104 CHAPTER THREE ■ InternatIonal relatIons theorIes
constructivist Perspectives
A constructivist view of the 2003 Iraq War would focus on several factors. Constructiv-
ist theorists would emphasize the social construction of threat: how U.S. policy makers
constructed Saddam Hussein and the purported WMD as imminent threats to the
United States, even though UN inspectors claimed that the weapons program had been
dismantled. The “constructed” nature of the threat becomes evident when comparing
Iraq to Israel or Great Britain, both of which possess sophisticated nuclear weapons but
are not considered “threatening” and are in fact close allies. The rhe toric of the threat
accelerated as Saddam was portrayed as an evil tyrant, having power beyond materialist
considerations. Constructivists would also point to the importance of legitimacy. The
United States recognized the need for legitimacy for its actions, being socialized into
those norms. That explains the considerable effort the United States expended in trying
to obtain UN Security Council approval for the invasion, though in the long run those
efforts failed. In much constructivist thinking, international organ izations such as the
UN play a power ful legitimizing and socializing role in international relations. But in
2003, this construction of legitimacy was overwhelmed by the U.S., a single power ful state
led by an administration highly critical of collective security. The Bush administration
argued that the legitimacy of UN support— slow and demanding of compromise— was
eclipsed by the greater legitimacy of doing the right thing quickly, even if on one’s own.
In sum: seeing the World through theoretical lenses
Without theory, we are reduced to educated guesses on how to resolve crises or how to
constructively advance human values such as justice and peace. How each of us sees
international relations depends on our own theoretical lens. Do you see events through
a realist framework? Are you inclined toward a liberal interpretation? Or do you
adhere to a radical, constructivist, or perhaps feminist view of the world? These
theoretical perspectives differ not only in whom they identify as key actors, but also in
what counts as a threat or a benefit. They also differ in their views about the relative
explanatory power of the individual, the state, and the international system— the three
levels of analy sis. Equally impor tant, these perspectives support diff er ent views about
the possibility and desirability of change—in par tic u lar war, peace, and development—
in the international system.
In the next four chapters, we examine in more detail how each of these perspectives
sees the international system, the state, the individual, and international organ izations.
We begin with the most general level of analy sis— the international system.