COVID-19 and International Relations Theory: A Comparative Analysis of Realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic represents a critical juncture in global politics, exposing the strengths and limitations of dominant international relations (IR) theories in explaining complex and transnational crises. This study examines the explanatory capacity of realism, liberalism, and constructivism in interpreting the political and systemic implications of the pandemic. Adopting a qualitative and comparative analytical approach, the research draws on secondary sources, including scholarly literature, policy reports, and institutional data, to assess state behavior, patterns of international cooperation, and the role of norms and identities during the crisis.

The findings indicate that realism effectively explains the resurgence of state-centric policies, strategic competition, and the prioritization of national interests, particularly in border control and vaccine distribution. Liberalism highlights the significance of interdependence, international institutions, and cooperation, yet its assumptions are challenged by the limited effectiveness of collective responses. Constructivism provides valuable insights into how ideas, identities, and norms shape state behavior and public responses, although it offers limited predictive precision.

The study concludes that no single theoretical framework adequately captures the multifaceted nature of the COVID-19 crisis. It therefore advocates for a synthesized and pluralist approach that integrates material, institutional, and ideational dimensions. Such an approach enhances the analytical relevance of IR theory and contributes to ongoing debates on adapting theoretical frameworks to address non-traditional security challenges in an increasingly interconnected global system.