College Political Science Quiz: Norms And Identity In Ir

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Norms And Identity In IrQuestion 1 of 20

In response to a government committing mass atrocities against its own population, a coalition of states argues for military intervention based on the emerging norm of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Other states vigorously oppose this, citing the foundational norm of state sovereignty and non-interference. This situation is a clear example of:

A failed norm cascade, as R2P has not been universally adopted by all states.

Norm contestation, where the meaning and priority of different international norms are in conflict.

Norm internalization, where the norm of sovereignty is so deeply held that it cannot be challenged.

The logic of consequences triumphing over the logic of appropriateness for the intervening states.

← Back to quizzes

College Political Science Quiz

College Political Science Quiz: Norms And Identity In Ir

Practice Norms And Identity In Ir in College Political Science with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Norms And Identity In Ir, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for College Political Science.

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

A failed norm cascade, as R2P has not been universally adopted by all states.
Norm contestation, where the meaning and priority of different international norms are in conflict. (correct answer)
Norm internalization, where the norm of sovereignty is so deeply held that it cannot be challenged.
The logic of consequences triumphing over the logic of appropriateness for the intervening states.

Explanation: 'Norm contestation' refers to situations where different norms conflict, or where there is active disagreement about a norm's meaning, scope, or application. The clash between the Responsibility to Protect (which implies conditional sovereignty) and the traditional norm of absolute state sovereignty is a textbook example of norm contestation in international relations. (A) is less precise; the core issue is the active conflict between two norms. (C) is inaccurate because the norm of sovereignty is clearly being challenged. (D) misapplies the terms; the conflict is between two different normative claims (two logics of appropriateness), not between norms and a cost-benefit calculation.

Question 2

An international norm promoting gender equality in political representation is advocated globally. In State X, a secular democracy, this leads to the adoption of quotas for female candidates. In State Y, a traditional monarchy, the norm is interpreted to mean that women should be appointed to advisory councils but not hold elected office. This phenomenon, where a global norm is adapted to fit local cultural contexts, is known as:

Norm rejection, since the original intent of the norm is not fully implemented.
Norm cascade, since the norm is spreading to different types of states.
Norm localization, where global norms are modified to cohere with local norms. (correct answer)
Norm subsidiarity, where political issues are handled at the lowest possible level.

Explanation: 'Norm localization' is a concept describing the process by which international norms are interpreted and adapted to fit with pre-existing local or domestic norms and cultural contexts. The scenario shows the same global norm being implemented in two very different ways that are consistent with the domestic political structures of each state. (A) is incorrect because the states are engaging with the norm, not rejecting it. (B) describes the speed of adoption, not the process of adaptation. (D) is a principle of governance, not the correct IR theory term for this process.

Question 3

A realist scholar criticizes the constructivist explanation for the end of the Cold War, which credits changing norms and the evolving identity of the Soviet Union under Gorbachev. What is the most probable basis for the realist's critique?

The constructivist argument overestimates the role of international institutions in constraining state behavior.
The constructivist argument fails to account for the crucial role of transnational advocacy networks in promoting new ideas.
The constructivist argument ignores the underlying cause, which was the severe relative economic and military decline of the Soviet Union. (correct answer)
The constructivist argument incorrectly assumes that state identities are static and cannot change over time.

Explanation: Realism prioritizes material factors, such as economic capacity and military power, as the primary drivers of state behavior. A realist critique of a constructivist (or any other) theory will almost always focus on the neglect of these material realities. The economic and military overstretch of the Soviet Union is the classic realist explanation for its collapse and the end of the Cold War, as it could no longer materially compete with the West. (A) is more of a neoliberal critique. (B) describes an element of constructivism, not a critique of it. (D) fundamentally misrepresents constructivism, which argues that identities do change.

Question 4

Following the establishment of a norm against the use of chemical weapons after World War I, a large number of states that had not been central to the initial negotiations rapidly ratified the Geneva Protocol. Many of these states did so due to pressure from other states and a desire to appear as legitimate members of the international community. This rapid, widespread adoption is best described as an example of:

Norm emergence, the initial stage where a norm is first advocated by entrepreneurs.
Norm internalization, the final stage where a norm is taken for granted.
A norm cascade, the stage where a norm rapidly spreads after a tipping point. (correct answer)
Norm contestation, where the meaning or application of a norm is disputed.

