

























CONSTRUCTIVIST SCHOOL IN 
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND 

SECURITY STUDIES

Gideon Adeniji

Abstract
Before the advent of Constructivism, the conventional 
theories enjoyed some form of intellectual monopoly in the 
eld of international relations sometimes aggravating to 
some form of intellectual arrogance, borne out of the 
assurance of the truth and validity of their grand theorems 
and aided by the explanatory power of the sciences. 
Constructivism on the other hand came in a subtle manner 
to reveal the inherent aws and structural deciencies 
contained within those dominant theories. Indeed, it has 
been said by many scholars that no theory is complete in 
itself, and there is always room for revision and expansion. 
This critical launch on Realism, Liberalism, and to some 
extent, Marxism (together regarded as the conventional 
theories), was quite necessary in order to inject some form 
of intellectual vigour to the eld of International Relations 
and Security Studies that were gradually becoming rigid 
and comatose as a result of the somewhat subtle perceptions 
of the impeccability of the conventional grand theories. 
Adopting a historical and analytic approach, this paper 
attempts to unravel the unique role of the Constructivist 
School in the reassessment and understanding of 
international relations and it's sub discipline, Security 
Studies. The paper also illustrates some of the contributions 
of constructivism to the policy formulation of States and 
International Bodies.



Key words: Constructivism, International Relations, Security 
Studies, Cold War

GENERAL INTRODUCTION
The history of International Relations has been fraught with debates 
about the ideal explanation that could be given with regard to the true 
nature of the relationship that exists between states and the 
international system at large. This tussle has majorly been somewhat 
a mutual exclusivity of the two dominant theories of International 
relations-Realism and Liberalism, and later, Neo-realism and Neo-
liberalism of which the former was more dominant until the wake of 
the 70s and 80s.The latter later emerged with a more forceful 
approach, loaded with heavy criticisms for the preponderance of 
realism. Moreover, unfolding events during that period further 
compromised the exclusive patronage enjoyed by realism since the 
end of the Second World War and saw the growing popularity of 
liberalism as a theory. One of such prominent occurrence of that 
period was the “Great Depression” of the 60s and 70s which saw the 
temporary weakening of the hegemonic position of the United States 
in terms of her economy in the global space, yet the International 
Organizations of which she was a foremost contributor were growing 
stronger (C. Reus-Smit, 2005:190).

 What was experienced during the rst great attack on Realism 
by Liberalism was a chain reaction of criticisms and counter-
criticisms by the two dominant theories of which Marxism also 
played a partial role. Eventually, some form of agreement between 
the two theories began to be reached with the emergence of the 
'Structural Realism' of Kenneth Waltz and the 'Neo-liberal 
Institutionalism' of Robert Keohane. Structural Realism or Neo-
realism of Kenneth Waltz arose in the 70s with dual intentions. The 
rst was to reassert the preponderance of Realism as the dominant 
theory of International Relations, and the second was to re-modify the 
basic assumptions of realism as propounded by Classical Realism, 
giving it an empirical basis with the testable and veriable hypothesis 
(C. Reus-Smit 2005:191). Keohane on the other hand arrived at some 
points of convergence with the structural realism of Waltz, but also 
diverted at certain points. As an illustration, some of the basic 

39Constructivist School in International Relations...



assumptions of Realism such as the importance of international 
anarchy in shaping state behaviour, the state as the most important 
actor in international politics, and the primacy of self-interest in 
international politics were retained. However, Keohane maintained 
that global politics is not in total anarchy as realism portends because 
the potential for exacerbated anarchy has been ameliorated by the 
reality of state interdependence, especially in economic and political 
terms. This interdependence has lessened the potential for pure 
anarchy, thereby creating room for international cooperation 
(Keohane 1984:57). 

This ideological difference with a potential for agreement 
continued till the end of the Cold War when the rst concerted attack 
on the conventional theories was launched by the new school of 
thought known as 'Social Constructivism'. Before then, the area 
known as Security Studies was regarded as an exclusive reserve for 
Realism, while Liberalism and Marxism concentrated on other 
aspects of the study of global politics. Ontological issues pertinent to 
security studies ignored since the end of the Second World War 
resurfaced through the auspices of Social Constructivism (P. Hough 
2008:6). 

Hence, Social Constructivism instigated several aspects of 
International Relations that were hitherto taken for granted or even 
regarded as insignicant which have gone a long way to inuence the 
study of International Relations and Security Studies in recent times. 
Under this work, we shall be examining the dominant role of Social 
Constructivism in the shaping of International Relations and Security 
Studies in this contemporary age.

CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATION
We shall be examining some important terminologies under this sub-
heading with a view of presenting a vivid explanation of the subject 
matter. These are as follows:

International Relations: It must be duly noted that a 
denition of International Relations is not exhaustive and it is largely 
determined by the intellectual temperament of the scholars involved. 
Hence, the emphasis on some elements contained in the discipline is 
largely determined by the individual dening it. International 

40 Ekpoma Review, Volume 9, 2022



Relations can be described as the study of the whole gamut of 
political interactions between international actors which include 
states, international organizations, and to a lesser extent, some 
wealthy-private individuals (P. Hough 2008:2). Another author and 
one of the earliest intellectuals in the eld, F.S. Dunn (1948) would 
dene International Relations as a discipline that may “be looked 
upon as the actual relations that take place across national boundaries, 
or as the body of knowledge which we have of those relations at any 
given time.” Though this denition seems comprehensive enough, 
we must note that not all contacts across national boundaries may be 
regarded as International Relations.

