of norms and the power of power – where ‘realist
constructivism can account for changes and stability in normative structure
by looking at power structure, normative factors, domestic culture, and elite
perception’. In Bano’s view, realist constructivism’s value-added is in the
ability to combine analysis of norms and power, and of stability and change.
Martin Boyle (Chapter 4, this volume) suggests that constructivist ‘social
identity’ necessarily entails ‘a collective interest’, which is a core concept
implicating realist theorizing. Analysing the anomalous status of Taiwan in
global politics, Boyle contends that ‘Taiwan’s case invites a constructivist
response to a realist puzzle; power forms the anarchic structure that states
must respect in order to survive’. In Boyle’s view, the precarity of Taiwan
cannot exist without the combination of the structural (power politics) and
the social (diplomatic norms). The value-added of realist constructivism is
the ability to analyze the two simultaneously. Justin Delacour (Chapter 7,
this volume) argues that the addition of classical realism helps to ‘more
adequately theorize the tensions between the two sides of co-constitution’ as
compared to constructivist approaches to the problematique of United
States–Latin American relations. According to Delacour, the power analysis
of classical realism is necessary to understand how the co-constitution works
fundamentally – where power politics is an intervening variable in the shape
of the constitution. Andreea Iancu (Chapter 8, this volume) uses realist
constructivism to analyze the implementation of human security doctrines
and the responsibility to protect (R2P) principle. In so doing, Iancu
contends that realist constructivism ‘manages to fit the explanations of both
the evolution of human-centred norms on the international agenda and the
persistence of the realist national interest’ and is therefore of value-added
compared to either realism or constructivism on their own.
None of this work, however, suggests that the fruitfulness of the
theoretical pairing of realism and constructivism is limited to the pairing of
two approaches, much less these two approaches. In fact, in Barkin’s original
engagement, the pairing of realisms and constructivisms was put forward as
an example of the fruitfulness of breaking down the boundaries between
paradigms, rather than a new analytical approach as such. Barkin (2010, p.
12) himself notes that ‘a realist/constructivist synthesis is but one of many
potentially useful combinations of approaches that become available when
those approaches are seen as concepts rather than as paradigms’. The initial
framing of realist constructivism as ‘one of potentially many useful
combinations’ is, in my view, an invitation to imagination – to think about
the other possible combinations that might be visible when the chains of
paradigmatic thinking are broken. Barkin’s analysis seems to agree as he
argues that ‘seeing these approaches as interrelating parts of a matrix, rather
than as independent castles, allows international relations scholars to use
them effectively to address the questions at hand’ (Barkin 2010, p. 12).
This brings me to wonder if realist constructivism in this volume is really
serving the cause of deconstructing paradigmatic thinking for which Barkin
originally aimed. As Barkin (2010, p. 4) explained: ‘to think in terms of
paradigms, then, is to jumble together assumptions about epistemology,
methodology, politics, and a variety of other things’. Yet the realist
constructivism that pairs two paradigms into one analytical framework, to
the exclusion of other paradigms and retaining paradigmatic labels, seems to
(intentionally or not) fall into the thinking that Barkin (2010) calls
paradigmatism. The problem with that, as Barkin (2010, p. 4) explains, is
that ‘focusing on particular paradigms, therefore, does not give us a
sufficiently broad set of assumptions, of background conditions, for actual
research into international relations’.
Certainly, realist constructivism is better at achieving these goals than
realisms or constructivisms are on their own – the crossing of paradigmatic
boundaries and the addition of significant and useful tools for analysis makes
the theoretical work of realist-constructivist research stronger. At the same
time, the limitations of the realist-constructivist approach, both generally and
as presented in the chapters of this book, differ in severity but not in kind
from the limitations that realist constructivisms’ progenitors find in
paradigmatism itself, and/or in realism or constructivism individually. A
scholar gets more coverage from including both realism and constructivism
but there are still blind spots, considerations omitted, issues left unaddressed
or unexplained, and possibilities for more theoretical insight with further
combinations.
In short – why just two? If eschewing paradigms to include cross-
paradigmatic thought is beneficial, why stop at combining two theoretical
approaches? If realism and constructivism are more than a sum of their parts,
why not include other theoretical approaches to fill the still-existing gaps to
increase the explanatory or representational power of the theoretical
framework being deployed? If we learn more from realism and
constructivism combined, what about adding post-structuralism, or
liberalism, or feminism, or decolonial theory? The remainder of this chapter
suggests that adding a third theoretical approach to a number of this volume’s
chapters would enrich the capacity of those chapters to account for the
subject matter therein empirically, and then argues that paradigmatic
promiscuity both provides more explanatory power and works to promote
the original goals of the realist/constructivist synthesis.
References
Barkawi, Tarak and Mark Laffey (2006) ‘The Postcolonial Moment in
Security Studies’. Review of International Studies 32: 329–52.
Barkin, J. Samuel (2003) ‘Realist Constructivism’. International Studies Review
5: 325–42.
Barkin, J. Samuel (2010) Realist Constructivism: Rethinking International
Relations Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bilgin, Pinar (2010) ‘The “Western-Centrism” of Security Studies: “Blind
Spot” or Constitutive Practice?’ Security Dialogue 41: 615–22.
Bing, Jiao (2008) ‘Realist Constructivism: Power Construction of
International Politics’. World Economics and Politics 4: 4.
Biswas, Shampa (2001) ‘“Nuclear Apartheid” as Political Position: Race as a
Postcolonial Resource?’ Alternatives 26: 485–522.
Booth, Ken (2005) ‘Critical Explorations’, in Ken Booth, ed., Critical
Security Studies and World Politics. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, p. 1–18.
Chacko, Priya and Alexander E. Davis (2018) ‘Resignifying
“Responsibility”: India, Exceptionalism, and Nuclear Non-Proliferation’.
Asian Journal of Political Science Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1080/02185377.2018.1486218
Charlesworth, Hilary (2010) ‘Feminist Reflections on the Responsibility to
Protect’. Global Responsibility to Protect 2(3): 232–49.
Cohn, Carol, ed. (2013) Women and Wars. London: Polity.
Cox, Robert W. (1981) ‘States, Social Forces, and World Orders: Beyond
International Relations Theory’. Millennium: Journal of International Studies
10(2): 126–55.