Explanation: A 'norm cascade' is the second stage in the norm life cycle, defined by the rapid and widespread adoption of a norm by states after a 'tipping point' has been reached. The key drivers of the cascade are social pressure and a desire for international legitimacy, precisely as described in the scenario. 'Norm emergence' (A) is the earlier stage of promotion. 'Norm internalization' (B) is the later stage where the norm becomes unquestioned. 'Norm contestation' (D) involves conflict over a norm, which is the opposite of the widespread adoption described.

Question 5

The United Nations General Assembly repeatedly passes resolutions condemning a particular state's practice of arbitrary detention. While these resolutions are non-binding, constructivist scholars argue they can still be highly influential. What is the most likely mechanism through which these resolutions promote a norm against arbitrary detention?

They directly authorize the use of economic sanctions or military force against the non-compliant state.
They serve as a platform for states to teach and persuade each other, defining what constitutes legitimate state behavior. (correct answer)
They alter the global balance of power by isolating the non-compliant state from its key military allies.
They create a legal precedent that is automatically enforceable in the domestic courts of all UN member states.

Explanation: From a constructivist perspective, International Organizations (IOs) like the UN function as agents of socialization. They provide a forum where states can debate, define, and promote intersubjective understandings of what constitutes appropriate behavior. By repeatedly passing resolutions, the UN helps to solidify a norm, 'teaching' the international community that arbitrary detention is illegitimate. (A) is incorrect as General Assembly resolutions are non-binding. (C) is a realist explanation focused on power, not norms. (D) is legally incorrect, as UN resolutions are not automatically enforceable domestic law.

Question 6

A newly independent state joins the United Nations and begins to participate in various international regimes. Over time, the state's foreign policy, which was initially isolationist, shifts to align more closely with the prevailing practices and expectations of the international community. A constructivist would most likely explain this shift as a result of:

Coercion by hegemonic powers forcing the state to accept their preferred policies.
Rational calculation that cooperation offers greater material benefits than isolation.
International socialization, through which the state learns and internalizes the norms of international society. (correct answer)
Domestic regime change that brought a new, more outward-looking political elite to power.

Explanation: Constructivists use the concept of 'international socialization' to explain how states' identities and interests can be shaped through interaction within international society. By participating in IOs and regimes, the new state is exposed to dominant norms and expectations, and over time it may internalize them, leading to a change in its foreign policy. Coercion (A) is a realist explanation, while rational calculation of material benefits (B) is a liberal/neoliberal explanation. Domestic change (D) is a possible factor, but the prompt's emphasis on the state's engagement with the international community makes socialization the most direct constructivist explanation.

Question 7

A developing country, seeking to attract foreign investment, begins to brand itself as a modern, democratic, and environmentally responsible state. It hires public relations firms, hosts climate conferences, and makes symbolic changes to its laws, even if enforcement is weak. This deliberate effort to shape its international identity to achieve material and social goals is best understood as:

External validation of a pre-existing and deeply-held national identity.
An example of international socialization leading to deep norm internalization.
Strategic social construction of a favorable international identity. (correct answer)
A liberal institutionalist approach to achieving economic interdependence.

Explanation: This scenario demonstrates that states can be active agents in shaping their own identities for instrumental purposes. The country is purposefully constructing and projecting a specific identity to gain legitimacy and tangible benefits (investment). This instrumental and deliberate use of norms and identity is what 'strategic social construction' describes. (A) is incorrect because the identity is being actively created, not just validated. (B) is unlikely, as the superficial changes ('weak enforcement') suggest something less than deep internalization. (D) captures the economic goal but misses the specifically constructivist mechanism of identity manipulation.

Question 8

In his influential statement, 'anarchy is what states make of it,' Alexander Wendt presents a fundamental constructivist challenge to neorealism. What is the core implication of this statement for understanding the concept of anarchy in international relations?

