Issue

Vol. 2 No. 3 (2025): July

Copyright (c) 2025 Nawid Aria

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

The Power of Ideas: A Constructivist Reinterpretation of Security in International Relations

https://doi.org/10.62810/jssh.v2i3.120
Nawid Aria
Jami University, Department of International Relations, Herat, AF

Corresponding Author(s) : Nawid Aria

n.aria@jami.edu.af

Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, Vol. 2 No. 3 (2025): July

Abstract

This paper explores the pivotal role of Constructivist theory in redefining both theoretical and practical approaches to international security, addressing critical gaps in traditional security paradigms. In contrast to the realist and Liberal frameworks, which interpret threats as objective and material, this study argues that security is fundamentally a social construct, shaped by collective identities, shared norms, and discursive processes. Through a descriptive-analytical methodology grounded in comprehensive library research, the analysis reveals how security policies and global governance structures are influenced not only by material power but also by normative legitimacy, intersubjective understandings, and cultural contexts. The findings demonstrate that securitization is contingent upon political legitimacy and public consensus, highlighting the central role of language and perception in framing security threats. The study advocates for greater reflexivity and theoretical pluralism within security studies, urging an inclusive approach that incorporates cultural, environmental, and societal dimensions alongside conventional state-centric perspectives. Policy-wise, it emphasizes the need for inclusive multilateral dialogue, mutual recognition among actors, and adaptive governance mechanisms to address evolving security challenges. By reconceptualizing security as a dynamic, socially constructed phenomenon, this research provides a nuanced analytical tool for understanding contemporary international relations. Ultimately, it contributes to more effective strategies for fostering global stability, cooperation, and conflict resolution in an increasingly complex world. 