Das, Runa (2017) ‘A Post-Colonial Analysis of India-United States Nuclear
Security: Orientalism, Discourse, and Identity in International Relations’.
Journal of Asian and African Studies 52(6): 741–59.
Elshtain, Jean Bethke (1987) Women and Wars. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Hoogensen, Gunhild and Svein Vigeland Rottem (2004) ‘Gender Identity
and the Subject of Security’, Security Dialogue 35(2): 155–71.
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus and Daniel H. Nexon (2004) ‘Constructivist
Realism or Realist-Constructivism?’ International Studies Review 6(3): 337–
41.
Kolmasova, Sarka and Katerina Krulisova (2019) ‘Legitimizing Military
Action through “Rape-As-Weapon” Discourse in Libya: Critical Feminist
Analysis’. Politics & Gender 15(1): 130–50.
Kumar, A. Vinod (2010) Reforming the NPT to Include India. Bulletin of
the Atomic Scientists, 1 May. Available at:
https://thebulletin.org/2010/05/reforming-the-npt-to-include-india/
Mattern, Janice Bially (2005) Ordering International Politics: Identity, Crisis, and
Representational Force. London: Routledge.
Sagan, Scott D. (1997) ‘Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons? Three
Models in Search of a Bomb’. International Security 21(3): 54–86.
Salter, Mark (2002) Barbarians and Civilization in International Relations.
London: Pluto Press.
Sarkar, Jayita and Sumit Ganguly (2018) ‘India and the NPT after 50 Years’.
The Diplomat 22 June. Available at:
https://thediplomat.com/2018/06/india-and-the-npt-after-50-years/
Sjoberg, Laura (2006) Gender, Justice, and the Wars in Iraq. New York:
Lexington Books.
Sjoberg, Laura and Jessica Peet (2011) ‘A(nother) Dark Side of the
Protection Racket: Targeting Women in Wars’. International Feminist
Journal of Politics 13(2): 163–82.
Stiehm, Judith Hicks (1982) ‘The Protected, the Protector, the Defender’.
Women’s Studies International Forum 5(3–4): 367–76.
Tickner, J. Ann (1992) Gender in International Relations. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Truong, Thahn-Dam, Saski Wieringa and Amrita Chhachhi, eds. (2006)
Engendering Human Security. London: Zed Books.
Weber, Cynthia (1999) Faking It: US Hegemony in a ‘Post-Phallic’ Era.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Weiss, Leonard (2010) ‘India and the NPT’. Strategic Analysis 34(2): 255–71.
Wood, Steve (2013) ‘Prestige in World Politics: History, Theory, Expression’.
International Politics 50(3): 387–411.
Yuval-Davis, Nira (1997) Gender and Nation. London: Sage.
10
The first is that foreign publics and elites are likely to see events in
international politics, and our responses to these events, through the
lens of their political morality. The second is that political moralities
change. And the third is that our foreign policies can have a recursive
effect on that change. Reflexivity helps the realist [foreign policy
maker] to deal with all three of these corollaries more effectively.
(Barkin 2010, p. 92)
Indeed, his entire approach culminates in the different issues that are to be
taken into account in achieving such a prudent foreign policy. His realist
constructivism is his way of providing a better basis for such prudence (for
choices need to be justified). He sees prudence as better derived from
constructivism’s social and reflexive approach to understanding a reality that
is, however, fundamentally constituted by a realist power ontology. ‘It
suggests that realists should not be in the business of either denying a role for
agency in international politics by arguing that structures, of whatever sort,
are determinative, or of theorizing agency. For classical realism, a prudent
foreign policy is one that recognizes, and allows for, the unpredictability of
agency’ (Barkin 2010, p. 116). Having some unilateral bullying as a target, he
writes that
And in this weighing, political morality and the public interest play a major
role that also explains why they feature so prominently in the book.
Some realists would come back and say that, after all is said and done, a
prudential foreign policy is ultimately a utilitarian choice. As Morgenthau
(1952, p. 986) put it: ‘There can be no political morality without prudence,
that is, without consideration of the political consequences of seemingly
moral action’. Consequently, it is not quite clear why we need anything
more than some rationalist theory of action which factors the historically
evolved ideas and institutions of international society into the equation. If all
that was needed was to get rid of overly determinist and systemic theorizing,
then we can do that. This would correspond more to the European wing of
neoclassical realism, which starts from domestic politics and not from a given
international anarchy, that is, from the ‘classical’, not the ‘neo’ (Wivel 2005;
Mouritzen and Wivel 2005; Mouritzen 2009, 2017). This would hardly look
like a US-style realist theory of action (but see Wohlforth 1993), yet it would
be one. It would suffer the same fate as the English School’s reception by US
realists (Copeland 2003). But then, so be it. It could still be proposed as a
realist theory of foreign policy and not just as a prescriptive foreign policy
strategy. Hence, is Barkin’s move enough to defend constructivism in its
privileged place for providing method and rigour to the explanation?
… downplaying interpretivism …
This is where Germán Prieto’s two moves come in (Chapter 2, this volume).
According to him, the existing realist constructivism would need to move
more decisively towards interpretivism in its explanatory setup. With this also
comes a shift in the understanding of ‘explanation’ itself by redefining the
underlying understanding of causation. Second – a topic he mentions briefly
in the conclusion – it would need to face the incompatible ontologies
between constructivism and realism. This section touches briefly on his first
point.
In a famous article, often cited for its consequential content yet little
received, Friedrich Kratochwil and John Ruggie (1986) argued that regime
theory was on the right track, but did not go far enough. It allowed for the
intersubjective ontology of regimes, constituted by shared ideas and
practices, but then it used a positivist epistemology. As a result, ideas
becomes something external to the agent, which, like a billiard ball, hits
actors and moves them (or not) to a certain behaviour, just like matter (for a
similar critique, see the similarly often overlooked ending to Yee 1996). It
epistemologically objectified and exogenized the intersubjective ontology.
Instead, it would be more coherent to go the extra mile and turn to an
interpretivist understanding, one in which ideas are shared and yet are not
external to an agent in causing his or her behaviour; rather, they are internal
and provide reasons for action. In doing so, they are part of a causal complex,
as critical realists would call it, yet cannot be determinist. Taking the
ontology of ideas seriously means leaving positivism behind.