Anarchy is a temporary condition that will eventually be replaced by a world government or hegemonic order.
Anarchy allows powerful states to impose their preferred norms and identities on weaker states without consequence.
The structure of anarchy inevitably forces states into competitive, self-help behavior regardless of their identities.
The meaning and consequences of anarchy are not fixed, but are instead socially constructed through state interaction. (correct answer)

Explanation: When you encounter questions about constructivism versus neorealism in international relations theory, focus on how each approach views the nature of the international system itself. Neorealists see anarchy as creating fixed, inevitable patterns of state behavior, while constructivists argue that social interactions shape what anarchy actually means. Wendt's famous statement "anarchy is what states make of it" directly challenges neorealist assumptions by arguing that anarchy itself has no inherent meaning. Instead, states create the significance of anarchy through their interactions, shared understandings, and the identities they develop. If states consistently behave cooperatively and build trust, anarchy becomes a context for collaboration rather than conflict. The structure doesn't determine behavior—social construction does. Answer D correctly captures this core constructivist insight: anarchy's meaning and consequences emerge from state interactions rather than being predetermined by the structure itself. Answer A misses the point by focusing on anarchy's durability rather than its socially constructed nature. Answer B incorrectly suggests that anarchy automatically benefits powerful states, which reflects a realist power-politics view rather than Wendt's constructivist argument. Answer C directly contradicts Wendt by claiming anarchy "inevitably forces" certain behaviors—this is precisely the neorealist determinism that constructivists reject. Remember that constructivist questions often test whether you understand that international relations concepts like anarchy, sovereignty, or security are socially constructed rather than having fixed, natural meanings. Look for answers emphasizing social construction, shared meanings, and the role of ideas in shaping reality.

Question 9

A state, despite having limited military or economic power, successfully champions a global treaty banning the use of anti-personnel landmines. It achieves this by framing the issue in humanitarian terms, building a transnational coalition of like-minded states and non-governmental organizations, and using moral persuasion to pressure more powerful states. This state's role is best described as that of a:

Systemic leader, using hegemonic influence and material power to set the international agenda.
Norm entrepreneur, using persuasive strategies and moral appeals to promote a new standard of behavior. (correct answer)
Free rider, benefiting from a collective good without contributing to its creation or maintenance.
Rational actor, maximizing its material security interests through institutional agreements.

Explanation: The concept of a 'norm entrepreneur' describes actors (which can be states, individuals, or organizations) who seek to create new international norms through persuasion, moral argument, and coalition-building, rather than through material power. The scenario's emphasis on humanitarian framing and moral persuasion by a less powerful state is a textbook example of this role. A systemic leader (A) relies on material power. A free rider (C) avoids contributing. A rational actor maximizing material interests (D) does not fit the described motivation, which is humanitarian and moral.

Question 10

A political leader gives a major speech arguing that cross-border data flows are not just a policy problem but an 'existential threat' to national security and cultural integrity. By framing the issue in this manner, the leader seeks to justify extraordinary measures, such as severing internet connections, that would not be acceptable under normal political circumstances. This process of framing an issue as an existential threat through a speech act is central to which concept?

Norm externalization
Strategic narrative construction
The democratic peace theory
Securitization (correct answer)

Explanation: When you encounter questions about political leaders dramatically reframing policy issues as threats requiring extreme responses, you're dealing with security studies concepts that explain how ordinary problems become "security" matters. This scenario perfectly illustrates securitization - the process by which political actors use speech acts to transform normal policy issues into existential security threats that justify extraordinary measures outside standard political procedures. The leader's speech doesn't just describe a threat; it actively constructs cross-border data flows as an existential danger to legitimize extreme actions like internet shutdowns that would otherwise be politically unacceptable. This speech act is the core mechanism of securitization theory. Option A, norm externalization, refers to how international norms spread between countries and become internalized in domestic politics - not about framing issues as threats. Option B, strategic narrative construction, involves creating coherent stories about political events but lacks the specific security dimension and the justification of extraordinary measures that defines securitization. Option C, democratic peace theory, explains why democratic states rarely fight each other and is completely unrelated to this domestic framing process. The correct answer is D. Remember that securitization questions often feature this pattern: a speech act + existential threat language + justification for extraordinary measures. Look for politicians or officials using dramatic language to move issues from normal politics into the security realm, enabling responses that bypass usual democratic constraints.

Question 11

A democratic state with a long-standing identity as a champion of human rights is deciding whether to sign a lucrative trade deal with a country widely condemned for its use of forced labor. The state's economic advisors predict the deal would boost GDP, but its diplomatic corps warns it would violate the state's established principles. If the state ultimately rejects the trade deal, a constructivist scholar would most likely attribute this decision to:

The logic of consequences, where the long-term reputational costs are calculated to outweigh the short-term economic gains.
The logic of appropriateness, where the state's actions are guided by its perceived identity and associated norms of behavior. (correct answer)
A failure of the state to act as a unitary rational actor, allowing domestic politics to override the clear national interest.
The influence of a powerful domestic economic lobby that would be harmed by the new trade agreement.

