Challenging the Norm: the Carter Administration’s Policy on the Grenada Revolution in the Focus of Realist Constructivism

Using the course chosen by the Carter administration in relation to the Grenada Revolution as an example, this article examines attempts to reform the foundations of US foreign policy. To explore this issue, the author draws on realist constructivism, which suggests that the definition of national interests and the formation of a state's foreign policy strategy, along with strengthening its power and influence, are underpinned by its desire to preserve its identity and adhere to certain value systems. By legitimizing human rights and transforming them into a principle of respect for national sovereignty, Carter sought to challenge the Monroe Doctrine and the established Cold War practice of interference in the internal affairs of Latin American countries. Examining the imperatives of the US government's decision­-making regarding Grenada, the author concludes that, contrary to the widespread opinion in domestic and foreign historiography that the United States chose a path of confrontation with the revolutionary government of Grenada, discrediting it, and undermining the country's economic stability, during Carter's presidency Washington sought to establish a dialogue with the new government of this island state. The case of Grenada, like other Central America and Caribbean nations undergoing domestic political transformation, became embroiled in the internationalized conflicts characteristic of the Cold War. This context provides a critical lens for tracing the logic, contradictions and challenges inherent in Carter’s “moral” foreign policy. This paper illustrates how international dynamics and the balance of domestic political forces in both countries ultimately undermined this strategy, yielding consequences that often contradicted the reforms’ original objectives. Beyond its historical significance, this case offers valuable insights for scholars of International Relations theory. As an empirical study, it underscores the relevance and efficacy of recently proposed theoretical approaches, making it a compelling subject for both historians and IR theorists.

1. Alexeyeva T.A. (2014). Myslit' konstruktivistski: otkryvaya mnogogolosyy mir. [Think like constructivist: discovering a polyphonic world]. Sravnitel'naya politika. Vol. 5. No. 1. P. 4–21. https://doi.org/10.18611/2221-3279-2014-5-1(14)-4-21

2. Greenstein, F. I. (2007). Lichnost' prezidenta i liderstvo. [Presidential Personality and Leadership]. Sotsiologiya vlasti. No. 1. P. 175–186. Istomin I.A. (2023). Opravdaniye vmeshatel'stva? Rol' ‘doktriny Monro’ v legitimatsii i stigmatizatsii

3. interventsionizma v politike SSHA v XIX – nachale XX v. [Justification of intervention? The role of the Monroe Doctrine in legitimizing and stigmatizing interventionism in US policy in the 19th – early 20th centuries]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 25: Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya i mirovaya politika. Vol. 15. No. 3. P. 11–55. https://doi.org/10.48015/2076-7404-2023-15-3-11-55

4. Iserov A.A. (2023). Doktrina Monro, ili Vlast' slova. [The Monroe Doctrine, or the Power of the Word]. Rossiya v global'noy politike. Vol. 21. No. 6. P. 37–63. DOI: 10.31278/1810-6439-2023-21-6-37-63

5. Kosolapov N.A. (2016). Obshchesistemnyye interesy vmesto natsional'nykh. Klassicheskiye ponyatiya i rossiyskaya spetsifika [System-wide interests instead of national ones. Classical concepts and Russian specificity]. Rossiya v global'noy politike. No. 2. P. 34–53.

6. Konyshev V.N., Sergunin A.A., Subbotin S.V. (2016). Sotsial'nyy konstruktivizm o problemakh bezopasnosti. [Social constructivism on security issues]. Teorii i problemy politicheskikh issledovaniy. No. 3. P. 94–112.

7. Kochetkov V.V. (2024). Teoriya konstruktivizma v mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniyakh. [Theory of constructivism in international relations]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 27. Globalistika i geopolitika. No. 3. P. 3–18. DOI: 10.56429/2414-4894-2024-49-3-03-18

8. Kotsur G.V. (2019). Problemy normativnogo vzaimodeystviya v konstruktivistskikh teoriyakh mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy. [Problems of normative interaction in constructivist theories of international relations]. Izvestiya Ural'skogo federal'nogo universiteta. Seriya 3. Obshchestvennyye nauki. Vol. 14. No. 3 (191). P. 161–170.