Prieto continues from there to develop a common ground on which the
concerns of the realists can be combined with others, yet in the terms laid
down by scientific realists and, I would add, some constructivists. The trick
is to say that ideas may well be causal, but only once we have
reconceptualized causation. This re-theorization happens to take place in a
way that goes well beyond IR realist explanations, as well as more shallow
attempts to combine realist and liberal ideas. Prieto shows them to be
mechanisms that are both singular and emerging (for a good discussion of
causal mechanisms that would be sensitive to history, see Mayntz 2004). And
he rightly points to a ground on which scientific realists and constructivists
can meet, as shown in the positive reception by Friedrich Kratochwil (2008,
pp. 96–97) of Heikki Patomäki’s (1996) critical realist analysis of causation.3
It is not impossible to re-describe some classical realists as interpretivists
or constructivists avant la lettre (for a reframing of the English School in this
sense, see Dunne 1995). But Prieto sees Carr’s and in particular
Morgenthau’s methodological reflections as too weak and unsystematic in
today’s terms to really be able to accomplish that. In other words, it is not
their missing vocabulary that is responsible for this lack, something a
consistent reconstruction could remedy (although some good efforts could
be made with Carr, odd realist out as he is). In short, any realist
constructivism that is consistent in its aims will have to go that extra mile
towards an interpretivist methodology. This point is consistent with Barkin,
yet not always clearly brought out, as Prieto insists.
Notes
1 Needless to say, all these approaches from Waltz to Wendt view world politics from the
position of a great power that needs to practise self-restraint, a privilege many other
actors can hardly envisage.
2 I think this paints a too neat picture counterposing classical and neo-realists. It is almost
as if the move to a systemic theory is the main reason for being so theoretically misled.
And so neo-realism is reduced to being structural realism, never mind Robert Gilpin
(1981)’s highly ‘transhistorical’ (Barkin 2010: 46), scientific, and yet purely individualist
utilitarian theory of war and change. My sense is that Barkin particularly targets Waltz’s
structural realism because it clearly positions itself at the level of observation and leaves
foreign policy out, less as a theory (since it is implied), but as a foreign policy strategy.
3 There has been a wider concern recently with reconceptualizing causation in IR that
includes critical realists and others. See the special issue of the Journal of International
Relations and Development, in particular the articles by Stefano Guzzini (2017b),
Adam Humphreys (2017), Patrick Jackson (2017), Milja Kurki (2017), Heikki Patomäki
(2017) and Hidemi Suganami (2017).
4 There is no way to cover the research here, but unsystematic pointers in IR include
Jorge Luis Andrade Fernandes (2008), Claudia Aradau (2004), Roxanne Lynn Doty
(1996), Maria Mälksoo (2012) and Jutta Weldes (1999).
5 For analyses, see, for instance, Helga Haftendorn (1986: pp. 269–381). For a perspective
on Willy Brandt’s ‘Weltinnenpolitik’ (world domestic politics), see Anna Caffarena
(2002) and Dieter Senghaas (1992).
6 There are clear similarities here with Yaqing Qin’s (2018) relational and process
understanding of politics.
References
Andrade Fernandes, Jorge Luis (2008) Challenging Euro-America’s Politics of
Identity, London and New York: Routledge.
Aradau, Claudia (2004) ‘The Perverse Politics of Four-Letter Words: Risk
and Pity in the Securitisation of Human Trafficking’. Millennium 33(2):
251–77.
Barkin, J. Samuel (2010) Realist Constructivism: Rethinking International
Relations Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bially Mattern, Janice (2001) ‘The Power Politics of Identity’. European
Journal of International Relations 7(3): 349–97.
Bially Mattern, Janice (2005) ‘Why Soft Power Isn’t So Soft:
Representational Force and the Sociolinguistic Construction of Attraction
in World Politics’. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 33(3): 583–
612.
Bull, Hedley (1976) ‘Martin Wight and the Theory of International
Relations. The Second Martin Wight Memorial Lecture’. British Journal of
International Studies 2(2): 101–16.
Buzan, Barry, Ole Wæver and Jaap de Wilde (1998) Security: A New
Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Caffarena, Anna (2002) ‘Considerazioni sulla politica interna del mondo’.
Teoria politica XVIII(2): 85–103.
Copeland, Dale C. (2003) ‘A Realist Critique of the English School’. Review
of International Studies 29(3): 427–41.
Doty, Roxanne Lynn (1996) Imperial Encounters. Minneapolis, MN; London:
University of Minnesota Press.
Dunne, Timothy (1995) ‘The Social Construction of International Society’.
European Journal of International Relations 1(3): 367–89.
Gilpin, Robert (1981) War and Change in World Politics. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Guzzini, Stefano (1998) Realism in International Relations and International
Political Economy: The Continuing Story of a Death Foretold. London, New
York: Routledge.
Guzzini, Stefano (2010) ‘Imposing Coherence: The Central Role of Human
Practices in Friedrich Kratochwil’s Theorising of Politics, IR and Science’.
Journal of International Relations and Development 13(3): 301–22.
Guzzini, Stefano (2013a) ‘The Ends of International Relations Theory:
Stages of Reflexivity and Modes of Theorizing’. European Journal of
International Relations 19(3): 521–41.
Guzzini, Stefano (2013b) Power, Realism and Constructivism. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Guzzini, Stefano (2017a) ‘International Political Sociology, or: the Social
Ontology and Power Politics Of process’, in Xavier Guillaume and Pinar
Bilgin, eds., Routledge Handbook of International Political Sociology. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Guzzini, Stefano (2017b) ‘Power and Cause’. Journal of International Relations
and Development 20(4): 737–59.
Haftendorn, Helga (1986) Sicherheit und Entspannung. Zur Aussenpolitik der
Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1955–1982. Baden-Baden: Nomos-Verlag.
Hassner, Pierre (1968) ‘The Changing Context of European Security’.
Journal of Common Market Studies 7(1): 1–21.
Hassner, Pierre (1972) Europe in the Age of Negotiation. The Washington Papers
No. 8. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hirschman, Albert O. (1970) ‘The Search for Paradigms as a Hindrance to
Understanding’. World Politics 22(3): 329–43.