Explanation: The 'logic of appropriateness' is a key constructivist concept suggesting that actors behave based on what is deemed legitimate and appropriate for their identity, rather than by calculating costs and benefits. Rejecting an economically beneficial deal to uphold an identity as a human rights champion is a classic example of this logic. The 'logic of consequences' (A) is a rationalist framework focused on cost-benefit analysis. While plausible, it misses the constructivist emphasis on identity as the primary motivator. (C) and (D) offer alternative realist or liberal explanations focused on domestic politics, but the question asks for the constructivist interpretation.

Question 12

An international human rights NGO publishes a detailed annual report documenting extrajudicial killings in Country X. The report is widely disseminated to global media, foreign governments, and international organizations. The government of Country X vehemently denies the allegations, calling the report an infringement on its sovereignty.

According to constructivist theory, what is the primary intended effect of this "naming and shaming" strategy?

To trigger automatic economic sanctions from a pre-existing international treaty regime.
To provide a legal basis for military intervention under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine.
To damage Country X's reputation and pressure it to conform to norms by appealing to its need for social legitimacy. (correct answer)
To directly incite a domestic uprising against the government of Country X by providing information to its citizens.

Explanation: "Naming and shaming" is a tactic used by norm entrepreneurs to enforce international norms. Its primary mechanism is social, not legal or material. By publicizing a state's violation of a norm, the strategy aims to damage the state's international reputation and legitimacy. This social pressure is intended to compel the state to change its behavior to regain its standing in the international community. (A) and (B) are incorrect because such reports do not automatically trigger sanctions or intervention. (D) may be a secondary effect, but the primary target in this international strategy is the state's external reputation and identity.

Question 13

The principle of state sovereignty, which holds that states have exclusive authority within their territorial boundaries, is a foundational element of the modern international system. This principle does not merely regulate interactions between states; it helps to define what a 'state' is and what makes it a legitimate actor in world politics. This illustrates that sovereignty is best understood as which type of norm?

A regulative norm, which governs the behavior of pre-existing actors.
A constitutive norm, which creates the very identity and status of actors. (correct answer)
A procedural norm, which specifies the correct steps for performing an action.
A prescriptive norm, which indicates what actions are required or forbidden.

Explanation: Constitutive norms are those that create or define the identities and actors themselves. The norm of sovereignty is the classic example because it defines what it means to be a 'state' in the international system. In contrast, regulative norms (A) govern the behavior of actors whose identities are already established (e.g., traffic laws regulate drivers). While sovereignty has regulative effects, its primary function is defining the actor itself, making it a constitutive norm. (C) and (D) are sub-types of regulative norms.

Question 14

State A has a deeply entrenched national identity as a 'peaceful mediator,' which has historically guided its foreign policy of neutrality and conflict resolution. A neighboring state, State B, undergoes a rapid military buildup and makes aggressive territorial claims. According to constructivist theory, which of the following responses by State A would be most likely?

State A will offer to mediate the dispute, acting in a manner consistent with its established identity. (correct answer)
State A will immediately form a military alliance against State B, as predicted by balance-of-power theory.
State A will do nothing, as its identity of neutrality prevents any involvement in external conflicts whatsoever.
State A will bandwagon with the aggressor, State B, to secure its own territorial integrity against a potential threat.

Explanation: When you encounter questions about state behavior and identity in international relations, you're dealing with constructivist theory, which emphasizes how states' identities and norms shape their actions rather than just material power considerations. Constructivist theory argues that states act in ways consistent with their established identities and social roles in the international system. State A's deeply entrenched identity as a "peaceful mediator" creates powerful expectations—both internal and external—about how it should behave. This identity doesn't just describe past actions; it actively constrains and guides future policy choices by defining what actions are "appropriate" for that state. Option A is correct because constructivists would predict that State A will maintain its mediator role even when faced with external threats. The state's identity as a peaceful mediator makes offering to mediate the dispute the most natural and expected response, reinforcing its established international role. Option B reflects realist balance-of-power thinking, which constructivists argue oversimplifies state behavior by focusing only on material threats while ignoring how identity constrains choices. Option C misunderstands the mediator identity—peaceful mediation actually requires involvement in conflicts, not complete withdrawal from them. Option D represents bandwagoning behavior that would fundamentally contradict State A's core identity, which constructivists argue states resist doing even under pressure. Remember that constructivist questions often test whether you understand how state identities create behavioral expectations that can override purely strategic calculations. Look for scenarios where established roles and norms conflict with what pure power politics might suggest.