Security Studies: The preoccupation with Security Studies 
as a separate discipline within International Relations did not occur 
until the early 90s which coincided with the end of the Cold War. This 
situation was further buoyed by the realization that International 
Relations and Security Studies were heavily inuenced by other 
factors divergent from primarily military and strategic issues as 
proposed by the realists. Hence, security studies came to be 
recognized in an independent fashion and given their place within the 
wider scope of International Relations. Security studies can therefore 
be dened as a discipline that concerns itself with a sub-set of 
political interactions marked by their particular importance in terms 
of maintaining the security of actors (state) and individual people (P. 
Hough 2008:2). The maintenance of this security involves a whole lot 
of factors hitherto considered irrelevant before the advent of the 90s. 
These shall be discussed as we progress.

Constructivism: The beginning of Constructivism as a 
theoretical basis for analysis started with the rise of an ideological 
school with the nomenclature “Critical Theory”. Though 
'Constructivism' agrees with most of the basic assumptions of the 
critical theorists especially as regards the arrogant and superuous 
assumptions of the conventional theories about the rationality of 
actors, but is divergent from the critical theorists in the sense that it 
pursues an empirical analysis of international relations quite distinct 
from the critical theorists who are more meta-theoretical and 
philosophical in their methods of analysis because of their basic 
belief in the correlation of theory and practice (Price and Reus-Smith, 

41Constructivist School in International Relations...



1998).
Flowing from the above, Constructivism may be described as 

the school of thought that emphasizes the important role played by 
systems of shared beliefs, ideas, and values in shaping 
domestic/international structures and which determine the mode of 
political interaction through those systems (C. Reus-Smit, 
2005:196). It exposes the narrow-mindedness and theoretical 
deciencies of the dominant conventional theories in their emphasis 
on the presumed 'rationality' of the actors, be they states or 
individuals

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The theoretical framework that shall be adopted in the evaluation of 
'Constructivism' which is itself a theory is the “Critical Theory” from 
which it has its origins. As earlier mentioned, the critical theorists 
emerged in the early 90s with a new wave of criticisms against the 
prevalent and dominant conventional theories that held sway during 
that period. The critical theorists challenged the conceptual 
framework of certain concepts popularized by the conventional 
theories, imbuing them with Western connotations, and inducing the 
rest of the whole eld of international studies to view such concepts 
from such narrow-minded perspectives that are stripped of any 
objectivity (P. Hough 2008:9). Hence, the ontological basis for the 
conception of such words like 'sovereignty', 'freedom', and 'security' 
was put under the radar. For example, Wyn-Jones (1999), a prominent 
critical theorist challenged the traditional conception of the state as an 
entity with absolute authority, imbued with unassailable rights and 
privileges. 

He referred to this as “the fetishization of the state”. This for 
him was the root of most of the problems experienced in the study of 
international relations as motivated by the conventional theories. 

The bedrock of the critical school can be traced back to as far 
as the Enlightenment and the writings of Hegel, Kant, and Marx, but 
the twentieth-century origins of this theory are found in the 
emergence of an ideological school known as the 'Frankfurt School' 
comprising of notable scholars such as Wyn-Jones, Walter Benjamin, 
Max Horkheimer, and Theodor Adorno (R. Devetak 2005:138).

42 Ekpoma Review, Volume 9, 2022



The critical theory as propounded by the Frankfurt school had 
as its primary point of concern, the understanding of the central 
features of contemporary society by examining its historical and 
social development. This is embarked upon in view of rooting out the 
inherent contradictions that are embedded in contemporary 
discourses and helping to transcend these conceptual obstacles which 
promote some unnecessary forms of intellectual and political 
domination. Hence, the aim of critical theory is not simply intended 
to eliminate the conceptual abuses inherent in social structures but to 
analyze the underlying social structure to eliminate such abuses 
(Horkheimer 1972: 206). The critical school is guided by the belief 
that knowledge is largely determined and conditioned by historical 
and material contexts, a belief shared by Hegel and Karl Marx. 

Hence, its focus of the enquiry is basically the society and in 
fact its primary object of analysis. An extension of this is the interest 
in theory because they strongly believe that the act of theorizing 
cannot be independent of society (R. Deventak 2005:139). 

Critical theory is a self-reective method or approach to the 
study of knowledge claims. It strives to draw attention to the 
relationship that exists between knowledge and society and strives to 
prove that the so-called knowledge claims are heavily inuenced by 
the political environment dening it and utilizing it to serve certain 
interests. It is this theory that serves as the ontological basis and 
foundation for the emergence and evolution of what is now referred 
to as 'Social Constructivism' which builds largely on the basic 
assumptions of this theory but differs in methodology and approach.

