This is a final exam. I would like somebody to write 5 pages for each question following the instructions below. Your answers should be from your own words after reading the course readings I have attached.

Unit Learning Objectives

After reading this unit, you will:

· Have a better understanding of the role of theory in the study and practices of international law and international relations.

· Be able to explain the insights provided by 'mainstream' realist and liberal theories into the operation and effectiveness of international law within the broader framework of international relations and world order

· Obtain critical theoretical insight into the relationship between Law, Politics/Power, and Normative Values in international affairs.

Unit Plan and Summary

This unit examines some of the major theoretical perspectives in the study of International Relations and International Law. These perspectives provide different insights into the relationship between politics/power, values/interests and law in international affairs, and on the role, functions and effectiveness of international law.

Outline

1. Introduction: The Role of Theory in the Study of International Law

2. Mainstream Theories – Realism and Liberalism

3. Critical and Social Perspectives – Historical Structuralism, Constructivism, & Feminism

Readings

· Adamson, Fiona B, and Sriram, Chandra Lekha. “ Perspectives on International Law in International Relations .” In International Law for International Relations, 25-45. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010.

· Kratochwil, Friedrich. “Thrasymmachos Revisited: On the Relevance of Norms and the Study of Law for International Relations.” Journal of International Affairs 37, no. 2 (1984): 343–356.

· Starr, Harvey. “ International Law and International Order .” In Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge, 299-315. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press, 1995.

· Charlesworth, Hilary, Chinkin, Christine, and Wright, Shelley. “ Feminist Approaches to International Law .” The American Journal of International Law 85, no. 4 (1991): 613–645.

· Anghie, Antony. “ The Evolution of International Law: Colonial and Postcolonial Realities .” In International Law and the Third World: Reshaping Justice, 35-49. Third World Quarterly. New York, NY: Routledge-Cavendish, 2008.

Key Concepts

· Realism & Neo-Realism

· Anarchy & Self-Help

· Security Dilemma

· Interdependence

· Relative Gains & Absolute Gains

· Liberalism & Neo-liberalism

· Liberal Internationalism

· Liberal Institutionalism

· Constructivism

· Social Facts

· Feminism

· Gender & Patriarchy

· Historical Structuralism

· Imperialism & Colonialism

· Dependency & World System Theories

· Underdevelopment

· International Division of Labour

· Gramscian Theory

· Hegemony

The Role of Theory

We begin with an overview of the nature and role of theory in the study of International Law and International Relations (IR) generally. A theoretical perspective is a 'worldview' that also encompasses a tradition of research and analysis. Each perspective contains theories and approaches that share a common set of assumptions, concepts and analytical tools used to explain how the world works or ought to work, and a set of questions or concerns (such as security, peace, wealth, freedom, and inequality) that establish the core and boundaries of the perspective.

Although social science scholars often try to develop 'value-free' theories, all theories are rooted in particular historical periods and cultural, political, and socioeconomic contexts, and all theorists interpret the 'facts' in accordance with their views of 'reality'. 1

Theories, therefore, offer selective and incomplete accounts of the world, highlighting some issues, actors and relationships and disregarding others. This is not to suggest that theory is of little value. On the contrary, it is impossible to make any sense of international events without employing some type of theoretical lens. The only real choice is whether our theoretical views remain implicit or whether we explicitly examine the theories we use to interpret issues and events. 2

By making our theories explicit, we can assess their accuracy in explaining, predicting or enhancing understanding of international events, and we can alter our theories in response to anomalous or unexpected outcomes. 3  Explicit theorizing can also increase our awareness of how our personal views influence our interpretation of the 'facts', and comparing alternative theoretical perspectives can add to our knowledge of IR and International Law. The different IR theoretical perspectives result, not only from a diversity of views, but also from the fact that "no single approach can explain adequately, with comprehensiveness and subtlety, the full range of phenomena." 4

We group the major theories we examine into 'mainstream' and 'critical/social perspectives'. Mainstream perspectives include Realism(including its 'neo' variants) and Liberalism (also with its 'neo' variants). These are labeled 'mainstream' because realism and liberalism have been the dominant perspectives in the study of International Relations in English-speaking North American and European universities.