9. Mironov V.V. (2012) Latinoamerikanskiy vektor vo vneshney politike SSHA: evolyutsiya doktrinal'nykh ustanovok i faktory formirovaniya v sovremennosti. [Latin American vector in US foreign policy: evolution of doctrinal attitudes and factors of formation in modern times]. Vestnik Omskogo universiteta. No. 1. P. 79–86.

10. Nitoburg E., Rovinskaya Ye. (1984). Grenada: sud'by bol'shoy revolyutsii v malen'koy strane [Grenada: the fate of a great revolution in a small country]. Novaya i noveyshaya istoriya. No. 5. P. 124–148.

11. Stroganova Ye.D. (2012). Politika SSHA v otnoshenii levykh rezhimov Latinskoy Ameriki (chast' chetvertaya) [US policy towards left-wing regimes in Latin America (part four)]. Bereginya/777/Sova. No. 3. P. 55–63.

12. Stroganova Ye.D. (2017). SSHA i levyye rezhimy Latinskoy Ameriki [The USA and left-wing regimes in Latin America]. Moscow: Ves' Mir. 288 p.

13. Testov O. V. (2005). Grenada: Revolyutsiya i kontrrevolyutsiya (1979–1983 gg.). Avtoreferat dissertatsii na soiskaniye uchenoy stepeni kandidata istoricheskikh nauk. [Grenada: revolution and counterrevolution (1979–1983). Abstract of a dissertation for the degree of candidate of historical sciences]. Moscow. 20 p.

14. Khudaykulova A.V., Neklyudov N.Ya. (2019). Kontseptsiya ontologicheskoy bezopasnosti v mezhdunarodno-politicheskom diskurse [The concept of ontological security in international political discourse]. MGIMO Review of International Relations. Vol. 12. No. 6. P. 129–149. https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2019-6-69-129-149

15. Yudin N.V. (2018). Diskussiya ob obrazakh sily v teorii mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy: povorot ne tuda? [Discussion of Images of Power in the Theory of International Relations: A wrong turn?]. Mezhdunarodnyye protsessy. Vol. 16. No. 3. P. 84–99. https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2020.18.1.60.8

16. Barkin J.S. (2003). Realist Constructivism. International Studies Review. Vol. 5. No. 3. P. 325–342. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1079-1760.2003.00503002.x

17. Barkin J.S. (2004). Realist Constructivism аnd Realist-Constructivisms. International Studies Review. Vol. 6. No. 2. P. 348–352. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1521-9488.2004.419_6.x

18. Barkin J.S. (2009). Realism, Constructivism, and International Relations Theory. APSA Toronto Meeting Paper. 22 p. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1451682

19. Barkin J.S. (2010). Realist Constructivism: Rethinking International Relation Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 204 p.

20. Barkin J.S. (ed.) (2020). The Social Construction of State Power: Applying Realist Constructivism. Bristol: Bristol University Press. 246 p. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv114c761

21. Benjamin J. (1987). The Framework of U.S. Relations with Latin America in the Twentieth Century: An Interpretive Essay. Diplomatic History. Vol. 11. No. 2. P. 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7709.1987.tb00007.x

22. Brzezinski Z. (1970). Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era. New York: The Viking Press. 123 p.

23. Chomsky N. (2015). Turning the Tide: U.S. Intervention in Central America and the Struggle for Peace. Chicago: Haymarket Books. 464 p.

24. Crowley-Vigneau A., Baykov A., Wohlforth W. (2023). Realist Constructivism: a New Perspective on Norm Theory. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 21. No. 2. P. 44–62. https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2023.21.2.73.3

25. Delacour J.O. (2020). Taking Co-constitution Seriously: Explaining an Ambiguous US Approach to Latin America. In: J. S. Barkin (ed.) The Social Construction of State Power: Applying Realist Constructi vism. Bristol: Bristol University Press. P. 140–160. https://doi.org/10.46692/9781529209846.007

26. Finnemore M. (1996). National Interests in International Society. Ithaca; London: Cornell University Press. 167 p.

27. Finnemore M., Sikkink K. (1998). International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization. Vol. 52. No. 4. P. 887–918.