THE ROLE OF CONSTRUCTIVISM IN INTERNATIONAL 
RELATIONS
Despite the ideological disparities existing between the two 
dominant theories-Realism and Liberalism, and Neorealism/ 
Neoliberalism in recent times, they are both very similar in 
orientation because they are both based on what C. Reus-Smith 
(2005:192) would call “the choice theoretic assumptions of 
microeconomic theory”. What he means by this is based on the three 
general assumptions of both theorems which are –that the political 
actor, whether individual or state is assumed to be an atomistic, self-

43Constructivist School in International Relations...



interested, and rational actor in the international sphere. By atomistic, 
what is meant is that the actors are presumed to be pre-social, their 
interests and identities are formed before their social interactions. 
Secondly, actors are presumed to be driven primarily by self-interest 
in their various modes of communication and socializing. Thirdly, 
those actors are rational in the sense that they are capable of 
establishing the most efcient and effective ways of pursuing and 
attaining their self-interests amid obstacles posed by the anarchical 
system. Flowing from the above, therefore, the conventional theories 
do not see social interaction as a constitutive element of interests. 
Interests are formed before social interactions, and the interactions 
are not believed to modify these interests in any way, as each actor 
engages in social interaction with his interests intact and untouched. 
Therefore, the social sphere is regarded as a strategic domain where 
actors converge to interact based on their pre-dened interests and 
choices (C. Reus-Smit 2005:192). This lacuna in the conventional 
theories, whether deliberate or an oversight, constituted the launch 
pad of attack from the Constructivists as we shall later see. The pre-
occupation with how state interests are formed and what informs 
them is not a subject of interest to neorealism, but they are primarily 
concerned with how those interests inuence their behaviour in the 
international domain imbuing them with a special characteristic of 
survival (Waltz 1979: 91-92).

Constructivism, which is an outgrowth of the critical 
international theory which developed in the 70s and 80s, launched a 
critique of these dominant modes of thought at that time. This was 
based on certain occurrences of the early 90s in which the 
explanatory models of the dominant theories were found wanting, 
primarily buoyed by the astonishing self-induced surrender of the 
USSR, which ofcially brought an end to almost a century-old feud 
with their ideological enemies. This phenomenon is generally 
referred to as the end of the Cold War. The rise of the constructivist 
school can be traced to four factors which are as follows:

a) The rst set of constructivists was motivated by the 
enthusiasm of projecting their own conception of theory and 
world politics quite distinct from the rationalists who had 
previously challenged the critical theorists to move beyond 

44 Ekpoma Review, Volume 9, 2022



theoretical critique to the substantial analysis of international 
relations. While the critical theorists saw this as an 
unwelcome development, the new wave of constructivists 
saw this as a challenge and an ample opportunity to 
demonstrate the efcacy of non-rational approaches to 
explaining international phenomena (Walker, 1989).

b) Secondly, the sudden systemic transformation of the global 
order that occurred in tandem with the end of the Cold War 
rendered the explanatory power of neorealism and 
neoliberalism somewhat comatose. None of the conventional 
theories were ready for the developments that occurred with 
the end of the Cold War. It also undermined the basic belief of 
critical theorists that theory is the driving force for practice, as 
the situation demonstrated a dynamism that contradicted the 
previous order the world had been accustomed to (C. Reus- 
Smith 2005:195)

c) Thirdly, the promptings of the new constructivist perspective 
that emerged in the early 90s was that which sought to be 
innovative and creative in the conceptual elaborations of the 
critical school by embracing their basic propositions but 
moving beyond mere theoretical critique to the sphere of 
empirically informed theoretical development and analysis of 
the international terrain (Klotz 1995:20).

d) Lastly, the vigour and enthusiasm displayed by the 
mainstream constructivists scholars in embracing the new 
perspective and moving it from the periphery to the core of 
mainstream theoretical debate as a result of their 
dissatisfaction with the analytical failings of the dominant 
rationalist theories helped in no small measure in the 
endorsement and popularity of the new constructivist school 
of thought, bringing hitherto latent and comatose aspects of 
the discipline of international relations to the limelight 
profoundly and dynamically (C. Reus-Smith 2005:196). 
These factors were largely responsible for the popularization 
of the constructivist school and its increased role in the 
contribution to the study of international relations.

45Constructivist School in International Relations...



The role of constructivism in international relations can be 
grouped into three major blocs of inuence of which they opine that 
these illuminate the sphere of global politics more than the way mere 
rationalist assumptions do; these shall be examined one after the 
other.

Their rst basic assumption is that which emphasizes the role 
that ideological and normative structures play in shaping the 
behaviour of political actors, and they reiterate the importance of 
these normative and ideological structures which they insist is at par 
with the material structures which the rational theories emphasize. 

Realism may emphasize the importance of military power, 
while Marxism may emphasize the important role played by 
economic factors, but the constructivists are of the idea that the so-
called material structures only acquire meaning for human action in 
the light of the structure of shared knowledge in which they are 
embedded, and these shared knowledge are in turn informed by 
shared ideas, beliefs and values that inform human action (Wendt 
1995:73). As an illustration, for a long time in Europe, especially 
during the Middle Ages, only Christian monarchies were regarded as 
legitimate sovereign states in Europe, and these norms, backed by 
coercive practices served to compromise nationalist or liberal 
tendencies existing within the European states.