Question 15

For decades, Country A and Country B, both possessing nuclear weapons, viewed each other as existential threats. After a change in leadership and a series of diplomatic engagements, they begin to view each other as partners in managing regional security. Their military capabilities remain unchanged. How would a constructivist like Alexander Wendt explain this transformation?

The distribution of material capabilities has been rendered irrelevant by the new diplomatic relationship.
Both states rationally concluded that the material costs of rivalry exceeded the potential benefits of cooperation.
A new hegemonic power has imposed a cooperative structure on the two former adversaries.
The intersubjective meanings attached to their material capabilities have changed through social interaction. (correct answer)

Explanation: This question tests your understanding of constructivism in international relations theory, particularly Alexander Wendt's famous argument that "anarchy is what states make of it." When you encounter scenarios about changing state relationships without material changes, think constructivist. Wendt would explain this transformation by focusing on how the meaning of nuclear weapons changed through social interaction. The weapons themselves didn't change—they remain the same physical objects with identical destructive capacity. However, through diplomatic engagement and leadership changes, both countries began to interpret these capabilities differently. What once symbolized mutual threat now represents shared responsibility for regional stability. This shift in intersubjective meaning—the shared understanding between the two states—fundamentally altered their relationship despite unchanged material conditions. Option A is wrong because constructivists don't claim material capabilities become irrelevant; rather, their meaning is socially constructed. Option B reflects rational choice theory, which emphasizes cost-benefit calculations rather than the social construction of meaning that defines constructivism. Option C suggests structural realism's focus on hegemonic power imposing order, but the scenario describes a transformation emerging from the two states' own interactions, not external imposition. Remember this key distinction: while realists focus on what states have (material capabilities) and liberals emphasize what states want (preferences and institutions), constructivists examine what capabilities and relationships mean to the actors involved. When you see unchanged material conditions but transformed relationships, think about how social interaction creates new shared meanings.

Question 16

An international treaty promoting freedom of the press gains widespread acceptance globally. However, State Z, an authoritarian state where the ruling elite's power depends on controlling information, refuses to ratify the treaty. The government's domestic political structure and its identity as a 'guardian of national stability' act as a filter, preventing the adoption of the international norm. This best illustrates which concept in the study of norms?

The primacy of domestic political culture in shaping all international norms.
The universal rejection of international norms that conflict with state sovereignty.
The failure of norm entrepreneurs to reach a tipping point for a norm cascade.
The role of domestic structure and identity in mediating international norm adoption. (correct answer)

Explanation: This question tests your understanding of how international norms spread and why some states resist adopting them despite global pressure. In international relations theory, norm adoption isn't automatic—domestic factors act as crucial mediating variables. The scenario describes a classic case where domestic political structure (authoritarian system dependent on information control) and state identity (self-perception as "guardian of national stability") create barriers to international norm adoption. These domestic factors literally filter how international norms are received, explaining why State Z rejects the press freedom treaty even when it gains widespread global acceptance. Answer D correctly identifies this phenomenon—domestic structures and identities don't just influence norm adoption, they actively mediate it by determining which international norms align with or threaten existing power arrangements and self-conceptions. Answer A is wrong because domestic political culture doesn't shape all international norms—many norms do get adopted despite domestic resistance, and the relationship is more complex than simple dominance. Answer B incorrectly suggests universal rejection of norms conflicting with sovereignty, but many states do adopt norms that limit their sovereignty when those norms align with domestic interests or identities. Answer C misidentifies the issue as one about norm entrepreneurs and tipping points, but the treaty already achieved widespread acceptance—the problem isn't reaching critical mass but rather domestic resistance in specific states. When studying norm diffusion, remember that international acceptance doesn't guarantee domestic adoption. Always look for how domestic political structures and state identities create filters that can either facilitate or block international norm acceptance.

Question 17

In the 19th century, the international norm against piracy became firmly established, with states creating a system of universal jurisdiction to prosecute pirates. This was a shift from earlier periods where state-sponsored privateering was a common practice. A constructivist explanation for this shift would likely emphasize which factor?

