Constructivism (international relations) in the context of "Intergovernmental organisation"

An international organization, also called an intergovernmental organization (IGO) or an international institution, is an association of states established by a treaty or other type of instrument governed by international law to pursue the common aim of its member states. An IGO possesses its own legal personality separate from its member states and can enter into legally binding agreements with other IGOs or with other states. The United Nations, Council of Europe, African Union, Organization of American States, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Mercosur, and BRICS are examples of IGOs. International organizations are composed of primarily member states, but may also include other entities, such as other international organizations, firms, and nongovernmental organizations. Additionally, entities may hold observer status. Under international law, although treaties are typically between states, intergovernmental organizations also have the capacity to enter into treaties. The traditional view was that only states were subjects of international law, but with the founding of the United Nations, that view expanded to include intergovernmental organizations.

Within the international relations literature, international organizations facilitate cooperation between states by reducing transaction costs, providing information, making commitments more credible, establishing focal points for coordination, facilitating the principle of reciprocity, extending the shadow of the future, and enabling interlinkages of issues, which raises the cost of noncompliance. States may comply with the decisions of international organizations, even when they do not want to, for rational cost-benefit calculations (to reap concrete rewards of future cooperation and avoid punishment) and normative reasons (social learning and socialization).

International relations (IR, and also referred to as international studies, international politics, or international affairs) is an academic discipline. In a broader sense, the study of IR, in addition to multilateral relations, concerns all activities among states—such as war, diplomacy, trade, and foreign policy—as well as relations with and among other international actors, such as intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs), international legal bodies, and multinational corporations (MNCs).

International relations is generally classified as a major multidiscipline of political science, along with comparative politics, political methodology, political theory, and public administration. It often draws heavily from other fields, including anthropology, economics, geography, history, law, philosophy, and sociology. There are several schools of thought within IR, of which the most prominent are realism, liberalism, and constructivism.

The balance of power theory in international relations suggests that states may secure their survival by preventing any one state from gaining enough military power to dominate all others. If one state becomes much stronger, the theory predicts it will take advantage of its weaker neighbors, thereby driving them to unite in a defensive coalition. Some realists maintain that a balance-of-power system is more stable than one with a dominant state, as aggression is unprofitable when there is equilibrium of power between rival coalitions.

When threatened, states may seek safety either by balancing, allying with others against the prevailing threat; or bandwagoning, aligning themselves with the threatening power. Other alliance tactics include buck passing and chain-ganging. Realists have long debated how the polarity of a system impacts the choice of tactics; however, it is generally agreed that in bipolar systems, each great power has no choice but to directly confront the other. Along with debates between realists about the prevalence of balancing in alliance patterns, other schools of international relations, such as constructivists, are also critical of the balance of power theory, disputing core realist assumptions regarding the international system and the behavior of states.

Rational choice (also termed rationalism) is a prominent framework in international relations scholarship. Rational choice is not a substantive theory of international politics, but rather a methodological approach that focuses on certain types of social explanation for phenomena. In that sense, it is similar to constructivism, and differs from liberalism and realism, which are substantive theories of world politics. Rationalist analyses have been used to substantiate realist theories, as well as liberal theories of international relations.

Rational choice research tends to explain conditions that bring about outcomes or patterns of behavior if relevant actors behave rationally. Key concepts in rational choice research in international relations include incomplete information, credibility, signaling, transaction costs, trust, and audience costs.

International relations theory is the study of international relations (IR) from a theoretical perspective. It seeks to explain behaviors and outcomes in international politics. The three most prominent schools of thought are realism, liberalism, and constructivism. Whereas realism and liberalism make broad and specific predictions about international relations, constructivism and rational choice are methodological approaches that focus on certain types of social explanation for phenomena.

International relations, as a discipline, is believed to have emerged after World War I with the establishment of a Chair of International Relations, the Woodrow Wilson Chair held by Alfred Eckhard Zimmern at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth. The modern study of international relations, as a theory, has sometimes been traced to realist works such as E. H. Carr's The Twenty Years' Crisis (1939) and Hans Morgenthau's Politics Among Nations (1948).

In international relations theory, the concept of anarchy is the idea that the world lacks any supreme authority or sovereignty. In an anarchic state, there is no hierarchically superior, coercive power that can resolve disputes, enforce law, or order the system of international politics. In international relations, anarchy is widely accepted as the starting point for international relations theory.

International relations generally does not understand "anarchy" as signifying a world in chaos, disorder, or conflict; rather, it is possible for ordered relations between states to be maintained in an anarchic international system. Anarchy provides foundations for realist, neorealist, and neoliberal, and constructivist paradigms of international relations. Liberal theory disputes that anarchy is a fundamental condition of the international system. On the other hand, constructivist scholar Alexander Wendt argued that "anarchy is what states make of it."