The identity of state could be defined as relative stable social construct; however, due to the fact that identity develops through interaction process between structure and agent, it is impossible to choose only one of these categories. In other words, state‘s identity can‘t be a priori objectified; yet how to track an explicit record of state‘s identity change, if it is insignificant?
I argue that the explicit record of identity change could be tracked down methodologically combining together constructivism with Foreign policy analysis; foreign policy is a significant practice through which state identity is developed and revealed; at the same time foreign policy is a set of decisions, made by certain persons – decision makers. Thus, examining foreign policy decisions, which are different as much as possible, there is possibility to disclose particularly two important things: first, what foreign policy practice is repeated in these different decisions – in this stage the power of identity, as a structure becomes evident; second, what are new things, which have emerged – through it agent and its action is displayed, and possible identity change can be seen and recorded.