Secondly, constructivists emphasize the need to investigate 
the non-material structures that inuence the shaping of identities of 
political actors, because this is for them very important in 
understanding what informs the interests of political actors, and their 
actions eventually. Constructivists believe that the knowledge of how 
interests are formed helps a long way in the explanation of a wide 
range of global political phenomena which the rationalist theories 
take for granted by their deliberate omission of the investigation of 
the origins of interests, or what informs the formation of interests. 
Hence, constructivists strongly believe that identities are the basis of 
interest formation (Wendt 1992:197). As an illustration, it is quite 
understandable from the constructivist point of view why someone 
with a liberal democratic disposition would be intolerant towards 
totalitarian or authoritarian regimes and would rather support 
democratic dispensations with a capitalist economic preference. The 

46 Ekpoma Review, Volume 9, 2022



ideological and normative structure of liberalism shapes the 
personality and identity of the individual which further determines 
his interest in a particular political sphere or not.

Thirdly, constructivists argue that structures are not formed 
before the actors they produce. For them, both are mutually 
constituted, developing, and growing in tandem. Hence, they 
strongly believe that the ideological and normative structures that 
condition identities and interests would be non-existent if there were 
no prior knowledgeable practices of the actors involved. Hence, 
institutionalized norms and ideas, which are in turn products of the 
knowledge basis and structure of certain individuals within the 
society, dene the meaning and identity of the actors, as well as their 
economic, political, and cultural activities. Therefore, Wendt would 
note that constructivists are also structuralists like their neorealist and 
neoliberal counterparts, only that they can be regarded as better 
structuralists as a result of their emphasis on the non-material 
structures that inuence the shaping of identities and interests (C. 
Reus-Smit 2005:197). The three assumptions are generally accepted 
by constructivists. However, constructivists also differ in accord with 
their point of emphasis on certain elements which they believe shape 
the international system. Hence, there are various strands of 
constructivism that can be identied within the eld of international 
relations. These shall be enumerated below.

Strands Existing Within the Constructivist School
According to C. Reus-Smit (2005:199), there have been different 
forms of constructivism since the early 90s, each differing according 
to the emphasis on whom and what constitutes the primary actor in 
international politics. The three strands that can be identied within 
the constructivist school include; systemic, unit-level, and holistic 
constructivism.

Systemic Constructivism: This strand of constructivism is 
promoted by the likes of Alexander Wendt and it is also a very rare 
form of constructivism. This kind of constructivism is quite similar to 
neorealism in the sense that it emphasizes the role of the state as the 
primary actor in international relations. It recognizes the status of the 
domestic clime within the states, but it chooses to relegate it to the 

47Constructivist School in International Relations...



background, thereby making the state its major focus of inquiry. Like 
the normal constructivist fashion, Wendt believes that the identity of 
the state informs the interest it pursues as well as its actions. The 
identity of the state can either be social-the conception, role, or 
personality ascribed to the state by the international community 
(external reputation), and the corporate identity-the internal 
ideological, cultural, and material factors that make a state what it is. 
However, Wendt prefers to isolate the corporate image as a result of 
his preference for systemic analysis, rather than focusing on the 
social identity, about how systemic processes and structural contexts 
produce different sources of state identity (Wendt 1992;1995) the 
weakness of this kind of constructivism is its narrow scope which 
tends to eliminate crucial determinants of how fundamental changes 
may occur even in the international system or even in the nature of 
state identity which is primarily inuenced by the domestic order.

Unit-level Constructivism: This is the reverse of the 
systemic kind and it places more emphasis on how the domestic order 
shapes state identity. It focuses on the relationship between the 
domestic, social, and legal norms, identities, and interests of states. 
Peter Katzenstein (1999), a notable constructivist emphasizes the 
importance of institutionalized, regulatory, and constitutive national 
and legal norms in shaping the state identity. He showed this with his 
analysis of the variant state identity of Germany and Japan who both 
have a common history of domination, defeat, and nascent Great-
Power status. While one seems to be inclined towards the Grotian 
principle of international relations, with its emphasis on the evolution 
of international legal systems to quell terrorism and protests, the 
latter is more conservative and passive in international affairs. This 
method allows for the identication of variations among states but 
creates more difculty in the identication of similar patterns among 
states.

Holistic Constructivism: this tries to bridge a gap between 
the two constructivist schools by bringing both the social and 
corporate identities into a unied analytical view. It is primarily 
concerned with the dynamics of global change, such as the rise and 
fall of sovereign states and they concentrate on the mutually 
constitutive relationship between the global order and the state. It, 

48 Ekpoma Review, Volume 9, 2022



therefore, creates room for the explanation of the grand shifts that 
have occurred in the international system, and the recent changes 
within the modern system which are distinctive yet complementary. 
Though it is less elegant in theoretical construction in comparison to 
the other two, it allows for the explanation of the ideological and 
normative structures of the present international system (C. Reus-
Smit, 2005:201). This shall lead us to a major focus on the role of 
constructivism in security studies in the next subheading.