Critical/Social Perspectives include Dependency/World System, Constructivism, and Feminism. Other than some constructivist approaches, the critical and social perspectives in general are largely outside the 'mainstream' because their contributions have received less attention in major IR journals and course instruction, they often draw on literature outside IR and political science, or are written by scholars in the developing world. 5  We examine these perspectives because they provide "very different, challenging, and provocative perspectives on world politics." 6

Each perspective encompasses a diversity of views on IR, and has evolved over time in response to criticisms from both within and outside the tradition. It is nevertheless possible to group scholars and practitioners together within a particular school of thought, because they generally agree on a core set of assumptions. Furthermore, the theoretical perspectives are not mutually exclusive, and although they remain distinctive, the margins between them are sometimes blurred, and they have interacted and influenced one another over time. 7

Mainstream Theories: Realism And Liberalism

Realism – Key Tenets

The realist perspective is in fact "a broad research program that contains a host of competing theories" and approaches to the study of IR. 8  For example, classical realists such as Morgenthau emphasize unit-level or bottom-up explanations of international events that focus on the role of states and human nature. 'Neorealists' such as Kenneth Waltz by contrast emphasize system-level or top-down explanations that focus on the anarchic nature of the international system and the power distribution among states. 9  Despite these differences, realists generally agree on certain basic tenets. 10

· The realist perspective is in fact "a broad research program that contains a host of competing theories" and approaches to the study of IR. For example, classical realists such as Morgenthau emphasize unit-level or bottom-up explanations of international events that focus on the role of states and human nature. 'Neorealists' such as Kenneth Waltz by contrast emphasize system-level or top-down explanations that focus on the anarchic nature of the international system and the power distribution among states. Despite these differences, realists generally agree on certain basic tenets.

· Realists believe that international relations is a 'self-help' system in which states cannot depend on a world body to protect their security or even their survival. However, each state's effort to bolster its own security creates a security dilemma, because such actions increase the fear and insecurity of other states. Realists therefore see security and conflict as the central issues in international relations.

· In view of the security dilemma, realists believe that each state is most concerned with relative gains, or improving its power position in relation to other states. Thus, realists contend that even though two states may be gaining absolutely in wealth, in political terms it is the effect of these gains on relative power positions, which is of primary importance. In the economic sphere, realists tend to be economic nationalists or 'mercantilists' -- a state gains wealth and power only at the expense of other states. For example, mercantilist will use trade protectionism to increase their exports and decrease their imports as a means of strengthening their economy.

· Realists are generally skeptical that international law and international institutions can play an important, autonomous role, but while some realists are highly dismissive of international institutions and international law others believe they can modify outcomes under certain specified circumstances. Although realists view international institutions as one "means available to states for achieving ... goals" such as managing their security relationships, they do not see institutions and law as having an independent effect on outcomes. 11  States normally ensure that rules, regulations and institutions do not limit their freedom to deal with insecurity in the anarchic international system. 12  Thus, realists generally argue that international law and international institutions reflect state interests, particularly the interests of the major powers, and that they are less effective when powerful states are obstructionist or refuse to become members.

· Despite the skepticism of realists that international institutions can be important, autonomous actors, there are differences among them on this issue. Some realists believe that institutions can have an influential role under certain specified circumstances. For example, international organizations are more likely to be effective if their institutional rules and structures accurately reflect the distribution of power among states. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, for example, with their weighted voting systems based on members' economic power are generally more effective than the UN General Assembly with its one-nation, one-vote system. 13

· Prominent realists such as Kenneth Waltz also believes that state power has a much greater effect than legal authority and legitimacy on the general institutions of sovereignty and international law: The sovereignty of nations, a universally recognized international institution, hardly stands in the way of a strong nation that decides to intervene in a weak one.... Most international law is obeyed most of the time, but strong states bend or break laws when they choose to. Another realist goes even further, arguing that "institutions basically reflect the distribution of power in the world," and that "they are based on self interest of the major powers and have no independent effect on state behavior." 15

· Finally, realists are rather pessimistic about the prospects for promoting international cooperation. While some realists attribute the primary causes of conflict to the imperfectibility of human nature, others focus on market and resource scarcities, and still others point to the anarchical international system. However, realists generally agree that competition and conflict are pervasive in the international system.

Liberalism – Key Tenets

Liberalism is the most important mainstream approach to the study of international relations. The liberal perspective has a central concern with individual liberty, which involves freedom from constraints imposed by others, and freedom to participate in a self-governing political system. A belief in the need for strong international institutions to protect freedom, promote cooperation, and limit conflict is also "central to the liberal world view." 16

First, liberals have a 'bottom-up' approach; they view individuals and private groups as the basic actors in international politics, and give priority to the liberty of the individual. 17  In economic areas of international relations, liberals focus on the behavior of individual entrepreneurs and private firms. Liberals also view the state as a central actor in international politics, because states can protect individual liberties from outside interference, and can help individuals deal with problems of common concern.

