Transcript

TOM MARTIN

So, in this conversation, we’re going to return to the issue of terrorism. We’ll look at it from the perspective of two theoretical approaches to international relations: realism and constructivism.

As we have this discussion, one of the key things we want you to take away from this conversation is that looking at the issue of terrorism through the lenses of realism and constructivism means that we see terrorism very differently. That we have different perspectives on it, so we focus on different aspects of it and potentially come up with different solutions to it.

That said, let’s start by thinking a little bit about realism. Claire, what are the key ideas that underpin realist thinking about International Relations?

CLAIRE MALCOLM

So, realism, as a theory of International Relations, focuses our attention on the questions of states and their security. For realists, states make up the fundamental unit of international relations, and they exist in competition with other states. Now, essentially, realists are pessimists when it comes to the possibilities of cooperation. And this doesn’t mean, crucially, that states are in constant conflict with one another. Cooperation is possible when pursuing shared goals. But, for realists, states can ultimately only rely upon themselves. Now, because of this, realists emphasise the need for states to protect themselves, primarily through developing their military power and their economic strength. So, if we think about the actors in international relations, for realists, this means that states are by far and away the most important, and militaries play a crucial role in ensuring the survival of states. Actors such as, say, international organisations are much less important. In terms of the issues that realism focuses on, I mean clearly security is important. Others, such as international trade and law are perhaps less important to realists and can be understood as further sites in which competition between states takes place.

TOM MARTIN

Thanks, Claire, that’s a really helpful introduction. I can see how the focus on security and military capabilities might mean that realist approaches would have a lot to say when it comes to the issue of terrorism. Building on that then, what would you say are the key ways in which realists approach the issue of international terrorism?

CLAIRE MALCOLM

A realist perspective would see terrorism as a threat to national security, and therefore a high priority for states. Moreover, realists would make a fundamental distinction, which would be between the legitimate violence of the state, on the one hand, and then, on the other hand, the illegitimate violence of non-state actors. Thus, regardless of the cause espoused by the terrorist group, the use of violence by non-state actors is fundamentally problematic. Military action against terrorism is therefore both important and justified. Lastly, realists would see the role of international law and norms around human rights as a secondary concern. If the first priority of the state is security, then this takes precedence over the need to follow international rules and norms. But if that’s how realists see it, constructivists would take quite a different approach to understanding terrorism. Tom, could you set out some of the core ideas that make up constructivist approaches to International Relations?

TOM MARTIN

Yeah, that’s a really helpful account of realism, Claire, and how it approaches this topic of terrorism. Now as we’ll see, constructivism does take quite a different view. Before we get on to terrorism though, it’s worth just saying a few words on the core ideas that underpin constructivist approaches to International Relations. In contrast to realism, the core idea of constructivism is that the identities of states, that is, how states understand their own interests and how states see other states, cannot be objectively determined. Instead, these are all socially constructed, hence, constructivism. Thus, while states may well see other states as competitors, or enemies, such as realists presuppose, they may also see other states as friends or allies. These relationships are formed by processes of interaction, through which states come to develop ideas about themselves and about others. So let’s take the issue of nuclear weapons, for instance. The United States sees North Korea or Iran holding nuclear weapons as a really significant threat, a problem to be addressed, but it sees the UK holding nuclear weapons as a source of deep security. So, in turn, these processes of interaction also lead to shared understandings about how the international system works, and the shared rules and norms states are expected to follow. So, for constructivists, states are still important actors to focus on, but they also tend to focus on other actors that can shape the norms of the international system, such as, for instance, international organisations and non-governmental organisations. In terms of issues, constructivists are interested in competition and cooperation, but their focus is more on the ideas, norms and understandings of the world that shape the identities of states and other actors, and which then inform and produce these relationships of competition and cooperation.

CLAIRE MALCOLM

Thanks, Tom, that’s really interesting. So, where realism sees the international system as one defined by the centrality of conflict and the need for security, constructivism by contrast sees the international system as one in which states interact to produce the shared understandings of conflict and cooperation that then inform international relations. But, Tom, how does this lead constructivists to approach the topic of terrorism specifically in a way which is different to the realist approach?

TOM MARTIN

Yeah, thanks. So, unlike for realists as you explored, where terrorism is treated as a self-evident form of political violence that we can objectively study, here the argument is made that terrorism is instead something which is, again, socially constructed. In other words, that something is termed ‘terrorism’ is the outcome of a social process in which, collectively, this terminology comes to be accepted by key actors. This approach does not deny that terrorism is real – these are acts that kill and injure. But, if terrorism is socially constructed, this opens up a number of other questions too. How do certain acts of violence come to be narrated as terrorism, while others do not? Have our understandings of ‘terrorism’ changed over time? Do particular groups or actors have more power than others when it comes to identifying and labelling certain groups or acts as terrorist? So, maybe to put that in context, let’s just revisit the example of Nelson Mandela. For some, the violence carried out by the movement headed by Nelson Mandela was terrorism. But, for others, this was part of a legitimate struggle for liberation. The violence was the same, but the social meaning and the implication of the violence was seen quite differently. So, unlike for realists, where violence by non-state actors is fundamentally illegitimate, as you discussed, a constructivist approach might instead seek to understand why certain acts of violence come to be understood as illegitimate, whereas others are seen as normal and acceptable, and how these shared norms are then produced and spread within the international community.

CLAIRE MALCOLM

Thanks, Tom, that’s really useful. What I find interesting in the constructivist approach is that it allows us to take a step back and to ask how concepts such as terrorism, and the shared international norm that terrorism is an illegitimate form of violence, come to be in the first place. I can see how this might enable one to critically interrogate other forms of violence within international relations and to ask why some are considered illegitimate, while others are legitimate, or even noble.

TOM MARTIN

Yeah, we can see that realists and constructivists both ask different questions about terrorism, and these questions are informed by their underlying views of the world.

Thank you so much, Claire, for joining me for this discussion.

CLAIRE MALCOLM

Thank you, Tom.

TOM MARTIN

So, it’s been a real pleasure. Hopefully, this has also been a useful introduction to these two theoretical traditions, illustrated by their different approaches to this topic of terrorism.