International relations essay in 6 hrs [urgent] 1300 words

Final All three mainstream approaches to studying international relations we covered in this course – realism, liberalism, and constructivism – sometimes discuss the role and behavior of non-state actors (both subnational and transnational) in international affairs. But all three at the same time treat state actors as primary. In the lectures on global issues during the last week of the course, on the other hand, you have learned that domestic conflicts (involving ethnic and other types of subnational groups) and transnational terrorism are the principal threats to peace and stability in the international system. ​Does the fact that the principle sources of threat to global peace and security come from non-state actors imply that mainstream approaches to international relations privilege “wrong” actors and are thus unable to explain much of what is going in contemporary world? ​In answering this question discuss what each of the three mainstream approaches could do (or not do) to explain both subnational domestic conflicts and transnational terrorism. Make sure you address BOTH the strengths and limitations of each of the approaches.

(Like on the midterm, ​I strongly discourage the use of direct quotes in your essays!​).

Your essay will be evaluated according to the points breakdown indicated below.

Content

15 points – strengths of realism

15 points – limitations of realism

15 points – strengths of liberalism

15 points – limitations of liberalism

15 points – strengths of constructivism

15 points – limitations of constructivism

Style

5 points – spelling/grammar/readability

5 points – overall organization