Utilizing this week readings and citing specific examples, analyze how the theory of constructivism shapes the interpretation of International law and conflict resolution in the IL.

Constructivism Theory in International Law
Name:
Institution:
Constructivism Theory in International Law
International law seeks to solve conflict among states by providing an order that helps in mitigating the effects of the destructive conflict. It considers that conflict in autonomous sovereign states is inevitable and, therefore, needs to be addressed to ensure that they co-exist peacefully. While international law does not make it easier to handle conflicts it creates a platform for agreements between the conflicting states. Such agreements are binding to the states in such a way that they feel obliged to sustain peace and justice. Various theories are applied to interpret international law and conflict management. The paper analyzes the constructivist approach and how its shapes the conflict management process in International law.
The constructivist approach that holds variable state features such as military power, International relations, trade institutions, and its domestic preferences because of their social meanings. It does not consider the objectivity of the variables as every state action has its own meaning based on its specific context. The meaning of each state action is derived from a clearly defined mix of history, norms, ideas and beliefs that are necessary for the understanding of the state behavior (Slaughter, 2011). It holds that the states exist within a social context and not material as expressed. Thus, the state, and particularly its actions are defined by its interests and identity.

Constructivists argue that looking at the state behavior is not enough since it is influenced by other factors affecting the state. The constructivist theory thereby argues that state actions should be analyzed by first considering the various aspects of the states and not the sole factors of the events for a better understanding.
Constructivist theorists deviate from other theories of dispute resolution in international law. Such theories including realism, liberalism, and critical exclusively look at the material evidence of conflicting states. The theories disregard interests and identities surrounding the states in question, which are of utmost importance in the constructivist theory. By considering the social context in terms of beliefs and identity, the theory establishes that the inspirations of states are bound to change as the context changes. It is, therefore, prudent to consider the transitive nature of a state’s identities and beliefs in its state features to ensure that the root cause of the conflict is determined and a lasting solution developed. The constructivist approach, unlike other international law theories, is divided into three forms that include systemic, unit-level and holistic and aims at ensuring that all aspects of the conflict are established and addressed appropriately (Behravesh, 2011).
The three divisions of the constructivist approach; systemic, unit level and holistic capture the essence of the theory and the conflict process involved when it is used to interpret conflict. They concentrate on ironing out individual states unitary actors and what happens between the states. The relationship between the two states is bettered at the expense of what happens within each state. In its systematic nature, the conflicting states’ domestic politics are bracketed and dis-emphasized such that their roles in constructing the identities and interests are lowered significantly (Behravesh, 2011). By using this form of constructivist approach, the conflicting states have to compromise on their domestic politics, identities, and beliefs. It ensures that any conflict cropping from the internal factors of a state is mitigated and that the conflicting states have a platform to address their conflict and chart beliefs and identities together through the international law.
The second form of constructivist approach is the unit-level where it focuses on the relationship between the domestic social and legal norms of each state and its interests and identities. By understanding this relationship, the security strategies of the state are understood. Through the analysis of each conflicting state’s strategies, the approach helps identify the reasons behind the conflict and thereby craft an agreement that will oversee a peaceful and secure interaction between them. Further, the holistic form of constructivist approach combines the systemic and the unit-level forms to resolve the conflict. It integrates the domestically crafted international identities and the internationally driven identities. By looking at each of the identities, the constructive approach determines the areas of conflict between the two states, fosters their understanding and helps develop a unitary factor for peace and security sustenance between them.
Using the constructivist approach, some of the global conflicts have been interpreted in pursuit of the global peace and security for the populations in the conflicting states. For instance, Nuclear weapons are interpreted differently in the United Kingdom and China by the United States. Despite their destructive tendencies of the weapons, the United States perceives the weapons safe when in the hands of the United Kingdom but dangerous in the hands of China. The identity and beliefs of United Kingdom as a peaceful and security oriented country increases the trust among Americans that it does not form an international danger. However, China is viewed as a violent country which may use the nuclear weapons to harm other countries hence the conflict generated when the Chinese were alleged to have nuclear weapons. Similarly, nuclear weapons in states that are not in the termed safe including the Arab nations such as Iraq and Iran raise a conflict with the United States and International bodies based on their identities and beliefs.
Moreover, the Palestinian and the Israeli conflict could be interpreted using the constructivist approach. Constructivists argue that the violence emanates from the structures within the two states. The structures have changed over time and as a result led to the emergence of the issues that lead to conflict and thus constrained relations. The misinterpretation of the term Jews has also been a major contributor to the war. Ideally, Jews are those that have been born in the Jewish family or who has converted to Judaism. However, the perceptions that the Jews are those that live in Israeli land. The contradiction between who is a Jew or a Hebrew brings conflict since the Palestinians and the Israelis have interbred and created other sub-groups that are left out in all state identities and subsequent beliefs. The political characters are also partly responsible for the crisis. For instance, the Jewish Zionists and the Arabs in Palestine are also in conflict since they have an inherent concern of being the minority in their own land (Javadikouchaksaraei et al., 2015). Following the various factors fuelling the conflict, it is necessary to study its social context to come up to facilitate the quelling of the violence and therefore restore the peace and security of the populations. The constructivist approach is, therefore, fundamental in the diagnosis of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as well as other international conflicts across the globe. Ultimately, it helps in developing the idea strategy to resolve the conflict and promote lasting peace and security for the involved states.
References
Behravesh, M. (2011, February 3). Constructivism: An Introduction. Retrieved from http://www.e-ir.info/2011/02/03/constructivism-an-introduction/
Javadikouchaksaraei, M., Bustami, M. R., Farouk, A. F. A., & Ramazaniandarzi, A. A. (2015). Reinterpreting the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Constructivism Theory of Understanding a Cross-Ethnic Phenomena. Asian Social Science, 11(16), 107.
Slaughter, A. M. (2011). International relations, principal theories. Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, 129.