Second, liberalism emphasizes the possibility of reform and "cumulative progress, while realism assumes that history is not progressive." 18  Contemporary liberals agree with realists that states are basically self-interested and that there is no central authority in international relations. However, whereas realists argue that states are mainly concerned with survival, security, and self-help in the anarchic world of international politics, liberals see more possibilities for states and other actors to engage in cooperative and mutually rewarding exchange.

Liberals believe that the growth of interdependence among states in such areas as trade and foreign investment contributes to beneficial linkages among states. Interdependence mitigates the effects of anarchy– rather than emphasise relative position and relative gains, states in an interdependent relationship are more likely to emphasise absolute gains (where states do not compare their gains/position with other states). Interdependent states have an incentive to cooperate with one another, and to avoid disrupting their relations. Realists by contrast view interdependence either as largely irrelevant to power politics, or as a threat to a state's independence and ability to engage in self-help.

Interdependence, however, does not automatically produce cooperative behaviour. In order to achieve cooperation interdependence must be managed through international institutions and international law. For liberals, international relations is akin to the prisoner's dilemma game that depicts a situation where actors fail to cooperate even though they would be better off through that cooperation. In such a situation, institutions and laws are needed to build trust, discourage cheating, and monitor compliance with agreements.

Interdependence, however, does not automatically produce cooperative behaviour. In order to achieve cooperation interdependence must be managed through international institutions and international law. For liberals, international relations is akin to the prisoner's dilemma game that depicts a situation where actors fail to cooperate even though they would be better off through that cooperation. In such a situation, institutions and laws are needed to build trust, discourage cheating, and monitor compliance with agreements.

Liberal theorists, therefore, are strong supporters of international institutions and international law. We can group liberalism's views on international institutions and international law into two broad categories: Liberal Internationalism and Liberal Institutionalism.

Liberal internationalism entailed the promotion of liberal principles, values and goals (e.g., free trade, human rights, rule of law, democracy) internationally by leaders and policy makers through an active engagement with international institutions. Liberal internationalism emerged in the early twentieth century and provided the intellectual foundation (e.g., "collective security") for some of the most important international institutions in contemporary international law such as the UN, World Bank and IMF. 19  Liberal Internationalism traces its intellectual origins to the works of Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) and Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Liberal institutionalism shares intellectual roots with liberal internationalism.

Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) was a Dutch jurist who argued that 'natural law' gives individuals basic, inalienable rights that transcend the domestic law of states. These rights link states together in an international society through rules and norms of conduct. Grotius also asserted that interstate relations were to be based on laws of war as well as peace, and his ideas were an important precursor to international law in the European state system. The 'Grotian tradition' differs from the views of realists who deny that states are part of a society with common institutions, values, and rules. Despite the anarchic nature of the international system, Grotians assert that there is a high degree of institutionalized cooperation in international relations. 20

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was a German philosopher who identified several conditions essential to achieving a Perpetual Peace in the relationship among states. First was the development of a world of liberal republics with representative governments. Kant believed that such states would develop a similar system of law in international affairs. Second was the development of legally governed external relations among states. Kant was aware that states would not agree to surrender their sovereignty and establish a single world state. Thus, he called for a federation of free states that would accept the realities of state sovereignty, and yet oppose war and provide a legal framework for international relations. Third was the cosmopolitan right to universal hospitality. Kant argued that any foreigner that behaved peacefully had a right to be treated with hospitality on anyone else's territory. 21

Liberal institutionalism shares intellectual roots with liberal internationalism. However, whereas policy-makers were closely associated with liberal internationalism, liberal institutionalism emerged in the 1940s as scholars sought to apply liberal principles more systematically and rigorously to the study of IO. Liberal instituitionalists have developed explicit theories covering such issues as regional integration (e.g., formation of the EU), and the creation of international 'regimes' for managing cooperative relations among states in various issue areas, and problems of global governance.

Critical And Social Theories

An eclectic group of 'critical' and 'social' theories provide alternatives to the mainstream realist and liberal perspectives on international organization. Despite differences in their focus and methods of analysis, critical and social theories share two important features. First, whereas realism and liberalism generally accept the prevailing order as a given, critical theory either opposes the existing order or "stands apart from the prevailing order and asks how that order came about." 22  Second, some critical perspectives are more explicitly normative than realism and liberalism. They view existing political and socio-economic arrangements as products of historical and social frameworks that privilege some actors and marginalize others; and they call for replacing the power hierarchies based on capitalism, gender, and race with more just and equitable relationships. 23

We discuss the most prominent critical and social perspectives in IR in the chronological order they appeared – historical structuralism, feminism and constructivism.

