What are international norms? How do realism, liberalism, and constructivism explain the impact of norms in international relations? Which one, if any, of these explanations do you agree with? Justify your rationale.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

The ideal answer should include:
1. Define international norms (e.g., the expectations held by participants about typical interactions among states.)
2. Compare and contrast the three paradigms. Realists point out that many of the accepted norms were shaped by the powerful states in the system (the dominance principle), and these same powerful states are often responsible for their interpretation. Constructivist scholars point out that when international norms are violated, states (even the United States) go to tremendous lengths to justify behaviors that violate the norms. This suggests that strong norms do exist and are recognized by even the most powerful states. Finally, liberals point out that, contrary to what realists or constructivists maintain, it is the codification of international norms in institutions that gives norms their power. These institutions create incentives to reciprocate behavior encouraged by a norm (the reciprocity principle) while also constraining the behavior of powerful states through rules that govern behavior.
3. Discuss which one, if any, you agree with. Justify your rationale, ideally by using a relevant example from international relations. For example, to the United States, it was a moral imperative to remove Saddam Hussein from power in 2003. But from the perspective of Arab populations, the U.S. invasion was an unjust violation of territorial sovereignty. In cases of diverging norms, morality can be a factor for misunderstanding and conflict rather than a force of stability.
4. Offer a concise summary and effective conclusion.