Abstract

Realist/neo-realist and neo-liberal institutional approaches of international relations (IR) theory, which take a rationalist/systemic approach using the state as a primary unit of analysis, have recently come under fire. As a result of what has been characterized as the 'third debate' or critical turn, the discipline of IR seems to have congealed around seemingly intractable dichotomous conceptualizations of theorizing and research: structural vs. post-structural, and positivist vs. post-positivist. The first part of this thesis is concerned with assessing the various constructivist critiques targeting the dominant theories. Since not all constructivists are classified or classify themselves as post-structuralist and/or post-positivist, the second part of the thesis attempts to unpack the category of IR constructivism. By comparing and contrasting two diametrically opposed constructivist strands--modernist and post-structural--on the central constructivist themes of intersubjectivity, identity, and representation, the thesis attempts to verify whether a common core of principles exists between the opposing strands. The modernist work of Alexander Wendt (supplemented by Emanuel Adler and John Gerard Ruggie) is compared to the post-structural position of David Campbell (supplemented by Richard K. Ashley and R. B. J. Walker). The result of the analysis demonstrates that, even within the diametrically opposed strands, a common core of constructivist principles does exist