Assignment Instructions Before you begin this assignment, please

Assignment Instructions
Before you begin this assignment, please review the course materials from the first three weeks of class
with a special focus on the three mainstream theoretical perspectives: realism, liberalism and
constructivism. Please pay particular attention to the definition of each and avoid pairing them with
domestic perceptions of conservatives, liberals, etc. I also recommend reviewing the week 2 forum.
For this assignment, please write a well-formulated paragraph on the theoretical perspective you
think is the most prominent for each the 3 leaders identified below. I have provided links to relevant
information on each person. Don’t be surprised if you find information that reflects each of the three
mainstream theoretical perspectives for each person. What you’re looking for is the theory that is the most
prominent. Which one stands out the most and why? Be sure to demonstrate your understanding of the
theoretical perspectives and to include specific evidence (e.g. words and/or actions of the leader) to
support your analysis in each paragraph. To organize your thoughts, I recommend using the MEAL plan.
Russia’s President Putin

The United States’ President Obama
Rouhani

Materials for President Putin:
Address by Russian President Putin to the Federal Assembly
Russia’s Arctic opportunity
Profile: Vladimir Putin
Materials for President Obama:
In bold move on Cuba, Obama asserts powers
Profile: Barack Obama
Obama’s Foreign Policy Summed Up in One Quote
Materials for President Rouhani:
Iran’s President Rouhani warns against corruption
What Iran Wants in 2014
Iranian President: We will stick to our promises on nuclear deal

Iran’s President

Each of the three paragraphs should be a minimum of 250 words long and quotes should make up no
more than 10% of your submission. Please exclusively use the course materials and the sources provided
specifically for this assignment.
Please be sure to put quotation marks around material copied word-for-word from another source and to
cite the source. Also, be sure to cite paraphrased information. Please use the Turabian citation style. For
examples, please see the Turabian Quick Guide located under the resources link.
Please use 12 pitch, Times New Roman font and 1 inch margins.

Other Resources
Theory in actionhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnKEFSVAiNQ
Realism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnKEFSVAiNQ

Liberalismhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZbDMUaqwE8
constructivismhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYU9UfkV_XI
Realism – A Pessimistic View – Its a Dog Eat Dog World!

The following excerpts are from Rourke and Boyer (2010).
“The name given to a particular theoretical approach to the study of international relations.
According to its proponents, realism has been around for a very long time. Some scholars trace
its intellectual origins all the way back to Thucydides, the chronicler of the Peloponnesian wars.
Thucydides argued that the cause of the war between the Athenians and the Spartans (around
420 BC) was an increase in Athenian military power and the insecurity that it created among the
Spartans. In making this and other observations about state behavior, Thucydides is said to
have begun one of the main traditions of thinking about international relations. Niccolo
Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, and Max Weber are also regarded as seminal thinkers in this
intellectual tradition, although it is quite possible to find statements by a large number of past
philosophers, theologians, historians, and political commentators that might be called realist. It
is important to recognize, however, that none of these early writers actually thought of himself
as a realist. Thus while the origins of realism may lie in the writings of these early thinkers, its
formulation as a theoretical approach to the study of international relations is a relatively recent
development beginning in the late 1930s and early 1940s.

“E.H. Car and Hans J. Morgenthau are crucial figures in that development. They were among
the first scholars to use the term ‘realism’ and to elaborate its fundamental assumptions by
contrast with the allegedly idealistic study of international relations that prevailed during the

interwar period. They claimed that there was no natural harmony of interests among states that
it was foolish and even dangerous to hope that the struggle for power among states could be
tamed by international law, democratization, and international commerce. For both these
writers, the failure of idealist students as well as some diplomats to understand these basic
points was part of the reason why the League of Nations failed to stop the outbreak of the
Second World War and why Hitler nearly succeeded in conquering Europe.

“Whatever their other differences, and there are many, all realists share a common premise; that
the realm of interstate behavior is sufficient unto itself for the purposes of explanation and
normative justification. Realism conjures up a grim image of international politics. Within the
territorial boundaries of the formally sovereign state, politics is an activity of potential moral
progress through the social construction of constitutional government. Beyond the exclusionary
borders of its sovereign presence, politics is essentially the realm of survival rather than
progress. Necessity, not freedom, is the appropriate or realistic starting-point for understanding
international relations. A precarious form of order through the balance of power, not
cosmopolitan justice, is the best we can hope for in the international anarchy: a realm of
continual struggles for power and security among states. . . .
“Despite its dominance throughout the post-1945 era, realism has been the subject of endless
criticism and elaboration, much of it from those sympathetic to some of its fundamental
assumptions. . . .
“Today, some scholars are asking whether realism still has any relevance in an allegedly
shrinking and globalizing world where interstate violence seems to have taken the place of
interstate war. Only time will tell. But realism does have an extraordinary capacity for adaptation
and modification. Those who are hopeful of its demise, therefore, are likely to be in for a long
wait to see their ambitions fulfilled.

Liberal Internationalism – An Optimistic View – Cooperation is Key!
“Although some realists condemned it as a form of idealism in the late 1930s and just after the
Second World War, liberal internationalism became the focus of renewed attention at the end
the twentieth century. At least for a short time in the early 1990s, particularly after the Gulf War
and the collapse of the Soviet Union as well as communism, it seemed to many that the dream
of world order – most often associated with the statecraft of President Woodrow Wilson during
and after the First World War – had a chance of being realized. Some of the optimism of that
period has since disappeared, and it is becoming clear that liberal internationalism faces many
theoretical and practical challenges.

