Will has an interesting post below about realism/constructivism, which I’d take issue with on one important part. Namely, both suffer from an unrealistically statist view, which in my view hinges on the fundamental distinctions between states and individuals. There are several singular properties of states (inconsistent identity, displacement of accountability, rewards of defection) which I think make the prospect of a coherent system of international thought difficult, to say the least. I also think it’s a bit of strawman to say that we treat anti-American states as “inherently” anti-American; rather, there are important structural reasons for their posture which mean that it’s easier for our actions to aggravate than to alleviate. Constructivism strikes me as actually the more objectionable, since those properties of states do make them inherently untrustworthy; let me take a stab at why.
The root of the problem lies with the identity of a nation, and the fact that the leadership of a nation is composed of individuals. In an authoritarian nation, this means the whims of individuals can guide policy; in a democratic one, either the whims of the leader or of the populace can do so. The weight of history weighs heavily here; let’s consider a hypothetical country with a powerful revanchist movement geared towards regaining territory lost in a war before the establishment of international government. Let’s call it Lalsace-Lorraine, just for the sake of argument. A government agreeing to abide by the rules of international law (let’s say the Viemar Republic) will be booted out by the revanchist movement, which has strong incentives to defect. Namely, the consolidation of their political power.
We see that there are competing incentives for leaders, and the sanctions of international law can counterintuitively serve to strengthen the incentives to defect. Sanctions levied against a nation will bolster the persecution-narrative of pro-defection political movements, increasing their power. While the nation as a whole will bear negative consequences, the burden of those consequences will not fall on those responsible for making decisions. The leadership of any nation is, in general, fairly insulated from international law. This is not usually a concern for well-behaving states with established internationalist leanings…but it should seem as though the whole reason for international law should be to prevent bad behavior.
The idea that carrots and sticks can corral states into good behavior obscures the fact that domestic politics matter. This obviously runs counter to the idea of realism, which portrays the state as a rational actor interested in maximizing its power and influence. This seems to be true at the margins, but essentially ignores the way policy actually forms. This, however, also seems to cast doubt at the idea of constructivism. Any really coherent system of thought about foreign policy runs aground on the rocky evidence of history. I’d suggest that anyone pushing hard for a coherent international ideology has something to sell you.
As a bonus, anti-Americanism. Again, domestic politics of foreign nations is the guiding principle here. Being the dominant power. America has stepped on a lot of toes (and cut them off during “enhanced interrogation”), leaving a long historical record. Anti-Americanism is thus useful for many rulers as a way of consolidating their own power by constructing a narrative of national persecution, casting themselves as the national protectors. This does not mean America should not act better, and that acting better wouldn’t help; but that there’s an assymetry here, where “bad” actions meet with more opprobrium than “good” actions receive praise.
