Introduction
This essay examines the Syrian Civil War, a significant global security crisis that emerged in 2011, as a case study to compare how three dominant international security theories—Realism, Liberal Institutionalism, and Constructivism—explain its origins, dynamics, and potential solutions. The Syrian conflict, rooted in political repression and escalating into a multifaceted proxy war, has had profound implications for regional and global security, involving major powers and international organisations. This analysis will critically evaluate each theoretical framework, assessing their strengths and limitations in explaining the crisis. Ultimately, it will argue that Realism provides the most compelling explanation due to its emphasis on power dynamics and state interests, which are central to understanding the conflict’s persistence and complexity. The discussion draws on a range of academic sources to ensure a sound understanding of both the theoretical perspectives and the empirical context of the Syrian crisis.
Background to the Syrian Crisis
The Syrian Civil War began in March 2011, triggered by the Arab Spring protests against President Bashar al-Assad’s authoritarian regime. Initially a domestic uprising, the conflict rapidly escalated due to brutal government repression, drawing in regional and international actors such as Iran, Russia, Turkey, and the United States (Phillips, 2016). The war has caused over 500,000 deaths, displaced millions, and created a humanitarian catastrophe, while also providing fertile ground for extremist groups like ISIS (UNHCR, 2020). The involvement of foreign powers has transformed the conflict into a proxy war, complicating efforts to achieve peace. This intricate web of actors and interests provides a valuable context for testing the explanatory power of international security theories.
Realism: Power and State Interest as Drivers of Conflict
Realism, a theory rooted in the belief that international relations are driven by state power and self-interest in an anarchic system, offers a compelling lens to analyse the Syrian crisis (Morgenthau, 1948). Realists argue that states prioritise their security and strategic interests over moral or ideological concerns. In the Syrian context, this perspective explains the involvement of external powers as a struggle for regional dominance. For instance, Russia’s support for Assad’s regime is seen as an effort to maintain its geopolitical influence in the Middle East and protect its naval base in Tartus (Allison, 2013). Similarly, Iran’s backing of Assad aligns with its aim to counter Saudi Arabia’s influence and secure a Shia corridor to Lebanon (Goodarzi, 2016). From a Realist viewpoint, the origins of the crisis lie in the power vacuum created by Assad’s weakened state, while the dynamics are sustained by competing national interests. Solutions, therefore, are limited to power-sharing agreements or military dominance by one faction, as cooperation is unlikely in an environment of mutual distrust (Waltz, 1979). Realism’s strength lies in its clear focus on material interests and power dynamics, which are indeed central to the Syrian conflict. However, it overlooks the role of non-state actors like ISIS and the ideological dimensions of the war, limiting its explanatory scope.
Liberal Institutionalism: The Role of Institutions and Cooperation
Liberal Institutionalism posits that international cooperation through institutions can mitigate conflict and promote stability (Keohane, 1984). Applied to the Syrian crisis, this theory suggests that the conflict’s escalation reflects a failure of international institutions like the United Nations to enforce norms of peace and human rights. The UN Security Council’s repeated vetoes by Russia and China on resolutions concerning Syria highlight the limitations of institutional mechanisms in the face of great power rivalry (Weiss, 2014). Liberal Institutionalists might argue that the origins of the crisis stem from the lack of democratic governance in Syria, which could have been addressed through international support for reforms during the Arab Spring. The dynamics of the conflict, from this perspective, are exacerbated by the absence of effective collective security measures. Solutions, therefore, would involve strengthening international institutions, promoting diplomatic negotiations, and enforcing humanitarian norms through mechanisms like peacekeeping missions (Ikenberry, 2011). While this framework offers hope for cooperative solutions, its weakness lies in its underestimation of the deep-seated mistrust and conflicting interests among states, as seen in the paralysis of the UN. Thus, its applicability to the Syrian case seems limited.