THE ROLE OF CONSTRUCTIVISM IN SECURITY STUDIES
Just as the Constructivists initiated an intellectual revolution in the 
general eld of international relations, so they extended this 
revolution to the eld of security studies hitherto regarded as the 
exclusive reserve of the realist perspective that saw security studies 
only in the arena of military and strategic studies. They brought in 
their methodology and analytical tool that favours the sociological 
and cultural approach in the analysis and explanation of policy 
making. The end of the Cold War had some implications for the eld 
of security studies in the sense that many statesmen, academics, and 
the general public at large revived interest in areas or issues that were 
made latent during the Cold War years as a result of the ensuing super-
power rivalry. The receding of the 'Nuclear Armageddon' of the Cold 
War years enabled erstwhile marginalized and relegated issues to 
emerge from the blues and reassert themselves on the global agenda 
(P. Hough 2008:7). However, a prediction into the new constructivist 
era was already made as far back as 1983, when Ullman dened what 
constituted security threats in a manner unprecedented. To give a 
vivid insight into this, Ullman (1983:133) dened security threats as 
“an action or sequence of events that (1) threatens drastically and over 
a relatively brief period to degrade the quality of life for the 
inhabitants of the state or (2) threatens signicantly to narrow the 
range of policy choices available to a government of a state, or to 
private, nongovernmental entities (persons, groups, corporations) 
within the state.” This was followed by a wave of critical theorists and 
constructivists who dened security studies exogenously beyond the 
usual scope of military threat and use of force propagated by the 
realists.

49Constructivist School in International Relations...



Scholars such as Ayoob (1997) emphasized the need to 
examine the internal threats of LDCs (Less Developed Countries) as 
constituting the principal security concern for most of those areas 
rather than external threats. Also, Matthews (1989), owing from 
Ullman's stance on security threats, highlighted the security 
implications of environmental problems such as global warming and 
ozone depletion and the implications they had for international 
security at large. Another group of scholars, Lynn-Jones and Miller 
(1995), emphasized the security concerns posed by issues such as 
virulent nationalism and the social impact of migration. This 
widening and deepening endeavour of the constructivist school in 
security studies was crowned by the emergence of the Copenhagen 
School which asides from dening what security studies should 
contain, proceeded in providing a framework for the analysis of what 
should constitute a security threat or not. Hence, the Copenhagen 
School made its impact on the eld of security studies with its classic, 
authored by three notable scholars, Barry Buzan, De Wilde, and 
Waever, titled Security Studies: A New Framework for Analysis. In 
this work, the Copenhagen scholars specically made it clear that 
security threats could arise from many other areas apart from the 
military including the social, economic, political, and environmental 
spheres of the state as long as they constituted 'existential threats'. 

Apart from these, they went further to identify the criteria that 
must make an issue a security threat or not. That is, they have to be 
distinguishable from the usual political parlance and stated as 
existential threats to a referent object by a securitizing actor who 
generates the endorsement of emergency actions beyond the usual 
conventions that guide and moderate its operations (Buzan et al, 
1998:5). The Copenhagen school added fuel to the wideners and 
deepeners of security studies by making it clear that an issue could be 
securitized even if it had no palpable threatening inuence on the 
state, as long as it is given impetus by the securitizing actor through 
the medium of the 'speech act'(P. Hough, 2008:8)

Obviously, this development was met with vehement 
resistance on the part of the realists who feared that security studies 
would be made to lose focus and articulation if its base was widened 
beyond the conventional military and strategic studies. Hence, the 

50 Ekpoma Review, Volume 9, 2022



likes of Walt (1991) and J. Mearsheimer (1990) opined that military 
threats were more apparent in the Post-Cold War years than ever 
before which was devoid of the traditional guarantee of state security 
and that security studies needed to return to the basics to rediscover 
the lost arts of conict resolution, multilateral diplomacy and 
conventional defense that dened the Cold War years and its threat of 
nuclear balance of power. This deance by the realist school has 
continued till this very day, as scholars such as Wirtz (2002:311) 
would opine that if the threat or use of force, or even the logical and 
technical assistance rendered by military units does not respond to a 
given problem, it is better not to treat such issues as a security threat. 

However, as dully noted by P. Hough (2008:9-10), the attempt 
to dene security studies on the basis of whether it involves the use of 
military threat or not strips the whole enterprise of any real meaning 
because security is a human condition that cannot be totally 
negotiated by the mere attempt of state bodies to secure their 
boundaries and secure the citizens in a certain dimension. It is 
negatively presumptuous to subsume human security under the 
auspices of state security. It totally disregards the uniqueness and 
aspirations of individuals that make up the state entity. Hence, it is 
better to dene security in behavioural terms rather than excluding 
certain categories of threats simply because they have no military 
afliations. This imbues the whole enterprise with a little objectivity 
than the subjective endeavour of realism.

There is also a strand of constructivism that strives to deviate 
a little from the assumptions of other constructivists like the 
Copenhagen School. While the Copenhagen School and most of the 
other scholars in its route tend to be referred to as 'wideners', there are 
other constructivists who are more deepeners in the sense of their 
critique of the conceptual framework of the wideners (P. Hough 2008: 
8). The major bone of contention is the debate about the place of states 
in the securitization of issues. The deepeners, just like the neo-
liberals, emphasize the prominence of 'human security' above that of 
the state. They opine that the so-called 'referent object' propagated by 
the Copenhagen School, should not be only about the state or sub-
state groups alone, but more attention should be directed towards the 
individuals, institutions, and groups that make a state what it is (P. 

51Constructivist School in International Relations...



