Keyword

Constructivism, International Relations, Interests, Optimism, Rationalism, Strategic Decisions

Abstract

Contemporary dynamics of global geopolitical and economic interdependence have been witnessing a growing trend of integration of various schools of thoughts with an endeavor of seeking interconnections for meaningful understanding of complex world developments. Inter-disciplinary research has become profoundly important for connecting with mainstream theoretical discussions across social sciences and humanities. Various traditional paradigms of international relations can be analyzed in a holistic manner by forging convergence, the so-called layering process, to explain politico-economic and business processes realistically. In this context it is imperative to comprehend two well-established mainstream international relations concepts of Rationalism and Constructivism by connecting the missing links that are ingrained in behavioral traits of political actors and their Optimism for making a holistic understanding of strategic political decision process. This paper attempts to configure the interconnections between the powerful traditional theories pertaining to Rationalism and Constructivism in the domain of international relations with the dynamics of Optimism and psycho-dimensional behavioral traits of political actors. Analyzing the various tenets of theoretical foundations and their practical implications in international relations in an interdisciplinary framework, this paper introduces an innovative and adaptable multidimensional ROC (Rationalism – Optimism – Constructivism) Model to meaningfully explain the complexities involved in strategic political decision process. The implications of the multidimensional ROC Model are expected to be profoundly impeccable in influencing the outcome of critical negotiations in strategic decision processes. Empirical analysis in the paper reflects the interface and synthesis of ROC tenets in a symbiotic manner most of the time in ensuring occurrence of positive outcome in strategic decisions.


Full Text : PDF
References
  1. Adler-Nissen, R. (2015). Conclusion: Relationalism or Why Diplomats find International Relations Theory Strange. Diplomacy and the Making of World Politics, pp. 284-308.
  2. Banerjee, P. (2018). The Power of Positivity: Optimism and the 7th Sense. New Delhi, India: SAGE Publications.
  3. Bertucci, M.E., J. Hayes, and P. James. (2018). A New Look at Constructivism. In M.E. Bertucci, J. Hayes, and P. James, ed., Constructivism Reconsidered: Past, Present and Future, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  4. Bhattacharjee, G. and D. Bhattacharya. (2018). GST and Its Aftermath: Is Consumer Really the King? New Delhi, India: SAGE Publications.
  5. Checkel, J.T. and A. Moravcsik. (2001). A Constructivist Research Program in EU Studies. European Union Politics, 2, pp. 219-249.
  6. Fearon, J. and A. Wendt. (2002). Rationalism v. Constructivism: A Skeptical View. In: W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, and B.A. Simmons, ed., Handbook of International Relations. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
  7. Finnemore, M. and K. Sikkink. (2001). Taking Stock: The Constructivist Research Program in International Relations and Comparative Politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 4, pp.  391-416.
  8. Finnemore, M. (2003). The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs about the Use of Force. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
  9. Goldstein, J. and R.O. Keohane. (1993). Ideas and Foreign Policy: An Analytical Framework. In: J. Goldstein and R.O. Keohane, ed., Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. 
  10. Gray, C.S. (2016). Strategy and Politics. London: Routledge.
  11. Haukkala, J., C. Watering and J. Vuorelma (2018). Introduction: Approaching Trust and Mistrust in International Relations. In: J. Haukkala, C. Watering and J. Vuorelma, ed., Trust in International Relations: Rationalists, Constructivists and Psychological Approaches. Abingdon, Oxon, New York: Routledge.
  12. Hurrell, A. and T. Macdonald. (2013). Ethics and Norms in International Relations. In: W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, and B.A. Simmons, ed., Handbook of International Relations (Second Edition). London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
  13. Ikenberry, J. G. (1993). Creating yesterday’s New World Order: Keynesian New Thinking and the Anglo-American Postwar Settlement. In: J. Goldstein and R.O. Keohane, ed., Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. 
  14. Legro, J.W. (1996). Culture and Preferences in the International Cooperation Two-Step. American Political Science Review, 90, pp. 118-137.
  15. March, J.G. and J.P. Olsen. (1998) The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders. International Organization, 52, pp. 943-969.
  16. Risse, T. (2000). Let’s Argue! Communicative Action in World Politics. International Organization, 54, pp. 1-39.
  17. Schimmelfennig, F. (2001). The Community Trap: Liberal Norms, Rhetorical Action, and the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union. International Organization, 55, pp. 47-80.
  18. Stein, A.A. (1999). The limits of strategic choice: Constrained rationality and incomplete explanation. In: D.A. Lake and R. Powell, ed., Strategic Choice and International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  19. Wagner, W. (2014). International Relations and Human Rights. In: A. Mihr and M. Gibney, ed., The SAGE Handbook of Human Rights (Volume 1). London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
  20. Wendt, A. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.