Applying the constructivism theory to the Syrian conflict allows to understand the novel structure which emerged as a direct result of the mounting internal chaos and led to the formation of subnational identities

Applying the constructivism theory to the Syrian conflict allows to understand the novel structure which emerged as a direct result of the mounting internal chaos and led to the formation of subnational identities. The initial protests saw the construction of the identity of the Syrian people who called for a new national order; this initial cohesion gave way and disintegrated into numerous identities along both religious and ethnic lines. The fragmentation of the anti-Assad faction resulted in a now disunited front, consisting of a rapidly growing number of groups who designated themselves under the ‘Sunni’, ‘Islamist’ or ‘Kurdish’ banners. Such groups regarded the ‘Alawite’, ‘Kafir’ or ‘Arabic’ groups respectively as the ‘other’ and hence, as enemies to be defeated. These new sub-national identities naturally came to oppose one another in addition to their initial common enemy. As such, the people were forced to engage in inter-subjective relationships which formed a key factor in the subsequent maelstrom that has characterized the Syrian civil war, moving towards ever increasing sectarianism along the Sunni-Shia, Secular-Islamist and Arab-Kurd splits. Such turbulence lends itself to Assad’s promotion of a self-image as the legitimately elected president and regional champion of the Arab and Shia identity. In accordance, those who had taken up arms against his reign were designated as ‘Islamic terrorists’ and ‘Sunni fanatical groups’ who have the illegitimate support of his Western and Gulf enemies. In summary, the contradictory ideas, identities and perceptions are succinctly explained using the constructivism approach as tools to understand the Syrian civil war internally between Assad and the various opposition groups.

The constructivism approach also provides an interesting interpretation of the various different external interventions into the Syrian conflict. The formation of opposing groups in the form of Saudi Arabia and Turkey on one side; and Iran, Hezbollah and Assad on the other side, can be extrapolated as a continuation of the Sunni-Shia conflict, the roots of which stem from historic differences in the perception of Islam’s religious sub-identities. Similarly, historical differences in ideology also explains the antagonistic views of the USA and Russia on the Syrian conflict. The United States views itself as the international defender of peace, democracy and liberalism and hence opposes the perceived illiberalism embodied by the Russian, Iranian and Assad forces. On the other hand, Russia, along with China, view themselves as powers that champion national sovereignty and international law in contrast to America’s flagrant international interventions. Such self-constructed identity is evident in Russia’s use of its veto power, highlighting its anti-interventional stance (Averre and Davies, 2015).

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Concluding the key aspects, the dual-natured Syrian conflict is both a civil war between Assad and the Syrian rebel forces, and an international war fought though proxies by external states supporting one or another of these sides. Realism can be used to explain the war’s international dimension as it highlights the material interests that reasonably give account for the intervention of external actors such as the USA, Russia, China, Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, constructivism focused more on the effects of identity and ideology on behaviour, as well as how the protests turned into a civil war with religious and ethnic divides and how the war morphed into an international struggle. In short, constructivism provides a highly nuanced analysis of the Syrian conflict. This detailed account can be argued to be stronger than the realism approach due to its emphasis on social factors and the significance of ideas, allowing the explanation of factors which are beyond the scope of realism. Despite this, realism is still the theory of choice in terms of explaining international conflict, with a large backing of historical evidence in its favour. However, Michael Barnett takes an opposing stance and states that realism falls short in explaining the numerous vital factors which have played a part in the region, including the absence of large scale military build-up and arms races, the prominence of symbolism over frank military force, and the widespread regional instability (Barnett, 1998).

In conclusion, both theories of realism and constructivism aim to explain the causes of conflicts between and within states in the globalised arena of international relations. The former theory relies on the ‘struggle for power’ assumption, while the latter focuses on the ‘centrality of identity’. Realism explains the Syrian conflict as a power struggle between different state actors, while constructivism identifies one of the causes of the conflict as the increasing rivalry between minority groups within Syria and the prevention of a unified Syrian identity. On their own, each theory is limited in its interpretative capability. It can, therefore, be argued that the complexity of the Syrian conflict requires both theories to be utilised to comprehensively understand the crux and dynamics of conflict. This is crucially important especially with regards to the involvement of politically unique actors such as the ISIS. A careful and deep critical analysis of this conflict, one of the worst of our times, is required to provide politicians with a sound understanding to better guide policy making.


Abdo, G. (2011) How Iran Keeps Assad in Power in Syria. Foreign Affairs online, 25th August 2011 Available at: Accessed: 11th November 2017

Adler, E. (1997) Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics. European Journal of International Relations, v.3 (3), pp. 319-320

Aron, R. (1970) Pace e Guerra tra le Nazioni. Milano: Edizioni di Comunità, p. 36

Averre, D. and Davies, L. (2015) Russia, Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: the case of Syria. International Affairs, v.91 (4), pp. 813-834

Barkey, H.J. (2012) Turkish-Iranian Competition after the Arab Spring. Survival, v.54 (6), pp. 139-162

Barnett, M. (2017) Social Constructivism. In: Baylis, J., Smith, S. and Owens, P. (eds). The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. 7th ed. Oxford University Press, pp. 144-158

Barnett, M.N. (1998) Dialogues in Arab Politics: Negotiations in Regional Order. New York: Columbia University Press.