Keywords

Constructivism Identity International security Normative Legitimacy Peacebuilding Social construction
Aria, N. (2025). The Power of Ideas: A Constructivist Reinterpretation of Security in International Relations. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2(3), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.62810/jssh.v2i3.120
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
References
  1. Adeniji, G. (2022). Constructivist school in international relations and security studies. Ekpoma Review Journal, 9. Link
  2. Adler, E. (1997). Seizing the middle ground: Constructivism in world politics. European Journal of International Relations, 3(3), 319–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066197003003004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066197003003003
  3. Al-Rasheed, M. A. A., & Al-Saeedi, U. M. B. (2023). Modern schools of thought in security studies. Migration Letters, 20(S5), 646–660. Link
  4. Aria, N. (2025). Exploring the possibility of overcoming the anarchic nature of the international system through a constructivist approach. IUP Journal of International Relations, 19(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.71329/IUPJIR/2025.19.1.7-20 DOI: https://doi.org/10.71329/IUPJIR/2025.19.1.7-20
  5. Barnett, M. L. (2018). Constructivism. In A. Gheciu & W. C. Wohlforth (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international security (Chap. 7). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198777854.013.7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198777854.013.7
  6. Behravesh, M. (2011). Constructivism: An introduction. e-International Relations (e-IR). Link
  7. Bernshausen, S., & Bonacker, T. (2011). A constructivist perspective on systemic conflict transformation. In D. Körppen, N. Ropers, & H. J. Giessmann (Eds.), The non-linearity of peace processes: Theory and practice of systemic conflict transformation (pp. 23–38). Barbara Budrich Publishers. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvbkjz66.5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvbkjz66.5
  8. Buzan, B., & Hansen, L. (2009). The evolution of international security studies. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511817762 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511817762
  9. Checkel, J. T. (1998). The constructivist turn in international relations theory [Review of National interests in international society; The culture of national security: Norms and identity in world politics; Norms in international relations: The struggle against apartheid, by M. Finnemore, P. Katzenstein, & A. Klotz]. World Politics, 50(2), 324–348. Link DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887100008133
  10. Cho, Y. C. (2009). Conventional and critical constructivist approaches to national security: An analytical survey. The Korean Journal of International Relations, 49(3), 75–96. Link DOI: https://doi.org/10.14731/kjis.2009.06.49.3.75
  11. Cho, Y. C. (2012). State identity formation in constructivist security studies: A suggestive essay. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 13(3), 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1468109912000114 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1468109912000114
  12. Conteh-Morgan, E. (2005). Peacebuilding and human security: A constructivist perspective. International Journal of Peace Studies, 10(1). Link
  13. Dehnavi, E. A., Ardam, S. M., Barzyan, M. G., & Parvaresh, A. (2021). Security from the perspectives of realism, Copenhagen, liberalism with a little taste of technology. PalArch’s Journal of Archaeology of Egypt / Egyptology, 18(6), 489–511. Link
  14. Duffy, L. N., Fernandez, M., & Sène-Harper, A. (2020). Digging deeper: Engaging in reflexivity in interpretivist-constructivist and critical leisure research. Leisure Sciences, 43(3–4), 448–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2020.1830903 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2020.1830903
  15. Erbas, I. (2022). Constructivist approach in foreign policy and in international relations. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(3), 5087–5096. Link
  16. Eroukhmanoff, C. (2018). Securitization theory: An introduction. E-International Relations. Link
  17. Farrell, T. (2002). Constructivist security studies: Portrait of a research program. International Studies Review, 4(1), 49–72 Link DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1521-9488.t01-1-00252
  18. Flockhart, T. (2016). The problem of change in constructivist theory: Ontological security seeking and agent motivation. Review of International Studies, 42(5), 799–820. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026021051600019X DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S026021051600019X
  19. García Iommi, L. (2022). The new constructivism in International Relations theory. International Affairs, 98(5), 1783–1784. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiac153 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiac153
  20. Glover, N. (2011). Does security exist outside of the speech act? E-International Relations. Link
  21. Guzzini, S. (2000). A reconstruction of constructivism in international relations. European Journal of International Relations, 6(2), 147–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066100006002001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066100006002001
  22. Guzzini, S. (2000). Constructivism and the role of institutions in international relations. Copenhagen Peace Research, Link
  23. Haas, P. M., & Haas, E. B. (2002). Pragmatic constructivism and the study of international institutions. Millennium, 31(3), 573–601. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298020310031001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298020310031001
  24. Hopf, T. (1998). The promise of constructivism in international relations theory. International Security, 23(1), 171–200. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539267 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/isec.23.1.171
  25. Hurd, I. (2009). Constructivism. In C. Reus-Smit & D. Snidal (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international relations (online ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199219322.003.0017 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199219322.003.0017
  26. Huysmans, J. (2002). Defining social constructivism in security studies: The normative dilemma of writing security. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 27, 41–62. Link DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/03043754020270S104
  27. Ikenberry, G. J. (2009). Liberalism in a realist world: International relations as an American scholarly tradition. International Studies, 46(1 & 2), 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/002088171004600213 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002088171004600213
  28. Jung, H. (2019). The evolution of social constructivism in political science: Past to present. SAGE Open, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019832703 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019832703
  29. Karacasulu, N., & Uzgören, E. (2010). Explaining social constructivist contributions to security studies. Uluslararası İlişkiler / International Relations, 7(26), 1–24. Link
  30. Kolodziej, E. A. (2005). Constructivism. In Security and international relations (pp. 259–304). Cambridge University Press. Link DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614903.008
  31. Körppen, D., Ropers, N., & Giessmann, H. J. (Eds.). (2011). The non-linearity of peace processes: Theory and practice of systemic conflict transformation (1st ed.). Verlag Barbara Budrich. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvbkjz66 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvbkjz66
  32. Krickel-Choi, N. C. (2021). Rethinking ontological security theory: Conceptual investigations into ‘self’ and ‘anxiety’ (Doctoral dissertation, Stockholm University). Stockholm Studies in International Relations, 2021:4. Link
  33. Lynch, C. (2008). Reflexivity in research on civil society: Constructivist perspectives. International Studies Review, 10(4), 708–721. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2486.2008.00827.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2486.2008.00827.x
  34. Mahmood, R. M. (2025). Power in international relations: Insights from realist and liberal theories. European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 21(8), 27. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2024.v21n8p27 DOI: https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2025.v21n8p27
  35. Marilli, M. (2011). North-South relations and the promises of constructivism. e-International Relations. Link
  36. Meibauer, G. (2021). Neorealism, neoclassical realism and the problem(s) of history. International Relations, 37(2), 348–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178211033943 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178211033943
  37. Mikail, E., & Aytekin, C. (2016). Identity in security studies. Open Journal of Political Science, 6, 339–344. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojps.2016.64030 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/ojps.2016.64030
  38. Moravcsik, A. (1997). Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of international politics. International Organization, 51(4), 513–553. Link DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/002081897550447
  39. Newman, E. (2001). Human security and constructivism. International Studies Perspectives, 2(3), 239–251. Link DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1528-3577.00055
  40. Ogbajie, M. U., Oyedele, O. J., Anita, C. M., Daniel, N. E., Ohis, A. O., Oreoluwa, I. M., Toyin, A. O., Marvellous, A. O., Gerald, N. C., Ifraimu, M. G., & Uchenna, U. P. (2023). Constructivism's impact on international relations: Shaping a new world order. International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Research and Studies, 3(6), 299–302. Link
  41. Rasheed, A. A. (2023). Small Island Developing States and climate securitisation in international politics: Towards a comprehensive conception. Island Studies Journal, 18(1), 161–185. https://doi.org/10.24043/isj.391 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24043/isj.391
  42. Russell, M. (2021). The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE): A pillar of the European security order (PE 696.190). European Parliamentary Research Service. Link
  43. Savu, L.-M. (2021). Realism, liberalism and constructivism in the pursuit of security. Proceedings of the 17th International Scientific Conference Strategies XXI, 17(1). National University of Political Sciences and Public Administration. https://doi.org/10.53477/2668-2001-21-02 DOI: https://doi.org/10.53477/2668-2001-21-02
  44. Shannon-Baker, P. (2023). Philosophical underpinnings of mixed methods research in education. In R. J. Tierney, F. Rizvi, & K. Ercikan (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (4th ed., pp. 380–389). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.11037-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.11037-1
  45. Shepherd, L. J. (2008). Power and authority in the production of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325. International Studies Quarterly, 52(2), 383–404. Link DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2008.00506.x
  46. Taliaferro, J. W. (2000). Security seeking under anarchy: Defensive realism revisited. International Security, 25(3), 128–161. Link DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/016228800560543
  47. Theys, S. (2018). Introducing Constructivism in International Relations theory. E-International Relations. Link
  48. Tripp, E. (2013). Realism: The domination of security studies. E-International Relations. Link
  49. Tsai, Y. (2009). The emergence of human security: A constructivist view. International Journal of Peace Studies, 14(2), 19–33. Link
  50. Ulusoy, H. S. (2003). Revisiting security communities after the Cold War: The constructivist perspective. Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs, 8(3), 1–22. Link DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9780773571549-003
  51. Wallis, J., & Richmond, O. (2017). From constructivist to critical engagements with peacebuilding: Implications for hybrid peace. Peacebuilding, 5(4), 422–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/23802014.2016.1309990 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23802014.2016.1309990
  52. Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425. Link DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027764
Read More
Author biographies is not available.
Received 2025-06-17
Accepted 2025-07-26
Published 2025-07-31
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 131 Download : 45