Humphreys, Adam R.C. (2017) ‘Causation, Complexity, and the Concert:
The Pragmatics of Causal Explanation in International Relations’. Journal
of International Relations and Development 20(4): 717–36.
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus (2017) ‘Causal Claims and Causal Explanation in
International Studies’. Journal of International Relations and Development
20(4): 689–716.
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus and Daniel H. Nexon (2004) ‘Constructivist
Realism or Realist-Constructivism?’ International Studies Review 6(2): 337–
41.
Jervis, Robert (1976) Perception and Misperception in International Politics.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kratochwil, Friedrich (1971) ‘Politik und politische Wissenschaften. Ein
Diskussionsbeitrag zum Begriff des Politischen’. Zeitschrift für Politik 18(2):
113–23.
Kratochwil, Friedrich (1978) International Order and Foreign Policy: A
Theoretical Sketch of Post-war International Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
Kratochwil, Friedrich (1993) ‘The Embarrassment of Changes: Neo-realism
and the Science of Realpolitik Without Politics’. Review of International
Studies 19(1): 63–80.
Kratochwil, Friedrich (2008) ‘Constructivism: What It Is (Not) and How It
Matters’, in Donatella della Porta and Michael Keating, eds., Approaches
and Methodologies in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Kratochwil, Friedrich (2011) The Puzzles of Politics: Inquiries in the Genesis
and Transformation of International Politics. Abingdon: Routledge.
Kratochwil, Friedrich (2018) Praxis: On Acting and Knowing. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kratochwil, Friedrich and John Gerard Ruggie (1986) ‘International
Organization: A State of the Art on an Art of the State’. International
Organization 40(4): 753–75.
Kurki, Milja (2017) ‘Causality, Democracy Support and the Cult of the
Factish Gods’. Journal of International Relations and Development 20(4): 760–
81.
Lake, David A. (2011) ‘Why “Isms” Are Evil: Theory, Epistemology and
Academic Sects as Impediments to Understanding and Progress’.
International Studies Quarterly 55(2): 465–80.
Mälksoo, Maria (2012) The Politics of Becoming European: A Study of Polish and
Baltic Post-Cold War Security Imaginaries. Abingdon: Routledge.
Mayntz, Renate (2004) ‘Mechanisms in the Analysis of Social Macro-
Phenomena’. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 34(2): 237–59.
Mercer, Jonathan (1996) Reputation and International Politics. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
Morgenthau, Hans J. (1948) Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and
Peace. New York: Knopf.
Morgenthau, Hans J. (1952) ‘Another “Great Debate”: The National
Interest of the United States’. American Political Science Review 46(4): 961–
88.
Morgenthau, Hans J. (1960) Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and
Peace, 3rd ed. New York: Knopf.
Mouritzen, Hans (2009) ‘Past versus Present Geopolitics: Cautiously
Opening the Realist Door to The past’, in Annette Freyberg-Inan, Ewan
Harrison and Patrick James, eds., Rethinking Realism in International
Relations: Between Tradition and Innovation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Mouritzen, Hans (2017) ‘Combining “Incompatible” Foreign Policy
Explanations: How a Realist Can Borrow from Constructivism’. Journal of
International Relations and Development 20(3): 631–58.
Mouritzen, Hans and Anders Wivel (2005) ‘Constellation Theory’, in Hans
Mouritzen and Anders Wivel, eds., The Geopolitics of Euro-Atlantic
Integration. Abingdon: Routledge.
Onuf, Nicholas Greenwood (1998) The Republican Legacy in International
Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Patomäki, Heikki (1996) ‘How to Tell Better Stories about World Politics’.
European Journal of International Relations 2(1): 105–33.
Patomäki, Heikki (2017) ‘Praxis, Politics and the Future: A Dialectical
Critical Realist Account of World-historical Causation’. Journal of
International Relations and Development 20(4): 805–25.
Qin, Yaqing (2018) A Relational Theory of World Politics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Senghaas, Dieter (1992) ‘Weltinnenpolitik – Ansätze für ein Konzept. Europa
Archiv 47(22): 642–2.
Sokolowska, Ewelina and Stefano Guzzini (2014) ‘The Open-endedness and
Indeterminacy of Human Nature’. Journal of International Relations and
Development 17(1): 142–6.
Sterling-Folker, Jennifer (2004) ‘Realist-Constructivism and Morality’.
International Studies Review 6(2): 341–3.
Suganami, Hidemi (2017) ‘On the Hume/Bhaskar Contrast in Philosophical
Metatheory of International Relations’. Journal of International Relations and
Development 20(4): 667–88.
Wæver, Ole (1995) ‘Securitization and Desecuritization’, in Ronnie
Lipschutz, ed., On Security. New York: Columbia University Press.
Weldes, Jutta (1999) Constructing National Interests: The United States and the
Cuban Missile Crisis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Wendt, Alexander (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Windsor, Philip (1971) Germany and the Management of Détente. New York:
Praeger.
Windsor, Philip (2002) Strategic Thinking: An Introduction and Farewell.
Boulder, CO, London: Lynne Rienner.
Wivel, Anders (2005) ‘Explaining Why State X Made a Certain Move Last
Tuesday: The Promise and Limitations of Realist Foreign Policy Analysis’.
Journal of International Relations and Development 8(4): 355–80.
Wohlforth, William C. (1993) The Elusive Balance: Power and Perceptions
During the Cold War. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Wolfers, Arnold (1962) Discord and Collaboration: Essays on International
Politics. Baltimore, MD; London: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Yee, Albert S. (1996) ‘The Causal Effects of Ideas on Politics’. International
Organization 50(1): 69–108.
