Realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism. Which theory is most accurate?

Since we have eminent scholars of international relations
who adhere to and promote each of these theories, there is no objective way to answer
this question.  I would encourage you to think about this on your own to determine which
theory you think best fits the reality in the world
today.

I would argue for constructivism.  This theory holds
that international relations are heavily influenced by the ways in which states perceive
themselves and other nations.  I believe that this is a more realistic (for want of a
better term) approach to international relations than realism or
liberalism.

Realists hold that countries will always work
to increase their power.  I simply do not think this is true.  The US, for one, often
does things that seem unlikely to make it more powerful.  It does so because, for
example, it sees itself as a democratic nation that should spread its system to the rest
of the world.  Realists also hold that states act towards each other based on what the
other can do, not what it is likely to do.  If this were true, the US should be more
concerned about the power of England than of China.  Yet this is not the case because we
see England as a friend.

In both cases, the US seems to act
in a way that is determined by its view of itself and its mission in the world as well
as by its view of other countries and how compatible those countries are with its own
values.  This is most similar to what constructivists predict and I, therefore, believe
most in constructivism.