Carr, E.H. (1946) The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. New York: St. Martin’s Press, p. 145

Cockburn, P. (2016) Saudi Arabia intervening in the Syrian civil war would risk Russian wrath. Independent online, 11th February 2016 Available at: Accessed: 7th November 2017

?idi?, A. (2017) Realism in Turkish Foreign Policy towards Syrian Refugees: Turkish Policy on Syria. Savremena Politika i Upravljanje, v.3 (1), p. 14

Diehl, J. (2012) Lines in the Sand: Assad Plays the Sectarian Card. World Affairs, v. 175 (1), pp. 7-15

Donnelly, J. (2000) Realism and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 10

Dunne, T. and Schmidt, B.C. (2017) Realism. In: Baylis, J., Smith, S. and Owens, P. (eds). The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. 7th ed. Oxford University Press, pp. 101-115

Fierke, K.M. (2016) Constructivism. In: Dunne, T., Kurki, M. and Smith, S. (eds). International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. 4th ed. Oxford University Press, pp. 161-178

Fisher, G. (2012) Syria, Iran, Russia and China plan joint war games, Iranian news agency says. The Times of Israel online, 19th June 2012 Available at Accessed: 3rd November 2017

Freedman, R.O. (2010) Russia and the Middle East under Putin. Ortado?u Etütleri, v.2 (3), pp. 9-55

Gellman, P. (1988) Hans J. Morgenthau and the Legacy of Political Realism. Review of International Studies, v.14 (4), pp. 247-266

Hopf, T. (1998) The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory. International Security, v.23 (1), pp. 171-200

Human Rights Watch (2016) Syria: Events of 2016 online Available at: Accessed: 5th November 2017

Ikenberry, G.J. and Parsi, V.E. (2009) Teorie e metodi delle Relazioni Internazionali: La disciplina e la sua evoluzione. Bari: GLF. Editori Laterza, pp. 29-31

Jackson, R. and Sørensen, G. (2007) Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 162-169

Laub, Z. (2017) Who’s Who in Syria’s Civil War. Council on Foreign Relations online, 28th April 2017 Available at: Accessed: 15th November 2017

Litsas, S.N. (2017) Russia in the Eastern Mediterranean: Intervention, Deterrence, Containment. Digest of Middle East Studies, v.26 (1), pp. 56-73

Mearsheimer, J.J. (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. 1st ed. New York: Norton, p.30

Mearsheimer, J.J. (2016) Structural Realism. In Dunne, T. Kurki, M. and Smith, S. (eds). International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Morgenthau, H.J. (1946) Scientific Man Vs. Power Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 203

Morgenthau, H.J. (1948) Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. 7th ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Onuf, N.G. (1989) World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. 1st ed. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

Reus-Smit, C. and Snidal, D. (2008) The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. Oxford University Press, p. 307

Segall, M. (2012) The Role of Iran Security Forces in the Syrian Bloodshed. Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs: Jerusalem Viewpoints. No. 589

Sharp, J.M. and Blanchard, C.M. (2013) Armed Conflict in Syria: U.S. and International Response. Current Politics and Economics of the Middle East, v.4 (3), p. 403

Sick, G., Parsi, T., Takeyh, R. and Slavin, B. (2008) Symposiums: Iran’s Strategic Concerns and U.S. Interests. ProQuest, v.15 (1), pp. 1-18

Slaughter, A.M. (2011) International relations, principal theories. Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, p. 129

Smith, S., Kurki, M. and Dunne, T. (2016) International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. 4th ed. Oxford University Press.

Sommier, R.L. (2014) Our Full Interview with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Paris Match online, 3rd December 2014 Available at: Accessed: 1st November 2017

Spaulding, H. (2015) Russia’s False ISIS Narrative in Syria: December 1, 2015. Institute for the Study of War (ISW).

Steele, B.J. (2017) The Politics of Constructivist International Relations in the US Academy. American Political Science Association. University of Utah, p. 71

Swaine, M.D. (2012) Chinese Views of the Syrian Conflict. China Leadership Monitor, v.39 (2), pp. 1-26

Thompson, N. (2016) Syria’s war: Everything you need to know about how we got here. CNN News online, 25th February 2016 Available at: Accessed: 29th October 2017

Viotti, P.R. and Kauppi, M.V. (2010) International Relations Theory. 4th ed. New York: Pearson Education Incorporated, p. 277

Waltz, K.N. (1979) Theory of International Politics. New York: Random House, p. 213

Weber, C. (2014) International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction, 4th ed. London and New York: Routledge.

Wendt, A. (1992) Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization, pp. 391-425

Wimmen, H. and Asseburg, M. (2012) Civil War in Syria: External Actors and Interests as Drivers of Conflict. Berlin: SWP Comments, pp. 1-7

Yan, H. (2013) Syria allies: Why Russia, Iran and China are standing by the regime. CNN News online, 30th August 2013 Available at: Accessed: 13th November 2017

Yeginsu, C. (2015) Turkey, Anticipating Attack, Strikes 3 ISIS Targets in Syria With Jets. The New York Times online, 24th July 2015 Available at: Accessed: 18th November 2017