28. Gates R. (1997). From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider's Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War. New York: Simon & Schuster. 607 p.

29. Guzzini S. (2020). Saving Realist Prudence. In: J. S. Barkin (ed.) The Social Construction of State Power: Applying Realist Constructivism. Bristol: Bristol University Press. P. 202–218. https://doi.org/10.46692/9781529209846.010

30. Iancu A. (2020). The Bridging Capacity of Realist Constructivism: The Normative Evolution of Human Security and the Responsibility to Protect. In: J. S. Barkin (ed.) The Social Construction of State Power: Applying Realist Constructivism. Bristol: Bristol University Press. P. 171–192. https://doi.org/10.46692/9781529209846.008

31. Jackson P.T, Nexon D.H. (2004). Constructivist Realism or Realist-Constructivism? International Studies Review. Vol. 6. No. 2. P. 337–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1521-9488.2004.419_2.x

32. Jepperson R.L., Wendt A., Katzenstein P. (1996). Norms, identity, and culture in national security. In: P. Katzenstein (ed.) Culture and National Security. New York: Columbia University Press. P. 33–75.

33. Michael A. (2018). Realist-Constructivism and the India–Pakistan Conflict: A New Theoretical Approach for an Old Rivalry. Asian Politics & Policy. Vol. 10. No. 1. P. 100–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12365c

34. Michaels E. (2022). Renewing Realist Constructivism: Does It Have Potential as a Theory of Foreign Policy? Teoria Polityki. No. 6. P. 101–122. https://doi.org/10.4467/25440845TP.22.006.16006

35. Moffett III G.D. (1985). The Limits of Victory: Ratification of the Panama Canal Treaties. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 261p.

36. Nexon D.H. (2005). Creating Insecurity: Realism, Constructivism, and US Security Policy by Anthony D. Lott. Political Science Quarterly. Vol. 120. No. 3. P. 527–528. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-165X.2005.tb01404.x

37. Prados J. (2006). Safe for Democracy. The Secret Wars of the CIA. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee. 736 p.

38. Rose E.A. (2002). Dependency and Socialism in the Modern Caribbean. Superpower Intervention in Guyana, Jamaica, and Grenada, 1970–1985. Boston: Lexington Books. 452 p.

39. Schoenhals K., Melanson R. (2019). Revolution and Intervention in Grenada. The New Jewel Movement, the United States, and the Caribbean. London; New York: Routledge. 211 p.

40. Sjoberg L. (2020). Permutations and Combinations in Theorizing Global Politics: Whither Realist Constructivism. In: J. S. Barkin (ed.) The Social Construction of State Power: Applying Realist Constructivism. Bristol: Bristol University Press. P. 180–201. https://doi.org/10.46692/9781529209846.009

41. Sterling-Folker J. (2004). Realist-Constructivism and Morality. International Studies Review. Vol. 6. No. 2. P. 341–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1521-9488.2004.419_3.x

42. Sterling-Folker J. (2009). Neoclassical Realism and Identity: Peril Despite Profit Across the Taiwan Strait. In: S.E. Lobell, N.M. Ripsman, J.W. Taliaferro (eds) Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 99–138. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811869.004

43. Talavera F., Goméz P. (2015). La revolución en Granada y la izquierda trasnacional (1979–1983). XI Jornadas de Sociolog í a. Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad de Buenos Aires. Buenos Aires. 17 p. URL: https://cdsa.aacademica.org/000-061/647.pdf (accessed: 10.10.2025).

44. Williams G. (2007). US–Grenada Relations: Revolution ana Intervention in the Backyard. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 310 p.