Historical Structuralism

We classify Marxist, dependency, world-system and Gramscian theories under the label 'historical structuralism' for two reasons. First, these theories view international relations from a broad historical perspective with an emphasis on the emergence of capitalism in Europe and its development into a capitalist world system. They also emphasize economic factors in their explanation of political and social change. Whereas realists subordinate economic issues to political-security issues and liberals espouse the virtues of separating economics and politics, economic issues are generally paramount for historical structuralists. Although Marx's writings have influenced all historical structuralist theories, not all of them are Marxist. However, Marxism has provided this perspective with a critical method of analysis that combines scholarly inquiry with a normative commitment to progressive historical change.

Second, the term 'structuralist' reflects this perspective's emphasis on structures of power, exploitation, and inequality, with a focus on imperialism and colonialism. 24  Imperialism or 'empire building' occurs when an actor dominates with the aim of controlling and exploiting others. Colonialism – the formal ownership, control, and administration of one territory and people by another – represented a particular type or phase of European imperialism. It may be difficult to imagine, but before 1945 colonialism was a perfectly acceptable state practice institutionalized in international law and organization. During the height of the colonial era (the seventeenth to early twentieth centuries), European states colonized most of Africa, the Americas, and Asia. 25  Although the UN Charter in 1945 delegitimized colonialism and most colonies have attained formal political independence, historical structuralists argue that imperialism has not ended and is closely linked with contemporary capitalist globalization. 26  Instead of trying to cover the large body of historical structuralist literature, we briefly outline some of the major Marxist, Dependency/World-system and Gramscian works on capitalism and imperialism, highlighting their views on international institutions and law.

Marxism

Marx coined the term 'capitalism' to describe a mode of production characterized by wage labor, mechanized production, and private property rights. 27  Marx did not directly address international relations, but later Marxists have applied his framework to explain international affairs. Contemporary Marxists see the state, institutions and power (the superstructure) as reflecting a particular configuration of economic classes (the relations of production), and as resting on an economic foundation (the means of production). 'Class' is the main unit of analysis, and the class structure of states determines their external activities. The major international institutions and principles of international law are part of an international superstructure that reflects the underlying relations of production among classes, and reflect the interests of dominant classes.

Dependency & World-System

Dependency and world-system theories represented a major revision and modification of classical Marxism. The 'dependency theory' label is used generically to describe a collection of works in Latin America, Africa and Asia. Whereas dependency theories examined the consequences of imperialism and colonialism for development in the South, world-system theory examined the evolution and impact of imperialism and capitalism on global political and economic organization since the sixteenth century. 28

· Dependency and world-system theories posited a causal relationship between capitalism's historical expansion and the impoverishment of countries in the South. The dependency concept referred to a lack of autonomy, where one state conditioned another state's economy so the latter could only grow because of expansion in the former. 29  Dependent peripheral states relied on core states for capital, technology and markets; and core states exploited the peripheral states. They argued that there was nothing 'natural' about the South's lack of development, and coined the term underdeveloped to describe its condition. Unlike the terms 'developing' and 'less developed', 'underdevelopment' suggested that the South was not developing properly (if at all), and that imperialism had impeded or distorted its natural growth and development.

· Underdevelopment was a specific historical result of unequal political and economic relations between 'core' developed capitalist states and 'peripheral' states dependent on the core. 30  The primary forces shaping the capitalist world economy are economic production and market exchange relations, which create an international division of labour among three classes of states – a core, semi-periphery and periphery. The ability to control production and exchange determines a state's placement in the three-tiered division of labour. Whereas core states are strong states able to control the levers necessary for economic expansion and use them to their advantage, weak peripheral states are at the mercy of external economic forces controlled by the core.