Index
A
Adler, Emanuel 174
Adler-Nissen, Rebecca 181
agency 3, 76, 195, 225–6
and causation 19–20, 34–7, 41–2
and change 21, 77, 103, 115–16, 175
and identity 80
and prudence 10–13
and rationality 23
role of 222
agent-structure interplay 5–6, 119, 178
al-Gaddafi, Muammar 182
analytic eclecticism 129
analyticism 24–5, 29
anarchy 5, 8, 47, 75–8, 127–8, 173–6, 196, 199, 223
cultures of 80, 82, 92, 128, 203, 219
Andean Community (AC) 30–2
Andean Free Trade Zone 31
Anti-Japanese War 83
Anti-Secession Law 89
Arab League 183–4
Arendtian tradition 226
Argentina 135
Armitage, Richard 166
Association for Relations across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) 86, 89–91
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) 140
Atomic Energy Act (AEA) 111–12
Atoms-for-Peace 106
Austria 112, 135
B
balance of power 22, 92–3, 175, 203
and change 53
as a concept 26–9, 37
Balance of Threat 78
balancing 51–3, 61, 67 see also neorealism
Baldwin, David A. 126, 130–1 see also positive sanctions
Banzer, Hugo 160–1
Barkawi, Tarak 200
Barkin, Samuel 23, 34–9, 41–2, 103, 147, 174–6, 194–7, 213, 218–28
Barnett, Michael 81
Barrington, Lowell 78
Beautiful Souls-Just Warriors trope 210–11
Beijing see China
Belgium 135
Bellamy, Alex 188
Bennett, W. Lance 152–3
benshengren 83–8
bentuhua 85, 88, 91, 92
Bilgin, Pinar 200 see also decolonial theory
Biswas, Shampa 201
Bolivia 30, 160
Booth, Ken 204–5
Boucher, Richard 112
Bozdağlıoğlu, Yücel 79
Brawley, Mark 51–2
Brazil 180, 181, 182
Bull Hedley, 219
Burns, Nicholas 114
Bush, George H. W. 138
Bush, George W. 102, 111
administration 107, 111–14, 116–18, 137, 160, 165–6
C
Cairo Declaration of 1943 83
Campbell, David 27
Canada 135
Caracas see Venezuela
Caribbean 159, 207–8
Carmona, Pedro 165–6
Carr, E. H. 4–5, 12, 23–5, 29, 35–7, 39, 65–6, 81, 126–7, 147, 175–6, 221, 224
critique of utopia 5
Twenty Years’ Crisis 24–5
casual emergence 14, 19–22, 30–8, 40–1
defined 22, 32
Chacko, Priya 200–1
Charlesworth, Hilary 212
Chávez, Hugo 149, 163f, 207–8
Checkel, Jeffrey 174
Cheibub, José Antonio 158
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) 132
Chen Shui-bian 89–90
Chiang Ching-kuo 85
Chiang Kai-shek 74, 84, 85
Chile 135
China, Peoples Republic of (PRC) 74–5, 79, 84, 86–93, 114, 123–41, 203–4, 206
and engagement 123–41
China, Republic of (ROC) see Taiwan
Chinese Civil War 74, 83
Chinese Communist Party (CCP) 74, 86
Chinese Nationalist Kuomintang (KMT) 73–4, 83–91, 92–3
Chinese strategic culture 123
Chirac, Jacques René 110
Chou Tzu-yu 73–4
Classical Realism 2, 9, 13–14, 16, 175, 226
and causation 20, 22–4
and co-constitution 79, 94, 196, 206
and core concept approach 76–8, 194–5, 219
and engagement 129–30
and interactionality 19, 34–5
and limitations 41–3
and policy prescription 47–9, 61, 67–86, 222–3
and rationality 36–7
and sociality 126–7
and time 11–12
Claude, Innis, Jr. 4
Clinton, William J. 139
administration 109–11, 137, 165–6
co-constitution 8, 15, 77–82, 92, 175, 194–5, 209–10
and causation 19, 34–5, 41
and critiques 207
defined 5–6
and identity/interest tensions 146–9, 152–6, 167–8, 196, 206–7
identity centred 79–81, 92, 155–6, 173–4, 180
and national interest 78
and power 80–2, 213
and semi-independence 152
coercive engagement 124–5
Cold War 74, 84, 110, 149, 208
and post-Cold War period 9, 84, 86–7, 155, 160, 180, 185, 188
collective identity 30–2
Colombia 30, 160–4, 163f, 167
Common External Tariff 31
communicative engagement 123–4
communicative interaction see interactionality
communicative strategy 38–9
competitive hypothesis testing 53
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) 125, 128, 131–8, 140
background 133–4
and rhetoric 132–3, 134–7
conditionality 172 see also sovereignty
Confucius 24
congruence procedure 178 see also norm life cycle
constitutive power 41–2
and effects 59, 177
constructivism
and causal emergence 19, 30–8
and co-constitution 5–6, 76–7, 173–5, 194–5, 207
core concepts 4–5, 127–8, 194–5
and historical contingency 7
and identity formation 79–80
habit- and practice-based 8
and intersubjectivity 6–8, 77, 79, 174–5
and liberalism 124, 129
and logic of appropriateness 3, 6–7, 37, 116, 128–9
and logic of consequences 3, 6–8
and logic of the social 35, 77
model of domestic identity 79
norms-based 8
and paradigmatism 1–3
and political ontology 224–7
optimism 123–5, 128, 130–1, 133, 139–40
reflexive 14, 30–4, 222
social construction as core concept of 4–5
containment 51, 227
and China 126, 133, 136
Copenhagen School of Security Studies 227–8
corporate identity 79–80
corporate interest 9–10, 80
Corrales, Javier 159–60
Cox, Robert 204
Crawford, Neta C. 124, 130
critical realism
and causal emergence 36
and causation 19–21, 26–7, 29–33, 41
and the principle of singularity 21, 29
Critical Security Studies 204
critical theory 65, 204, 225
Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement (CSSTA) 89
Cuba 208
cultures of anarchy 82, 92, 128, 203, 219
D
dangwai 85–6, 88
Das, Runa 201–2
Davis, Alexander E. 200–1
Declaration of Formosan Self Salvation 84–5
decolonial theory 16, 197, 199–202
Democracy-Dictatorship (DD) index 158
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) 73–4, 86–91