Hough 2008:8). For example, Falk (1995:146-147), a notable 
constructivist would argue that security should be regarded as the 
negation of insecurity as experienced by individuals and groups in 
concrete situations. He conceives the wideners of security, including 
the Copenhagen School, as still locked in the web of the elite 
assessment of securitization

The issue with the Copenhagen School is the fact that it is a 
truism they accept the inclusivity of nonmilitary issues as security 
issues, and they accept that the so-called referent object can be 
something other than the state. However, they insist on the state as 
being the major securitizing actor. It is this particular situation 
thatWyn-Jones admits that the aspect the Copenhagen School has not 
fully taken care of, is what he refers to as 'the fetishization of the state' 
(Wyn-Jones, 1999). In trying to follow the Copenhagen School line 
of argument, an issue does not ofcially become securitized until it is 
pronounced as so by the state. Hence, the political class is the sole 
determinant of what should be securitized or not. Issues that may not 
affect the individuals within the state directly, but may threaten the 
interests of the political class may become securitized, while issues 
that threaten individuals directly but constitute no threat to the 
interest of the political class may as well be de-securitized or even 
regarded as irrelevant. As an illustration, the gaze of the world has 
been drawn to the outright increasing levels of poverty and hardship 
of the citizens to the level of the violation of their human dignity in 
North Korea who nd it quite difcult to survive in their present 
political dispensation. This in itself should be of utmost concern to 
the global community because the human and economic security of 
that country is gravely threatening. However, the state, embodied in 
the totalitarian regime of the Kim-Jung dynasty does not see this as an 
immediate point of concern for they would rather expend the 
resources of the state in the development and expansion of military 
incentives. They would spend more money on the recruitment of 
personnel for the army and the development of sophisticated 
weapons (nuclear weapons inclusive)for the protection of the state. 
The United Nations has gravely been incapacitated in taking any 
decisive action against the North Korean government because of the 
support they enjoy from their allies such as Russia and China. Hence, 

52 Ekpoma Review, Volume 9, 2022



the government of North Korea sees the referent object of existential 
threat as the state and not the individuals within the entity, and this 
informs what they should be securitizing or not.

By adopting the human security framework, therefore, 
analysts are relieved a little of the burden of speculating on what they 
think is the most threatening of the myriad of issues on the 
contemporary political agenda, and they can rather concentrate on 
issues perceived as vital and responded to in an extraordinary way of 
decision-makers. According to P. Hough (2008), the approach is quite 
pragmatic in the sense that it can be demonstrated through opinion 
polls what people think is a security threat to them or not, as many 
people think of security in different terms today than during the Cold 
War.

Finally, the Constructivist School has helped to answer some 
fundamental questions on the eld of security studies which were 
hitherto beclouded by the primacy of military strategy. Hence, they 
have heightened deliberations on securitization by asking questions 
such as: Who is being secured? Who is doing the securing? What is to 
be secured? Which were largely ignored before the end of the Cold 
War, and have been given prospects for resolution by the 
Constructivist School. We shall now attempt a critique of the 
Constructivist School as no theory is perfect in itself, and neither is it 
totally nonsensical.

CRITIQUE OF CONSTRUCTIVISM
The rst critique of constructivism by the realist school is the 
unconvincing emphasis placed on the importance of norms and 
values by the constructivists, especially in the international sphere. 

The realists insist that the existence and role of norms cannot 
be doubted in international relations, but they have reservations about 
the effectiveness of such norms. They insist that international history 
since the pact of Westphalia has been characterized by a constant 
violation of the sovereign rights of weaker states by more powerful 
states. The realists insist that the quest for power and domination by 
states will continue to render the adherence to norms and values quite 
impotent (J. Robert and S. George, 2006: 172-173). 

Another implication of the constructivist submission is that 

53Constructivist School in International Relations...



the international space is not a mere 'strategic realm' where actors 
pursue their pre-formed interests, but a 'constitutive realm' where 
those interests may be formed by social interaction. However, realists 
like Mearsheimer would dismiss the validity of such a stance, and 
would imply from the constructivist stance that an international 
system is a place where states can make friends through social 
interaction. For realists, anarchy, offensive capabilities, and 
uncertain intentions of other states leave states with no choice but to 
pursue an aggressive self-interested agenda. The aspiration towards 
communitarian norms is therefore acceptable in principle but not in 
praxis (Mearsheimer 1995:367).

Another critique of constructivism against neorealism is the 
claim that the quest for power and the serving of the self-interest of 
states has been a constant reoccurrence in the international arena, and 
that there is hardly any new development or change in the orientation 
of states towards self-aggrandizement and acquisitionof power since 
the time of Thucydides one of the earliest Greek historians who wrote 
on the relationship among states. The likes of Mearsheimer will claim 
that the realist standpoint has been at play since the early Middle 
Ages. In contrast to this, constructivists believe that change has been 
a constant factor in the history of international politics and this can be 
discovered by the analysis of social interaction through the various 
epochs which include the evolution of norms, culture, and institutions 
that inform relations among states. However, Robert Jervis, a 
neorealist opposes this constructivist argument and claims that the 
constructivists have not set out to explain the processes at work in 
political life. Not much has been said about how norms are formed 
and identities are shaped through the historical evolution of 
international politics (J. Robert and S. George, 2006:173)

A prominent criticism against the constructivist schools in the 
eld of security studies, especially as espoused in the ideas of the 
Copenhagen School, is the potential misinterpretation of the idea of 
'extraordinary measures' in the tackling of security threats. 

