In recent years, constructivism seems to be more influential, especially regarding issues related to cultural identity. Keeping this in mind and taking consideration that contemporary threats, such as interstate conflicts and terrorism have a strong association with identities, constructivism is able to give adequate answers. However, we should try to combine different disciplines in order to deliberate on complicated issues that exist in modern times. Those different and competing disciplines focus on different levels of analysis and as a result, give different answers as causes of contemporary issues. Hence, if someone wishes to be prudent, he has to research on different levels of analysis and on a flourish of actors. So, he has to understand multiple theories.

Agree. But I believe ES is good at explaining how order exists at internatiol level, despite the anarchic nature of international relations as argued by Realists.

Anarchic nature does not mean anarchy. Furthermore, almost every discrete branch of Realism, same as other disciplines, has an adequate order for stability and order (e.g. realistic approaches explaining how and why international regimes are established or why bipolar system are more stable than multipolar) So, one basic difference is the use of different words, that is, order (for ES) and stability (for Realists), explaining the same situation grosso modo.

The international context is governed by realism and practice. However, at present, communism has been reborn or redefined in terrorism as its firearm and cultural polychromy: the rights of homosexuals, feminism, and other rights of minorities: abortion, climate change, vegetarian food, the sustainability of planet earth, constructivism and other concepts of the Frankfurt School. They are having control of the international agenda

Andreas, thank you for your insights. Realism has its own perspective in explaining order or stability. So does other theories. Of course anarchic nature doesnt necessarily mean anarchy. But the absence of a world government does in someway show that states compete. Interestingly, order, is able to be maintained...and it comes from commonalities held between/amongst states as argued by the ES scholars.

Bladimir Diaz, thank you for your response.

Rizal, you're welcome

Absence of order is anarchy and the attempts at global order somewhere minimise the scopes of conflict. Still the nature expresses itself in diversity and so goes the issue of identity. All theories are just like lanterns at throwing light on the complexities of interstate relations. Realism is at its best in explaining even the cureent scenarion, Brexit is an example, an attempt at reviving the lost glory. Constrctivism is a wider perspective of looking at the things, it would be beneficial to take the advantage of all the schools rather than siding with a specific one. Marxist perspective has its own insights.

Thank you Prof Harish.