Derrida, Jacques 27
discourse analysis 64, 81–2, 131, 178–9 see also rhetorical power
Discourse Historical Approach (DHA) 82
domestic interest groups (DIGs) 78–9, 85, 89–94
Doyle, Michael W. 145–6
Dueck, Colin 57–8, 59
Duvall Raymond 81, 126
E
Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) 89
Economy, Elizabeth 124
Ecuador 30, 160
Elman, Colin 51, 53, 60
engagement 15, 123–35, 139–41
and entrapment 125
as intersubjective politics 128
normative mechanisms 124, 127
power as influence 126, 139–41
English School 223, 224
enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technology ban 111–12
epistemology 32, 77–8, 179, 219, 223–4
and constructivism 94, 221
and paradigms 197
and soft positivism 13
equilibrium 27, 29, 36 see also balance of power
ethic of prudence 10, 12 see also classical realism
Eurocentrism 200
European Union 30, 32
F
F-16 fighter jets 111, 138
false humanitarianism 184
Federal News Service 161
feizhulipai 87
feminism 16, 197, 209–13, 225
Finnemore, Martha 34, 128, 177
Flaubert, Gustave 218
Fordham, Benjamin 59
foreign policy elite (FPE) 49, 58–9, 66
Formosa magazine 85
France 24, 51–2, 110, 112, 132, 134, 137, 183–4
Friedberg, Aaron L. 123
Fujian 83
Fujimori, Alberto 167
full-scope safeguards (FSS) requirement 102, 106–7, 111–15 see also IAEA
G
Gandhi, Jennifer 158
Ganguly, Sumit 199
garbage-can models 62, 64
gendered blindness 212
Geneva Conventions 182
Germany 24, 51, 110
Gilpin, Robert 13, 53, 228
Glanville, Luke 177
Goddard, Stacie E. 53, 140
Goel, Anish 113
Grand Compromise (DPP) 87
Great Britain 24, 51–2
Grotius, Hugo 219
Guangdong 83
Gutiérrez, Lucio 160
H
Habermas, Jürgen 226
Hakka 83
harmony of interests principle 24–5, 36
Hassner Pierre 228
Hegel Georg Wilhelm Friedrich 219
and dialectics 27
Helsinki process 227
Herz, John 4
Hirschman, Albert 218
Hobbes, Thomas
culture of anarchy 80, 82, 128
Hoklo 83, 84
Holland 63
Hom, Andrew 11–12
homo economicus 7
Hong Kong 86
Hopf, Ted 78
Hsu Hsin-liang 85
huadu 73–5, 79, 82–94, 203
Humala, Ollanta 160, 161
Human Security 15, 175–9, 183–8, 196, 209–12
and norm internalization 171–2, 177–80, 186–8
see also Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
Hume, David 24–5, 26, 29
Hyde Act 102, 109, 111
I
IAEA-India Safeguards Agreement 102, 109, 118
idealism
and realism 218–19
opposition to materialism 3, 6–7, 77
identity constructivism 173
India 15, 101–3, 106–19, 137–8, 181, 195, 197–202
and nuclear tests 137
and US nuclear deal 109–19
Indo-US Civilian Nuclear Agreement 101
Indo-US Reprocessing Agreement 109
Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE) 21–2, 32–3
interactionality 14, 19–20
and causation 22–9
and emergence 34–40
and interpretivism 40–2
internalization see socialization
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 102, 115, 133–4, 200–1
Additional Protocol 111
international legitimation processes 104–5 see also norms
International Relations (IR) 11, 52, 61, 225
and paradigmism 1, 7, 194–7, 217
and pluralism 19, 125, 129, 147, 172, 176
theories of 30, 63, 66, 76–7, 145, 175–6
and theory as concepts 4
interpretive methodology 30, 32, 43, 131
interpretivism 19–20, 41–3, 223–4
intersubjectivity 6–8, 77, 79–80, 105–6, 174–5, 180, 198
and social construction 5–6
Iran 133, 138
Ireland 135
Israel 101, 112
Italy 24, 110
J
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus 24, 30, 39–40, 42–3, 49, 53, 130–1, 213
and rhetorical coercion 39–40
and scientific ontology 4
see also Analyticism
Japan 24, 82–3
Jervis, Robert 227
Johnston, Alastair Iain 124, 130, 135
jus in bello 187
just war theory 180
jus ad bellum 187
K
Kant Immanuel
culture of anarchy 80, 82, 128, 219
Kaohsiung Incident 85
Katzenstein, Peter J. 34, 129
Kent, Ann 140
Keohane, Robert 49
King, Gary 49
Kinmen 86
Kirshner, Jonathan 126
Klotz, Audie 34, 64, 124, 130
Kolmasova, Sarka 211
Korean War 57, 83
Krasner, Stephan D. 178
Kratochwil, Friedrich 13, 223–4
The Concept of Politics 226
Krebs, Ronald R. 39–40, 42, 43, 130
Krulisova, Katerina 211
Kumar, A. Vinod 199
L
Laffey, Mark 200
Lakatos, Imre 32–33, 50, 61–2
League of Nations 24
Lee Teng-hui 86–7
liberal constructivisms 12, 124–5, 139–40
approach of 128–30
and persuasion 130
liberal institutionalism 185
liberalism 4, 206
and alternative combinations 16, 194, 224
critiques of 92, 157, 207
as a foreign policy 145–6, 149–54
and human nature 58, 64
view of time 11
Libya 15, 172, 177, 178–80, 183, 209, 211
and R2P principle 181–2, 184–8
Limited Test Ban Treaty 134
Lin I-hsiung 85
Lindh, Anna 138
Little, Richard 22
Livingston, Steven 152
Lobell, Steven 49–50, 53, 58–9, 61, 66–7, 77–8
localization see bentuhua
Locke, John
culture of anarchy 80, 82, 92, 203
logic of the alternative hypothesis 162
logic of appropriateness 3, 6–7, 37, 116, 128–9
logic of consequences 3, 6–8
logic of the social 35, 77
and agency 3–4
Lynch, Marc 123–4
M
Ma Ying-jeou 88, 90, 92
Machiavelli, Niccolò 219
Mainlanders 83–4, 86 see waishengren
Manchu 83
Mao Zedong 74, 136
materialism
and idealism debate 3, 6–7
and rationality 75, 77
and realism 14
Mattern, Janice Bially 38–40, 42–3, 195
Matzu 86
Mearsheimer, John 54–55
Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) 132, 138
Morgenthau, Hans 4–5, 12, 23–9, 35–9, 65–6, 76, 81, 94, 147, 219, 220, 221, 223, 224
critique of scientific man 5
and objective laws 25–9, 37–8
on rationality and intractionality 23–4, 35–9, 220
Six Principles of Political Realism 76
Morocco 183
multicausality 26, 29, 32
N
Name Rectification Campaign 89
national interest 48–9, 76–9, 92–4, 172
and corporate interest 9–10
defined 56, 98
and norms 115–16
and power 8, 67–8, 78
as a social construct 56–7, 64–6, 77, 79, 92–4, 116, 173, 204
as survival 175–6, 196, 209
native Taiwanese 83 see benshengren
neoclassical realism (NCR) 6, 9, 12–13
and constructivist methodology 65–8
defined 48–50
and domestic politics 203, 223
and national interest 77–9, 94
and neopositivism 47–9, 59–67
and prudence 12
and the social constructs of
core critiques of 50–6, 58–9, 59–63
and sociality 49, 58–9, 125, 127, 129
and tautology 50–1
neopositivism 9, 47–9, 59–68
critique of method/methodology 47–9, 59–67
see also soft positivism
neorealism 1–2, 4, 7, 13, 48, 145
and agency 11–12
as an analytical starting point 62, 65
assumptions of 49
and bandwagoning 51
critiques/weaknesses of 50–6, 59, 148
and culture 157, 167
defensive 51
and national interest 56
and rationality 8
systematism 47, 66–7
Netherlands 112
New Delhi 107–8, 110–11, 114, 116
New York Times 158, 163f
New Zealand 112, 135
Newman, Edward 174
Nexon, Daniel 53, 213
Niebuhr, Reinhold 146
Nixon, Richard 84
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) 101–3, 106–19, 132–5, 198–202
and Article VI 134
norm cascade 177, 187
norm contestation theory 108–9
and regimes 118–19
norm entrepreneurs 129, 173, 187
norm evolution 15, 115, 171–3, 176–7, 180, 182, 187–8, 209
norm life cycle 177–8
norms
causal power of 33, 38
and discourse constructivism 173
and internalization 128–9, 140, 172, 177, 181, 186, 188
and interpretation 42–3, 102–6, 113–14, 116–17, 198
and legitimacy 104–5, 117, 129
and power 103–6, 115–19
social construction of 176
as social facts 32
North Korea 101
Norway 112, 135
NPT Review and Extension Conference 134
nuclear apartheid 201
Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) 102, 107–9, 111–13, 117–18
waiver 102, 112–13
Nye, Joseph 128
O
Obama, Barack 138
objective model 159–64, 163f
Oksenberg, Michel 124
One China, Respective Interpretations (OCRI) 74, 79, 82, 86, 89
One Country Two Systems (OCTS) 84
ontology
intersubjective 223–4
process-based 128
scientific 4
Onuf, Nicholas 13, 174, 226
Open Door Policy of 1978 84
optimistic constructivists 123–5, 128, 130–1, 133, 139–40 see also liberal constructivists
Organization of American States (OAS) 159
organizational theory 7
Orientalist amnesia 202
Ostpolitik 227–8
P
Pakistan 101, 109–12, 133, 137, 138
pan-Blue 83, 86, 89
pan-Green 73–4, 86, 89–91
Sunflowers 89
see also Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)
paradigmatism 197, 218–19
rejection of 213
paradigms 64, 212–13
as research networks 3
critique of core concept approach 194–7
framing in IR 1–4
Parsons, Craig 37–8, 43
and community Europe 30
and crosscutting ideas 32–4
Patomäki, Heikki 224
Paz, Oswaldo Álvarez 164
peaceful unification 132 see also Taiwan
Penghu 86
People’s Liberation Army (PLA) 133
Permanent Five (P5) 181, 184 see also United Nations Security Council (UNSC)
Peru 30–2, 160, 167
Philippines 135
philosophy of science 30, 41
pluralistic approaches to 81–2
Plato 24
Pluralism 218
polarity 53, 67
political realism 1–2, 7
defined 5
see also Hans Morgenthau
positive sanctions 126
positivism 13, 21–2, 81, 179, 224
and causation 24–6, 29
soft 13, 14, 49, 59, 65
see also epistemology
post-positivism 179
see also discourse analysis
post-structuralism 16, 197, 213, 225
Pouliot, Vincent 181
power
and capabilities 6–7, 10, 52, 65–6, 126–7
communicative/rhetorical 34–5, 131
discursive 86, 117
fungibility 5, 10
non-material sources of 6, 127, 129
and persuasion 13, 23, 42
and politicization 226
process 225
relational 4–5, 7, 9–11, 65, 94, 115–16, 119, 126, 174
soft 38, 105, 125
sources of 4–5, 126–7
as a structural constraints 4–5, 33, 35–6, 41
see also balance of power
power politics 1, 12, 19, 42–3, 172, 180, 209–12, 219
and causation 20, 22–9, 35
and coercion 127
framework of 75–7, 203
and morality 117
and norms 202
praxis of 220
and process 224–7
and realist ontology 4–5, 125, 219
as relational 93, 126, 195
social construction of 14
as structural 196
precautionary principles 187 see also Responsibility to Protect
Presbyterian Church 88
Prieto, Germán 14, 30, 195, 223–5
Q
Qing dynasty 83
Queer studies 206–9, 225
R
rational choice theory 7, 9, 23, 58, 219
rationalism 19, 75, 77, 219, 223
causal effects of 29
and constructivist critiques 1, 7
and methodological individualism 36
rationality
and causation 27–9, 43, 176
instrumental 8, 23
and interactionality 19–26, 34–42
as reasonableness is realism 8, 76
as socially constructed 42
and strategic social construction 128
utopian 24–5
Realism 145, 175–6
concepts 4–5
and constructivism 1–4
defined 125–6
diverse strands of 12–14
and foreign policy 77, 126
and institutions 8–10
and logic of consequences 3, 6–8
offensive 54–5