Extraordinary measures imply the tackling of security issues 
beyond the usual political strategies used in day-to-day governance. 
However, scholars have called attention to the feasible 
misinterpretation and abuse of the concept by both developed and 

54 Ekpoma Review, Volume 9, 2022



developing countries. The concept could be used to justify human 
rights abuses, especially in authoritarian dispensations and over-
militarization of normal security situations in tackling challenges 
within the domestic clime. Realizing the implications of this idea, the 
Copenhagen school suggested the de-securitization of issues to 
remove them from the 'extraordinary' clime and re-introduce them 
into the usual political parlance (Aihie 2016).

A very popular claim made by many constructivists is that 
constructivism is not a theory, but a mere tool of analysis and critique. 
To a very large extent, they have tried to sustain this stand by avoiding 
the formulation of grand theorems like that of realism and liberalism. 
Part of what informs they argue that international politics is subject to 
the law of dynamism which often renders grand theories obsolete and 
irrelevant after some time, and this they claim that the conventional 
theories have fallen prey to. However, they (constructivists) have 
somewhat fallen prey to what they have been avoiding. Theories are 
sets of statements arranged logically to explain the occurrence of 
certain phenomena. If we are to view the conception of theory from 
this angle, then constructivism has ended up roping itself in what it 
has been denying. By the endorsement of culture, ideas, and values as 
responsible for shaping the interests and identities of actors, be they 
state or individual, it has ended up formulating a paradigm for the 
assessment of international politics which every theory does. Hence, 
it is not just a mere tool for analysis but a standard for assessment.

Apart from these subtle challenges to constructivism, the 
theory has gone a long way to change the face of international 
relations specially. It has reinvigorated the discipline in away most 
have not imagined. One of such contribution is the breaking away 
from the monotonous conception of international relations as a 
discipline locked in a chain of repetition and reoccurrences by the 
continual replay of the egoism and self-interest of actors across all 
epochs. Constructivism has brought to the fore the importance of 
studying the particularities of culture and identity, especially with the 
twists introduced into international politics by the phenomenon of 
globalization after the Cold War. This has in turn resuscitated the 
interest of the intellectual community in the return to the study of 
international history and the processes that shaped monumental 

55Constructivist School in International Relations...



events of those periods (C. Reus-Smit 2005:206).
Another contribution of constructivism is the way they have 

been able to demonstrate the power of norms and values in shaping 
relationships amongst states. The dominant theories had always 
viewed the sphere of ethics or normative science as having little effect 
on the study of relationships among statesthat are primarily driven by 
self-interest and the protection of their space in the global 
community. Constructivism in turn has proved that norms and indeed 
values affect the general outlook of actors in the manner they go about 
pursuing their interests. Their interests are not formed from the blues, 
but a whole lot of sociological and cultural factors inuence the 
formation of such interests of which norms and values in society play 
a very prominent role.

Constructivism has also downplayed the over-bloated 
emphasis placed on material structures by the conventional theories 
emphasizing an aspect of relations among states such as military 
capability, economic interest, and political might. The erection of 
international politics based on these material structures alone is an 
oversimplication of the matter. It makes the whole intellectual 
endeavour appear haphazard. A thorough understanding of the whole 
processes that inform the actions of states and individuals cannot be 
achieved without an understanding of the non-material ideas and 
principles that guide the formation of the material structures. No 
material structure is built without prior knowledgeable practices of 
certain groups and individuals who have perpetuated those practices 
over time, thereby making them institutionalized.

These contributions of Constructivism cannot, therefore, be 
neglected or waved aside. Constructivism has contributed in no small 
measure to the new image the discipline of international relations 
carries in recent times.

CONCLUSION
The following summations can be made from the plethora of issues 
that have been discussed thus far which will help to present a clearer 
picture of the discussions above. The summations are as follows:

a) International relations were like a garden or farmland 

56 Ekpoma Review, Volume 9, 2022



predominantly covered in the trees of the conventional 
theories, realism most especially, with occasional criticism 
from close rivals such as Liberalism and Marxism, with all 
thereby mutating into some exclusive and 'elect' theorems for 
an explanation of occurrences in the international sphere. 
This situation was already giving the discipline a rigid and 
'nished product' kind of outlook.

b) A real attempt at challenging the basic assumptions of the 
conventional theories, thereby bringing their exclusive 
dominance in international relations and security studies to a 
halt, came with the rise of the 'Critical Theorists' who were 
mostly associated with the Frankfurt School. They challenged 
the theoretical foundations of conventional theories in mostly 
a meta-theoretical and abstract way.

c) The Constructivists, taking a cue from the critical theorists, 
and inuenced by sociological discipline, continued in the 
line of criticisms against the conventional theories. They 
however differed from the critical theorists in their approach, 
preferring an empirical/analytical instrument in the analysis 
of events in the international sphere, and in widening the 
scope of security studies to cover a plethora of issues hitherto 
taken for granted, or paid less attention to.

d) Constructivism propelled the pertinence of examining 
international phenomena and actors from the lens of the 
culture, ideas, and values that shape them, rather than the 
mere treatment of actors or issues as mere atomistic with little 
or no inuence from their environment and relationships. In 
the eld of security studies, on the other hand, constructivists 
brought to the fore, the need to examine issues that 
profoundly affect human security, which is not just about 
what the state feels security should be, but also, what 
determines the individual conception of what it means to be 
secure or not. They were able to bring to the fore issues which 
breed insecurity, and are more devastating than military 
threats. Issues which affect the day-to-day living of the 
average human being on the street, irrespective of his or her 
continent and demographic afliation.