· International law and organization are ideological instruments tied to the global expansion of capitalism. International law during the colonial era legitimized the right of colonial powers to dominate 'uncivilized' nations, and through an 'unequal treaty' signed away the rights of many indigenous people. Until the decolonization era (post-1945) international law was a set of rules with a geographical focus (Europe), a religious-ethical inspiration (Christianity), and a political-economic motivation (imperialism and mercantilism). ). 31  Even in the post-colonial era, Western liberal values infuse the principles, rules and institutions of international organization and law such as the UN Charter and the Bretton Woods economic institutions

· Dependency critics raise two types of concerns about international inequality. The first is the disjuncture between the meaning of sovereignty in principle and in practice, between equality in law and in fact. 32  Sovereignty implies the formal juridical equality of all states. However, states are not equally capable of exercising sovereign rights and thus some states have more rights at their disposal than others. States therefore require not only equal rights, but also equal possibilities of development. 33  From this perspective, international organization conceals the inequality among states under the guise of sovereign equality. 34

· Dependency/World System critics demand change in international law and organization in two areas. The first involves a change in the principles and rules to reflect the diversity of values and cultures in the world, and to develop Southern states' capacities to exercise their sovereign rights. The second involves establishing new institutions and decision-making procedures, or reforming existing institutions, to implement the new norms and rules.

Gramscian Theories

Gramscian IR theories, which emerged in the 1980s, draw on the ideas of Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), an Italian political theorist and socialist activist. Like Marxist, dependency and world-system theories, Gramscianism views global capitalism as an exploitative system. Writing in the late 1920s and 1930s during the rise of fascism in Italy and Germany, Gramsci sought to understand why the working class had not developed the kind of revolutionary consciousness that Marx predicted. He developed a notion of hegemonythat emphasized the importance of ideas, norms and culture as well as material forces in the exercise of political power. Hegemony in Gramscian terms is the normative and cultural aspect of power that exists when the dominant class legitimizes its rule; 35  and politics is "the entire complex of practical and theoretical activities with which the ruling class not only justifies and maintains the domination, but manages to win the active consent of those over whom it rules". 36

· Hegemony develops through the 'negotiated construction' of a political, ideological and cultural consensus that incorporates both the dominant and subordinate classes. 37  The dominant class secures its rule by representing its class interests and values as the general interests and values of society as a whole, and by marginalizing any alternatives that could threaten its rule. Concessions such as wage and welfare reforms and the dissemination of values via educational, religious, mass media and other non-governmental institutions in civil society help to forge subordinate group acquiescence. The values of the ruling class become so deeply embedded in society that subordinate classes accept this constructed reality and their inferior position as 'natural' and inevitable; thus, they are incapable of formulating or even imagining alternatives. 38

· International institutions help create and maintain this hegemony. 39  First, their constituent rules reflect the values and purposes of the dominant state or states. Dominant states, however, do make minor adjustments to accommodate and co-opt subordinate classes and state. Institutions legitimize the leading state's dominance by presenting its values and practices as the standard to which all states must aspire, and as the yardstick for measuring acceptable behaviour. Institutions help stabilize a hegemonic order by absorbing counter-hegemonic ideas and practices, and reformulating them to bolster the established order. 40

Feminist Theories

Although feminist scholarship has a long history in some academic disciplines, explicit feminist theorizing in IR is relatively new, with the first major works appearing in the late 1980s. 41  Feminist scholars tend to avoid the 'grand theorizing' of realists, liberals and some historical structuralists, and there is no single overarching feminist IR theory.

Key Analytical Tools

Gender is the central category of analysis for most contemporary feminist scholars. Whereas sex is an anatomical difference between male and female, most feminists consider gender (which distinguishes between masculine and feminine) to be socially constructed and not solely or even necessarily based on biological differences. Gender is "a set of variable but socially and culturally constructed characteristics – such as power, autonomy, rationality and public - that are stereotypically associated with masculinity. Their opposites – weakness, dependence, emotion, and private – are associated with femininity." 42  Thus, gender analysis focuses on the structured social relationships between men and women and sees gender as pervading all social relations. People have different social identities such as class, occupation, race, and ethnicity, but they experience these identities in gendered forms. Women's and men's experiences therefore differ across the range of social identities and relations. 43

The gendering of social life occurs through three distinct but interrelated processes. 44

1. First is Gender Symbolism, which assigns gender metaphors to most social dichotomies such as public (masculine) versus private (feminine), and culture (masculine) versus nature (feminine), with the feminine subordinate to the masculine.

2. Second is Gender Structure, which is a social structure of thought, institutions, and powers that systematically privileges one gender over another. A structure that privileges the masculine gender is a patriarchy, and one that privileges the feminine gender is a matriarchy. Feminists note that most societies and cultures have been patriarchal. Patriarchal structures and institutions establish an unequal power relationship by making the masculine superior to the feminine, and exist at all levels of social activity including the family, the economy and polity, and the international system. 45  Thus, patriarchy effectively 'naturalizes' and legalizes women's subordination to men.

