Inability of Theories to Explain Terrorist Groups

So far in class we have been learning about three different theories in international relations: realism, liberalism, and constructivism. As we have been learning about the different characteristics of these theories, I have thought about their ability to explain international relations in today’s world. Ultimately, I have come to the conclusion that these theories are insufficient in explaining how states can deal with the terrorist groups that dictate a large portion of international relations in the 21^st century.

The first theory that we learned about is realism, a theory that believes that self-interested states with anarchy eventually lead to conflict. One important aspect of this theory is that the only actors in international relations are states. This presents a crucial problem in relation to terrorist groups. Terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS are by no means considered states, and therefore from a realist perspective these groups are not worth worrying about for great powers such as the United States and Great Britain. However, these terrorist groups have proven to be just as (and possible even more) threatening than other states, and therefore it is important that we do worry about them. Furthermore, ever since 9/11 the US has been in a “War on Terror;” the realist theory would be unable to explain why a great power such as the United States is spending so many resources fighting against non state actors such as terrorist groups.

The second theory that we learned about is liberalism, a theory that believes in both states and institutions being the actors in international relations. A distinctive characteristic of liberalism is that bargaining will lead to cooperation, and that rational agents strive for cooperation in order to have mutual benefits. The whole idea of cooperation doesn’t work with terrorist groups in the 21^st century. Firstly, the US and many other western countries have claimed that they refuse to negotiate with terrorists. Secondly, even if they did agree to negotiations, it would be challenging for western states to cooperate with these terrorist groups that have no unification and act irrationally. Due to its emphasis on negotiations and cooperation, the liberal theory cannot explain alternative ways in which great powers can interact with terrorist groups.

The third theory that we learned about is constructivism, a theory that focuses on ideas and a contingent history rather than military power or cooperation. Constructivism also emphasizes that the world is social constructed, and therefore norms play an important role in international relations (even though norms are constantly changing over time). In the 21^st century, devotion to human rights and justice has become a norm in much of the world. In assuming that humanitarian rights has become an important norm, how can constructivism explain terrorist groups’ complete disregard for human rights? Supporting suicide bombing and violent discrimination against minorities by no means correlate with humanitarian rights, and therefore constructivism cannot explain why terrorists continue to act against this norm.

       While realism, liberalism, and constructivism can explain many different aspects of international relations, when it comes to the problem of terrorist groups in the 21^st century, I think that these theories are strongly lacking. However, the inability of these theories to explain the extreme influence of terrorist groups could be explained by the fact that terrorist groups are a pretty recent addition to international relations. While these theories didn’t previously need to worry about the presence of terrorist groups, perhaps they now need to be updated, or even a new theory needs to be created, to help explain the recent phenomenon of terrorist groups in the 21^st century.