57Constructivist School in International Relations...



As a way of providing more concrete evidence of the effect 
constructivism has had in recent policy formulations of the 
international community, we shall be mentioning some situations 
worthy of mentioning to show the role constructivism has played in 
shaping the new face of international relations and security studies in 

st
the 21  century. We can see the inuence of both constructivist and 
liberal schools in the formulation of some United Nations policies. 
For example, it was clearly stated in 1993 UNDP (United Nations 
Development Programme) report,  that “the concept of security must 
change from an exclusive stress on national security to a much greater 
stress on people's security, from security through armaments to 
security through human development, from territorial to food, 
employment, and environmental security.”(UNDP 1993:2) Another 
major inuence of the constructivist school is the movement of 
nations towards the consideration of non-military issues as more 
paramount in their policy formulation. For example, at the Lysoen 
Conference of 1998, the Canadian and Norwegian governments 
launched the 'Human Security Network' that advocates for the 
development of global policies that take human security interests into 
perspective whether these affect state interests or not. As of 2007, 
eleven other states (Austria, Chile, Costa Rica, Greece, Republic of 
Ireland, Jordan, Mali, Netherlands, Slovenia, Switzerland, and 
Thailand) had keyed into it (P. Hough 2008:15).

Hence, constructivism has buoyed the vitality of the 
discipline of international relations and security studies in a very 
profound way, its inuence will, for a long, continue to shape the face 
of international relations and blaze the trail for future incentives in 
these two important disciplines.

REFERENCES
Aihie, S., (August, 2016) “Securitization and the New Security 

Challenge”, Lecture Notes on Security and Strategic Studies 
(Unpbl.) Benin: University of Benin.

Ayoob, M., (1997), “Dening Security; a Subaltern Realist 
Perspective”, in K. Krause and M. Williams (eds.) Critical 
Security Studies, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota 
Press, pp121-146.

58 Ekpoma Review, Volume 9, 2022



Buzan, B., Waever, O., and De Wilde, J., (1998), Security; a New 
Framework for Analysis, Boulder CO: Lynne Rienner

Devetak, R., (2005) “Critical Theory” in Scott Burchillet al. (eds.) 
rd

Theories of International Relations, (3  edition), New York: 
Palgrave Macmillan.

Dunn, F.S., (1948) “The Scope of International Relations”, World 
Politics Vol.1 p.142

Falk, R., (1995) On Humane Governance; Towards a New Global 
Politics, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Horkheimer, M., (1972) Critical Theory, New York: Prentice Hall
ndHough, P., (2008) Understanding Global Security, (2 edt.), New 

York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
Katzenstein, P., (1999) Tamed Power; Germany in Europe, Ithaca: 

Pearson and Habour.
Keohane, R.O., (1984) After Hegemony; Cooperation and Discord in 

World Political Economy, Princeton NJ: Princeton University 
Press.

Klotz, A., (1995), Norms in International Relations: the Struggle 
against Apartheid, Ithaca: Pearson and Habour.

Lynn-Jones, S. and Miller, S., (1995) Global Dangers; Changing 
Dimensions of International Security, London: MIT Press.

Matthews, J., (1989) “Redening Security”, Foreign Affairs, Vol.76 
(1), pp162-177

Mearsheimer, J., (1990) “Why We Will Soon Miss the Cold War”, 
Atlantic Monthly, Vol.226 (2), pp35-50.

Mearsheimer, J., (1995), “A Realist Reply”, International Security, 
Vol.20 (1) pp82-93

Price, R., and Reus-Smit, C., (1998) � “Dangerous Liaisons: Critical 
International Theory and Constructivism”, European Journal 
of International Relations, Vol.4 (3) 

Reus-Smit, C., (2005) “Constructivism” in Scott Burchillet al (eds.) 
rdTheories of International Relations, (3  edition), New York: 

Palgrave Macmillan.
Robert, J., and George, S., (2006)IntroductiontoInternational 

RelationsTheoriesandApproaches, (3rd edition), Oxford: 
Oxford University Press.

Ullman, R., (1983) “Redening Security”, International Security, 

59Constructivist School in International Relations...



Vol. 8(1) pp129-153
Walker, R.B., (1989) � “History and Structure in the Theory of 

International Relations”, Millennium Vol.18 (2) pp125-134
Walt, S., (1991) “The Renaissance of Security Studies”, 

International Studies Quarterly Vol.35 (2) pp211-239
Waltz, K., (1979) Theory of International Politics, New York: 

Random House.
Wendt, A., (1992) “Anarchy is what States Make of It”, International 

Organization, Vol.46 p.197.
Wendt, A., (1995) “Constructing International Politics”, 

International Security, Vol.20 (1) p.73
Wirtz, J., (2002) “A New Agenda for Security and Strategy?” in J. 

Bayliset al (eds.) Strategy in the Contemporary World; an 
Introduction to Strategic Studies, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 
pp 309-307

Wyn-Jones, R., (1999) Security, Strategy, and Critical Theory, 
Boulder CO: Lynne Rienner.

60 Ekpoma Review, Volume 9, 2022