3. Third is Gender Roles. Through patriarchy, gendered dichotomies organize social life, define roles, and divide social activities between men and women.

The gendered dimensions of international organization and law are evident in the organizational structure and operation of international institutions, and in the institutional rules, norms and principles. In regard to structures and operations of international institutions, feminists point to the gendering of the major IGOs. Article 8 of the UN Charter (drafted in 1945) stipulates that the UN "shall place no restrictions on the eligibility of men and women to participate in any capacity and under conditions of equality in its principal and subsidiary organs." Nevertheless, Christine Chinking and Hilary Charlesworth note that public IGOs systematically exclude women from senior decision-making roles.  46

Feminist scholars also criticize the norms, rules and principles in international law and organization. They note, for example, that traditional international law perpetuates gender inequality by establishing a rigid dichotomy between the 'public sphere' and 'private sphere'. International law has only been concerned with the public sphere, and thus does not hold states accountable for the private actions of their nationals. This ignores the fact that women are subject to abuses, injustices, and acts of violence that often occur in the private realm.

The privileging of 'first-generation' civil and political liberties (such as the right to vote and take part in government) over 'second-generation' economic and social rights (such as the right to food, shelter and clothing) in major international human rights instruments also reveals a gender bias because civil and political liberties reflect activities traditionally dominated by men.

Feminist scholars also note that international law has been slow to respond to violence that primarily affects women. 47  Despite emphasizing the right to life and freedom from torture, international human rights law ignores the spheres in which women's rights are most often jeopardized. The most respected areas of humanitarian law such as laws for the conduct of war and treatment of prisoners are areas where men have traditionally dominated. In contrast, sexual violence against women during armed conflict was largely unnoticed despite evidence that systematic rape, sexual mutilation and humiliation, and forced prostitution and pregnancy have long been tactics of war. 48  International law only began to address this issue in the early 1990s after the atrocities committed during the wars accompanying the breakup of Yugoslavia. Thus, feminist scholars argue that international human rights and humanitarian laws reflect a gender bias by prioritizing what "men fear will happen to them".  49

Constructivism

Most realists and liberals and some historical structuralists emphasize material factors such as military or economic capability, technology, production, and economic interdependence in explaining international relations. Constructivists by contrast emphasize the role of cognitive or ideational factors (knowledge, beliefs, and perceptions) and normative values as well as material factors. 50

· The fundamental proposition of constructivism is that we are social beings. They focus on the notion of intersubjectivity—that "people act towards objects, including other actors, on the basis of the meanings that the objects have for them." 51  Although constructivists accept a 'real world' of physical objects and material factors, they argue that social facts or the meanings attached to objects rather than their physical properties shape how people interact. Intersubjective meanings become social facts because the meaning attached to an object or event becomes part of the institutions through which people interact. Thus, social facts are institutionalized facts – meanings assigned to 'real world' objects and events that become authoritative, and in some cases so deeply embedded in a society's collective consciousness that they are taken for granted as 'natural. 52  Social or institutionalized facts become part of a broader social structure, a stable pattern of institutions that constitute (enable or make possible) human interaction. Thus, constructivism considers meaningful human interaction to be impossible without institutions

· The constructivist emphasis on social relations leads to a broader conception of institutions as constitutive of states and settled patterns of interaction in international organization. In international relations, the general institution of sovereignty constitutes 'generic' state identities by differentiating territorially demarcated political communities from other communities and designating them as the preeminent form of political organization in international law. 53  As John Ruggie notes, "constitutive rules are the institutional foundation of all social life... Some constitutive rules... like exclusive territoriality are so deeply sedimented or reified that actors no longer think of them as rules at all." 54

· Constructivists also emphasize normative and political processes of legitimacy and legitimation internationally and show how they play an important role in global governance. Here, because norms and institutions embody substantive values and confer rights and responsibilities, they allow states and other actors to make judgments about whether particular actions are 'right' or 'wrong'. 55

· For example, in 1966 Inis Claude examined 'collective legitimization,' where groups of states use the UN General Assembly as a forum to legitimize and delegitimize certain identities, actions and events, such as the delegitimization of apartheid. 56  Others have examined the delegitimization of colonialism; the demise of the Transatlantic Slave Trade; the creation of new human rights and humanitarian intervention norms; the evolution of normative taboos on chemical, nuclear, and anti-personnel weapons; the evolution of new human security norms; and the role of 'moral authority' in global governance. 57  Neorealist and neoliberal approaches generally have some difficulty explaining such normatively driven changes because of their emphasis on material factors and actors with pre-determined interests.