“Liberal international is essentially a project to transform international relations so that they
conform to models of peace, freedom, and prosperity allegedly enjoyed within constitutional

liberal democracies such as the United States. Indeed, at least in terms of political rhetoric, the
United States has been the leader in promoting liberal internationalism of one kind or another in
the twentieth century.

“Whilst such a project envisages a wide variety of ways to achieve its lofty goals, three stand out
as particularly worthy of note. First, commercial liberalism promotes the idea of free trade and
commerce across state borders on the assumption that economic interdependence among
states will reduce incentives to use force and raise the cost of doing so. . . . [Second,] if
commercial liberalism operates at a transnational level, what is often referred to as republican
liberalism is directed at the relationship between states and their citizens. Republican liberalism
endorses the spread of democracy among states so that governments will be accountable to
their citizens and find it difficult to pursue policies that promote the sectional interests of
economic and military elites. . . . Finally, what is called regulatory or institutional liberalism
operates at the level of the international political structure. At this level liberal internationalism
stands in contrast to the realist insistence that the structural anarchy of the international political
system must always subordinate collective interests to national interests. Many liberal
internationalists believe that it is possible to promote the rule of law and develop international
institutions and practices that moderate the security dilemma among states.
“It should be noted that liberal internationalism is fundamentally reformist rather than
revolutionary. It seeks not to transform the basic structure of the states system, but rather to
moderate those elements that realists have identified as the fundamental causes of war.
“At the beginning of the twenty-first century, liberal internationalism faces many challenges,
among which the following three are the most daunting.
“First, it is clear that the three main types of liberal internationalism do not necessarily support
one another; in fact they are often contradictory. . . . Second, not all liberal internationalist
values can be enjoyed simultaneously. Peace, individual freedom, and the rule of law may
coexist within some liberal democratic states, but the domestic analogy breaks down at the
international level. . . . Third, there is a powerful tension between liberal cosmopolitanism and
liberal internationalism. The former is based on the subordination of the state to the liberal value
of individual autonomy and freedom. In theory, liberals have always viewed the state with
suspicion. In contrast, liberal internationalism tends to take the state for granted. . . .
“In response to these dilemmas, liberal internationalism either places its faith in the idea of
historical progress to overcome the challenges confronting it, or it mutates in a more radical,
cosmopolitan direction. The problem with the first stance is a tendency towards complacency,
whilst the latter stance is vulnerable to realist accusations of idealism. In the end, however,
being called an idealist may be a small price to pay for sticking to one’s ethical principles!

Constructivism (or Identity) – A Neutral View – Things are as they are and that must be
understood!
“Constructivism is a distinctive approach to international relations that emphasizes the social, or
intersubjective, dimension of world politics. Constructivists insist that international relations
cannot be reduced to rational action and interaction within material constraints (as some realists
claim) or within institutional constraints at the international and national levels (as argued by
some liberal internationalists). For constructivists, state interaction is not among fixed national
interests, but must be understood as a pattern of action that shapes and is shaped by identities
over time. In contrast to other theoretical approaches, social constructivism presents a model of
international interaction that explores the normative influence of fundamental institutional
structures and the connection between normative changes and state identity and interests. At
the same time, however, institutions themselves are constantly reproduced and, potentially,
changed by the activities of states and other actors. Institutions and actors are mutually
conditioning entities.

“According to constructivists, international institutions have both regulative and constitutive
functions. Regulative norms set the basic rules for standards of conduct by prescribing or
proscribing certain behaviors. Constitutive norms define a behavior and assign meanings to that
behavior. Without constitutive norms, actions would be unintelligible. The familiar analogy that
constructivists use to explain constitutive norms is that the rules of the game, such as chess.
Constitutive norms enable the actors to play the game and provide the actors with the
knowledge necessary to respond to each other’s moves in a meaningful way.

“States have a corporate identity that generates basic state goals, such as physical security,
stability, recognition by others, and economic development. However, how states fulfill their
goals depends upon their social identities, i.e. how states see themselves in relation to other
states in international society. On the basis of these identities, states construct their national
interests. Constructivists accept that anarchy is the characteristic condition of the international
system, but argue that, by itself, it means nothing. . . .
“Constructivism emphasizes that the international system consists of social relationships as well
as material capabilities. Indeed, social relationships give meaning to material capabilities.
Intersubjective systemic structures consist of the shared understandings, expectations, and
social knowledge embedded in international institutions. . . .
“Constructivists focus most of their attention on institutions that exist at a fundamental level of
international society, such as international law, diplomacy, and sovereignty. However, regimes

are also important. Constructivists argue that these regimes also reproduce constitutive as well
as regulative norms. . . .
“As a theoretical approach, constructivism is difficult to employ. Constructivism, for example,
does not predict any particular social structure to govern the behavior of states. Rather, it
requires that a given social relationship be examined, articulated and, ultimately understood.
When this is done, then it may be possible to predict states behavior within that particular
structure. However, if these predictions prove false, it could be that the governing social
structures were not properly understood or have simply changed. . . .

References

Pease, Kelly-Kate S. 2010. International Organizations: Perspectives on Governance in the
Twenty-first Century. 4th ed. New York: Longman.
Rourke, John T, and Mark A Boyer. 2010. International Politics on the World Stage. 8th ed.
Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Explanation & Answer

Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Order Now and we will direct you to our Order Page at Litessays. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.