Constructivism: Identity and Norms Shaping Conflict
Constructivism, by contrast, focuses on the role of ideas, identities, and social norms in shaping international relations (Wendt, 1999). This theory suggests that the Syrian crisis cannot be fully understood without considering the ideological and sectarian divides that fuel it. The origins of the conflict, from a Constructivist perspective, lie in the social construction of Assad’s regime as a brutal oppressor by opposition groups and the international community, as well as the sectarian identities (e.g., Sunni versus Alawite) that have polarised Syrian society (Hinnebusch, 2018). The dynamics of the war are sustained by narratives of victimhood and resistance, which perpetuate violence even when material interests might suggest compromise. External actors, too, are influenced by constructed norms—Western states frame intervention as a moral duty, while Russia constructs its role as a defender of sovereignty (Checkel, 2013). Solutions, therefore, might involve changing narratives through dialogue and addressing underlying grievances to reshape identities. While Constructivism offers valuable insights into the cultural and ideological dimensions of the conflict, it struggles to explain the material power struggles that dominate the crisis, such as military interventions by foreign states. Its abstract focus on ideas can also make practical solutions harder to identify.
Critical Evaluation: Which Theory is Most Compelling?
Comparing the three frameworks, Realism emerges as the most compelling explanation for the Syrian crisis. Its focus on state power and national interests directly accounts for the involvement of major powers like Russia and Iran, as well as the failure of peace initiatives due to competing strategic goals (Mearsheimer, 2001). The proxy nature of the conflict, with states arming different factions to secure geopolitical advantages, aligns closely with Realist predictions of behaviour in an anarchic system. While Liberal Institutionalism provides a normative vision for resolving the crisis through cooperation, its assumptions about the effectiveness of institutions are undermined by the veto power dynamics in the UN Security Council, rendering it less applicable to the Syrian case (Keohane & Martin, 1995). Constructivism, although insightful in highlighting ideological drivers, falls short in addressing the tangible military and economic interests at play, which are arguably more decisive in sustaining the conflict (Hopf, 1998). Realism, therefore, offers the most robust framework for understanding both the origins and persistent dynamics of the crisis, even if it does not fully capture non-state and ideological factors.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Syrian Civil War serves as a complex case study for evaluating international security theories. Realism provides the most compelling explanation by focusing on the role of power and state interests in driving the conflict, particularly through the involvement of external powers. Liberal Institutionalism and Constructivism offer alternative perspectives, emphasising the potential for institutional cooperation and the role of identity, respectively, but they are less effective in addressing the core dynamics of the crisis. The implications of this analysis suggest that solutions to such conflicts may need to prioritise pragmatic power-sharing arrangements over idealistic cooperative or ideological approaches. Future research could explore how hybrid frameworks, combining elements of these theories, might better capture the multifaceted nature of modern security crises. Ultimately, understanding the Syrian conflict through Realism highlights the enduring challenge of achieving peace in a world dominated by competing national interests.
References
- Allison, R. (2013) Russia and Syria: Explaining alignment with a regime in crisis. International Affairs, 89(4), 795-823.
- Checkel, J. T. (2013) Theoretical pluralism in IR: Possibilities and limits. In W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, & B. A. Simmons (Eds.), Handbook of International Relations (2nd ed., pp. 220-241). Sage Publications.
- Goodarzi, J. (2016) Iran and the Syrian conflict: Continuity and change in regional strategy. Middle East Policy, 23(2), 46-59.
- Hinnebusch, R. (2018) The sectarianization of the Syrian conflict. International Affairs, 94(5), 1035-1052.
- Hopf, T. (1998) The promise of constructivism in international relations theory. International Security, 23(1), 171-200.
- Ikenberry, G. J. (2011) Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order. Princeton University Press.
- Keohane, R. O. (1984) After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton University Press.
- Keohane, R. O., & Martin, L. L. (1995) The promise of institutionalist theory. International Security, 20(1), 39-51.
- Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W.W. Norton & Company.
- Morgenthau, H. J. (1948) Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Alfred A. Knopf.
- Phillips, C. (2016) The Battle for Syria: International Rivalry in the New Middle East. Yale University Press.
- UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees). (2020) Syria emergency. UNHCR Reports.
- Waltz, K. N. (1979) Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wesley.
- Weiss, T. G. (2014) Governing failure: The United Nations and the humanitarian crises in Syria. Global Governance, 20(3), 349-366.
- Wendt, A. (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge University Press.
