BEYOND POWER POLITICS: LIBERAL AND CONSTRUCTIVIST CRITIQUES OF REALISM AND THEIR CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE

Abstract

Realism has provided a concise explanation of state behaviour based on anarchy, power struggle, and self-help since it became the leading grand theory of international relations. However, by the end of the 20th century, constructivism and liberalism had launched serious objections that changed the direction of academic research. This study uses a qualitative interpretive approach and draws on a broad literature review of classic works. It systematically contrasts constructivism’s assumption that ideas, identities, and shared beliefs fundamentally determine state interests with liberalism’s emphasis on institutions, economic interdependence, and democratic
norms, as well as realism’s materialist perspective. The analysis shows that the fundamental contributions of liberalism have greatly broadened the toolset for understanding cooperation in anarchy. Constructivism emphasises both the strength of normative dissemination and the flexibility of state identities. However, there are issues with both schools: constructivist explanations can downplay the enduring role of material incentives, while liberal optimism is tested by non-democratic conflict players. The resurgence of great-power rivalry has reinvigorated realist scholarship while simultaneously exposing the limits of purely ideational or  institutionalist explanations. This study concludes that the dynamic interaction of institutions, ideas, and power in modern international affairs cannot be adequately captured by a single grand theory. A more integrative research strategy is advised, one that systematically evaluates normative and material variables against comparative empirical evidence across diverse regional contexts.