The paper explores the claims and reality of IR theory in the case of social constructivism applied to human rights regimes in East Asia Introduction : Part 1: Foundations of IO theory The paper explores the basic functions of IO theory. The first function of theory is description and understanding. Theory describes reality, or presents a mental picture of the world whether or not one accepts it as objective reality. The second function of theory is explanation; in this sense, theory offers ways of making causal linkages between different sets of phenomena. The third function of theory is prediction, although not everyone will agree that this is a legitimate or desirable function of theory. Finally, theory in international relations is often about transformation. It’s supposed to deal with the question not just of what is, but also what ought to be. Part 2: IR constructivist theory: the spiral model In this section I will evaluate, wherever possible and appropriate, the constructivist theory of IR in terms of its descriptive, explanatory, predictive and transformative claims with regard to human rights regimes in East Asia. The theoretical spiral model developed by Risse et al (1999) presumes that states that repress human rights go through a five stage model of transformation from initial brute repression to a final, teleological Western liberal stage of rule compliance under the joint pressure of transnational advocacy groups and domestic opposition groups. Part 3: Claims and realities of IR constructivism Explanatory deficits? This section explores the short-comings of constructivism with regard to domestic opposition to external human rights norms in East Asia. Does constructivism underestimate the dynamics of domestic opposition against international norms? What is the role of the military in the process of norm contestation? Cultural biais of IR constructivism? This section questions whether constructivism contains ethnocentrist elements. Ethnocentrism is the tendency to view one’s own cultural and political norms and practices as being superior to those of others, and to either disregard the beliefs and actions of others or to read and evaluate them in terms of one’s own. This part investigates the cultural biais contained in constructivism by shedding light on: 1. the teleological nature of the theory (from repressive stage to Western liberal stage) 2. the predominant role given to transnational liberal Western advocacy networks such as AI or Human Rights Watch 3. the assumption that Western human rights norms are identical with values in Asia Transformatory deficits? One of the criticisms of constructivism is that most states in the world do – de facto- never achieve the final stage of norm compliance. This sections questions the transforming impact of norms on human rights regimes in East Asia and verifies if stage five (norm compliance) is achievable or not.
