The Third-Way Trap? Constructivist Perception of Sanctions

Abstract

The study examines whether it is relevant to use constructivist research instruments in order to study the sanctions and the so-called countersanctions that were imposed on Russia and then by Russia after the events in Crimea in 2014 and February 24. I develop the arguments that were presented in the work “Sanctions in IR: Understanding, Defining, Studying” in an attempt to assess the explanatory capabilities of the three leading paradigms in IR. The question posed is: do realism, liberalism and constructivism coherently and consistently explain the nature of the fast-growing scope of sanctions that tend to be implemented without the UN Security Council’s approval? The third way (constructivist one) seems to be efficient since there are difficulties with studying sanctions from the perception of the overwhelming rationality. To be concrete, I test the concept of self-fulfilling prophecy that obtained proponents in psychology and the theory of decision-making as well but hasn’t been actively promoted in IR studies. Nevertheless, it seems to be useful to explain the sustainability of sanction’s regime, which - paradoxically - from the first glance brings no profit but harm to each party involved. Moreover, it corelates with realist scholars’ perception of IR nature (particularly, security dilemma). Finally, four basic and one extra preconditions for self-fulfilling scenarios in the international arena are outlined, applicable not just to the “sanction’s” field, but also to the current principles of cross-state interactions.