and power politics 4–5, 125, 219
and prudence 12, 13, 61, 94, 219–20, 222–3, 227–8
rhetorical 13–14
and sociality 49, 58–9, 125, 127, 129
Realist Constructivism (RC)
and agency 10–12
and co-constitution 19, 34–41, 146–50, 167
critiques of 193–7
and interpretation 42–3, 179
and interpretivism 19–20, 41–3, 223–4
and norm contestation theory 108–9, 118–19
and ontology 42
and oppositions 6–8, 12–13
power-sensitive approach 116, 119
and reflexivity 35, 205, 222
six assumptions of 147–8
and structure 77
realpolitik 4, 136, 183 see also power politics
reflexive constructivism 14
reflexive realism 13–14
reflexivity 35, 205, 222, 226
regimes 104, 118–19, 123
and intersubjective ontology 223–4
patterns of 115–16
regimes of truth 117
regulatory effects 177 see also constitutive effects
Reports of the UN Secretary General on R2P 186
Republic of China Independence see huadu
Responsibility to Protect (R2P) 171–88, 196, 209–13
criteria for military intervention 182, 185, 187
evolution of 177–80
pillars of 181–2, 186–7
responsibility while protecting 182
rhetorical coercion 39–40, 124, 128, 131, 140–1
rhetorical realism 13–14
rhetorical traps 124, 131, 137
Rice, Susan 111
Ripsman, Norrin 49–50, 53, 58–9, 61, 66–7, 77–8
Rose, Gideon 48, 50, 78
Ross, Robert S. 128
Ruggie, John 13, 223–4
Russia 52, 110, 112, 132, 180–4
Russian Atomic Energy Ministry 110
Ryzhov, Mikhail 110
S
Sagan, Scott 199
Salter, Mark 210
sanctions
as an instrument of socialization 124–6
Sarkar, Jayita 199
Schmitt, Carl 226–7
Schmittian Civil War 92
Schweller, Randall L. 55, 59, 126–7
scientific realism 20–1, 32, 224 see also critical realism
second great debate 11–12
securitization theory 187, 225
SEF-ARATS framework 89–91
semi-independence 152, 167 see also co-constitution
Sha Zukang 135–6
Sikkink, Kathryn 128–9, 177
Sil, Rudra 129
Singh, Jaswant 109
Singh, Manmohan 102, 111
Singh, Vikram 114
singularity 21, 29, 33, 37–8 see also causal emergence
six-point plan 184
social construction
components of 5–6
methodologies for study 12–14
mode of 10
processes of 42, 104, 128–9
strategic 106, 128
social purpose 10, 94, 127
socialization 77, 79–81, 124, 127, 129–30, 140, 172
soft positivism 13, 14, 49, 59, 65
South Africa 130, 181, 201
South China Sea 133, 140–1
South Korea 73
South Sudan 9
sovereignty as responsibility 171–2, 177–9, 186–7, 209
Soviet Union 51, 84, 132
speech-acts 174
Statement on our National Fate 88
Steele, Brent 11–13
Sterling-Folker, Jennifer 47, 50, 59
Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) 86, 89–91
strategic social construction 106, 128
Stratford, Richard 113
structural functionalism 53
structure
biological 10
ideational 30, 36–7, 42
sociolinguistic 38–9
static 11
Su Chi 86
Sudan 9
Sun Yat-sen 73–4, 83
Sweden 138
Switzerland 112, 135
Syria 15, 138, 172, 175, 178–82
and R2P principle 182–8, 209
T
taidu 73–5, 84–5, 87–91
Taipei 74–5, 79, 84, 87–8, 91–4
Taipei-Beijing Consensus of 1992 74, 82, 86, 89
Taipei Treaty of 1952 83
taishang 89–90
Taiwan, Relations Act of 1979 84
Taiwan, Republic of (ROT) 15, 73–94, 131–3, 138, 196
anomaly of 203–6
see also China
taiwan duli see taidu
Taiwan Independence see taidu
Taiwan Independence Clause 87
Taiwan problematique 78, 92, 203
Taiwan Strait 84, 86, 89, 91, 133
Taiwanization see bentuhua
Taiwanized mainstream see zhulipai
Talbott, Strobe 109–10
Taliaferro, Jeffrey 49, 50, 53, 58–9, 66–7, 77–8
Tellis, Ashley 112
Three Principles of the People 86
Tiananmen Square 133
tit-for-tat approach 137
tragedy of the commons 181, 185
Tsai Ing-wen 73–4
U
UN Conference of Disarmament (CD) 133–6
United Kingdom 110, 112, 132 see also Great Britain
United Nations 84, 200
United Nations Charter 181
Article 42 183
Chapter VII 184
United Nations Document System 131
United Nations Security Council (UNSC) 172, 180–6, 188
resolutions 84, 180–2
United States (US) 24–5, 55, 200, 206
and arms control regimes 132–8
and Caribbean relations 207–8
and Cuba 208
and engagement with China 123–8, 131–41
and Latin American relations 15, 145–67, 196, 206–9
and non-proliferation regime norms 101–3, 106–19, 198–201
and R2P 184–5
Uribe, Álvaro 160–4, 163f, 167
US Department of State 165–6
US-India Civil Nuclear Agreement 201–2
problematique of 196
Utopianism 24–5, 35
V
Vajpayee, Atal Bihari 110
Venezuela 149–67, 207–9
2002 coup 157–64, 163f
post-coup phase 165–6
Venezuelan National Assembly 165–6
Verba, Sidney 49–50
Vietnam War 57–8
Vreeland, James Raymond 57
W
waishengren 83–4, 86–8, 91
Walt, Stephen 78, 79
Waltz, Kenneth 5, 6, 53–7, 81, 228
Theory of International Politics 49
Waltzian neorealism 12–13
Washington Post 158, 161, 163f, 164–6
Weber, Cynthia 207–8
Weber, Max 63
Weiss, Leonard 199
Weiss, Thomas 187–8
Wendt, Alexander 20–1, 32, 34, 76–81, 128, 173–4, 219
Wendtian systemic constructivism (WC) 76–7
Western culture 145, 148
Westphalian sovereignty 197
White Terror 83
Wight, Colin 20
Wight, Martin 219
Wilson, Woodrow 24
Windsor, Philip 228
Wood, Steve 195
World War II 24–5, 55, 107
X
Xi Jinping 74–5, 91, 140
Y
Yugoslavia 93
Z
Zangger Committee 132
Zelikow, Philip 114
zhonghua duli 74 see huadu
Zhongli, Incident of 1977 85
zhulipai 87
Zoellick, Robert B. 139