All three mainstream approaches to studying international relations – realism, liberalism, and constructivism – sometimes discuss the role and behavior of non-state actors (both subnational and transnational) in international affairs. But all three at the same time treat state actors as primary.On the topic of global issues, domestic conflicts (involving ethnic and other types of subnational groups) and transnational terrorism are the principle threats to peace and stability in the international system.
Does the fact that the principle sources of threat to global peace and security come from non-state actors imply that mainstream approaches to international relations privilege “wrong” actors and are thus unable to explain much of what is going in contemporary world? In answering this question discuss what each of the three mainstream approaches could do (or not do) to explain both subnational domestic conflicts and transnational terrorism. Make sure you address BOTH the strengths and limitations of each of the approaches.
Your essay will be evaluated according to the points breakdown indicated below.
strengths and limitations of realism-30 points each
strengths and limitations of liberalism-30 points each
strengths and limitations of constructivism-30 points each
5 points – spelling/grammar/readability
5 points – overall organization