A change in the collective identity of 'civilized' states, which came to define piracy as a barbaric crime against all humanity. (correct answer)
The rise of a hegemonic naval power, Great Britain, which possessed the material capability to enforce maritime order.
The rising financial costs of piracy to major trading nations, which made its suppression a matter of rational economic interest.
The development of new international legal frameworks that made prosecution easier for domestic court systems to handle.

Explanation: When you encounter questions about shifts in international norms, you need to identify which theoretical lens the question is asking you to apply. Constructivism focuses on how shared ideas, identities, and norms shape state behavior, rather than material power or economic interests. A constructivist would explain the shift from accepted privateering to universal anti-piracy jurisdiction by examining how states' collective understanding of legitimate behavior changed. Answer A correctly identifies this mechanism: "civilized" states began to see themselves as part of a community that defined piracy as barbaric and unacceptable. This new shared identity created obligations to suppress piracy everywhere, leading to universal jurisdiction. The norm change wasn't just about rules—it was about what kind of actors states wanted to be. Answer B reflects realist thinking, emphasizing Britain's material naval power as the driving force. While Britain's capabilities mattered, constructivists focus on ideational rather than material factors. Answer C takes a rationalist approach, suggesting cost-benefit calculations drove the change. Though economic interests played a role, this doesn't capture the constructivist emphasis on identity and appropriateness. Answer D points to legal mechanisms, but constructivists care more about why states wanted those legal frameworks in the first place—which traces back to changing conceptions of appropriate state behavior. Remember that constructivist explanations center on the power of ideas: look for answers involving changing identities, evolving understandings of appropriateness, or shifts in what constitutes legitimate behavior in the international system.

Question 18

Both a liberal institutionalist and a constructivist might observe that states frequently comply with the terms of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). However, their explanations for this compliance would differ. Which of the following best captures the constructivist explanation?

States comply because the norm has been internalized, making chemical weapon use illegitimate and contrary to a modern state's identity. (correct answer)
States comply because they fear that powerful states will impose punishing sanctions for any violation of the treaty.
States comply because the CWC provides information, lowers transaction costs, and facilitates reciprocity among members.
States comply because the treaty provisions were designed to be minimally intrusive and do not conflict with their core security interests.

Explanation: This question tests your understanding of how different International Relations theories explain state behavior, specifically comparing liberal institutionalism with constructivism. When you encounter theory comparison questions, focus on each theory's core assumptions about what motivates states. Constructivists emphasize that state behavior is shaped by shared norms, identities, and social meanings that develop through interaction. They argue that states don't just calculate costs and benefits—they act according to what they believe is appropriate for actors with their identity. Answer A captures this perfectly: states comply with the Chemical Weapons Convention because the norm against chemical weapons has become internalized, making such weapons illegitimate and incompatible with how modern states see themselves. Answer B reflects a realist explanation focused on power and coercion—states comply to avoid punishment from stronger actors. This isn't how constructivists think about compliance. Answer C represents the liberal institutionalist explanation that the question contrasts with constructivism. Liberal institutionalists focus on how institutions solve cooperation problems by providing information, reducing transaction costs, and enabling reciprocity. Answer D suggests states comply because the treaty doesn't interfere with their interests, which misses both theories' key insights about why international cooperation occurs. Remember this pattern: constructivists emphasize internalized norms and identity ("this is who we are"), while liberal institutionalists emphasize institutional mechanisms that facilitate cooperation ("this is how we solve collective action problems"). Look for identity and legitimacy language to spot constructivist explanations.

Question 19

According to constructivist theory, what is the primary intended effect of this "naming and shaming" strategy?

To trigger automatic economic sanctions from a pre-existing international treaty regime.
To provide a legal basis for military intervention under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine.
To damage Country X's reputation and pressure it to conform to norms by appealing to its need for social legitimacy. (correct answer)
To directly incite a domestic uprising against the government of Country X by providing information to its citizens.

Question 20

State A will offer to mediate the dispute, acting in a manner consistent with its established identity. (correct answer)
State A will immediately form a military alliance against State B, as predicted by balance-of-power theory.
State A will do nothing, as its identity of neutrality prevents any involvement in external conflicts whatsoever.
State A will bandwagon with the aggressor, State B, to secure its own territorial integrity against a potential threat.