Creativity (international relations)

Constructivism is the third view of the study of international relations. Compared to idealism and realism, this view proposes to investigate world-politics on the social plane. Creatives claim that the correct understanding of international relations can not be acquired only by the rational interactions in the realm of physical boundaries (as is the request of realists) nor can they be tested within institutional boundaries ( As the idealists say). According to the creatives, the relations formed between the Sovereign States are not based solely on their fixed national interests. They have to understand the steps taken in the effect of the long-term anticonvulsions seen as formats. Creativity emphasizes international law, diplomacy and sovereignty, focusing on institutions present at the level of international community. Governments are also important for them because they also generate regulatory and bill structures. In their hands, a social universe is created with the help of which the behavior and conduct of the state can be estimated.

The theory of creativity does not neglect the physical dimensions, but it also adds social dimensions to understand the international order along with them. Under this, when institutions are discussed, it does not necessarily mean organizational structure only. The institution implies a stable structure of entities and interests. A structure that has built-in understanding, shared expectations and social knowledge is inherent. The creativityist institutions basically look like a cognitive existence, which have to be within the boundaries of the views of their peers. Along with the standard effects of institutional structures, creativity checks the formulas between changing standards and identity and interests. Since the activities of the state and other activities are constantly changing due to the activities of the organizations, therefore, creativity is seen as the survivors of mutualizing entities and atheists.

It may be from this description that it would be difficult to implement creativity as a theoretical attitude. Actually, instead of recommending choosing a particular social structure to predict states' behavior, this approach states that the structure of the structure present in any one circumstance can be judged by the state's behavior in its specific scope. is. If the estimate is proved wrong, it means that the structure has not been properly understood or it has suddenly changed. For instance, if the realist says that the chaos exists in international relations, then the creatives will say that their notion stems from seeing the international community in the mirror of the 'Prakriti status' presented by Hobbs. The conclusion of this state of state has been drawn from a specific structure of social relations that has now changed.

According to the belief of the structuralists, international institutions also regulate and also play the role of the bill. Regulatory role means to validate or restrict certain behaviors and behaviors. Bill role means defining any behavior or behavior, accomplishing it with a certain meaning. The state has a corporate assimilation in their eyes. It determines its basic goals (security, sustainability, recognition and economic development). But the achievement of these goals is dependent on social assimensions; That is, in the context of the state itself, in the context of the international society, in the same way, its social assimensions will arise. On the basis of similar similarities, the national interest of the state will be structured.

Structuralists do not completely ignore the importance given to chaos by realists, but they say that chaos can not be important in itself. Anarchy of relations can happen between two friendly states and also between two enemy states. Both mean different. In this sense, the varieties of social relations that can be created without its chaos, but it can be important. According to these types of social relations, the state defines its interests. For instance, during the Cold War, the relationship between the US and the Soviet Union was also a social relationship under which both of them viewed each other as enemies and accordingly they had the structure of national interests. When they stopped seeing each other in the mirror of that social relationship, or the situation of such social relations was not there, the result was that the Cold War ended.

It is obvious that creativityism has not been able to explain its usefulness as an explanatory principle. Despite this, it has got success in presenting a theoretical framework. Behind the prevalence of creativity, there is also the role of inadequacy of realistic and idealistic views.

1. E. Adler (1997), 'Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics', European Journal of International Politics, Issue 3.

2. T. Bertsecker and C. Weber (S.p.) (1992), State Sovereignity as Social Construction, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

3. T. Hof (1998), 'The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Thari', International Security, Issue 23.

wiki