Nicholas Greenwood Onuf

1. Introduction

Nicholas Greenwood Onuf is an American scholar of international relations whose work helped establish constructivism as a major approach in the study of world politics. Active from the late twentieth century onward, he is widely associated with the claim that “people make rules, rules make people,” a formula that encapsulates his view that social and international realities are constituted through rule‑governed practices and language rather than given as brute facts.

Onuf’s most influential book, World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations (1989), is often cited as a founding text of constructivist international relations. In it, he integrates insights from speech act theory, legal theory, and social philosophy to argue that what we call “the international system” is a historical product of ongoing world‑making by states, institutions, and individuals. Later work, especially Making Sense, Making Worlds (2013), clarified the philosophical implications of this position and its consequences for how scholars should study social life.

Within the broader landscape of social and political thought, Onuf occupies a distinctive position at the intersection of international relations theory, social ontology, and international legal theory. His ideas contributed to the reorientation of international relations away from exclusively materialist explanations associated with realism and some variants of liberalism, toward approaches that emphasize norms, identities, and the constitutive role of language.

Interpretations of Onuf’s importance vary. Some commentators credit him with supplying the original theoretical blueprint for constructivism in international relations; others treat his work as one influential strand within a more diverse constructivist movement. There is also debate over how radical his constructivism is—whether it implies deep social contingency and critical potential, or a more moderate, rule‑focused institutionalism.

2. Life and Historical Context

Nicholas Greenwood Onuf was born in New York City in 1941, placing his formative years in the early Cold War period. He studied at Johns Hopkins University, completing undergraduate and graduate work in political science during the 1960s, when behavioralism, realism, and modernization theory dominated Anglo‑American social science. This intellectual environment exposed him to mainstream international relations and comparative politics while also sharpening his sense of their limits.

His early academic career in the 1970s was shaped by work in international law and conventional international relations. The post‑World War II expansion of international organizations, decolonization, and debates over the legality of intervention and nuclear deterrence provided a concrete backdrop for his interest in rules, institutions, and legal order. During this time, he participated in scholarly networks that bridged legal analysis and empirical political science, an intersection that later proved central to his constructivist synthesis.

From the late 1980s onward, as he published World of Our Making and related essays, international relations scholarship was undergoing what some describe as a “third debate,” questioning the positivist and materialist assumptions of earlier paradigms. Onuf’s work both reflected and contributed to this broader rethinking. His later move to Florida International University in 2002 coincided with intensified discussions about globalization, global governance, and the post–Cold War order, against which his ideas about world‑making and rule‑based structures gained renewed relevance.

Historically, commentators often situate Onuf alongside other constructivist and critical theorists who emerged at roughly the same time, such as Alexander Wendt, Friedrich Kratochwil, and Emanuel Adler. While these figures developed distinct strands of constructivism, they shared a context marked by dissatisfaction with purely material power explanations and with sharp divides between international law and international politics.

3. Intellectual Development

Onuf’s intellectual trajectory is commonly described in four overlapping phases, each marked by shifting emphases rather than abrupt breaks.

Early Legal and IR Formation

In the 1960s and 1970s, Onuf’s work centered on international law, doctrine, and policy‑oriented studies. Influenced by legal realism and international legal process traditions, he examined how legal norms operated in practice, particularly in U.S. foreign policy and conflicts such as U.S.–Iranian relations. Proponents of this reading of his early work see it as grounded in empirical case studies and doctrinal analysis, with constructivist themes only implicit.

Formulation of Constructivism

During the 1980s, Onuf engaged more deeply with speech act theory (Austin, Searle), pragmatism, and sociological theories of rules. In articles and drafts that culminated in World of Our Making (1989), he developed the thesis that social reality is constituted by rule‑governed practices. Here he coined and elaborated the term constructivism for international relations, foregrounding world‑making through language.

Elaboration of Rule-Based Social Theory

In the 1990s and early 2000s, while other scholars popularized constructivism, Onuf refined his own framework. He elaborated a typology of rules, explored different “kinds of worlds” they produce, and addressed the agency–structure problem by emphasizing mutual constitution. This period also saw extensive engagement with critics and with neighboring approaches, including conventional constructivism, critical theory, and rationalism.

Meta-Theoretical Consolidation

From the mid‑2000s onward, especially in Making Sense, Making Worlds (2013), Onuf turned more explicitly to philosophy of social science. He clarified the epistemological commitments of constructivism, discussed interpretation and narrative in scholarship, and considered the ethical implications of world‑making. Commentators differ on whether this phase represents a move toward greater philosophical self‑reflection or a consolidation of themes present since his earliest writings.

4. Major Works

Onuf’s corpus spans detailed empirical studies, theoretical treatises, and collections of essays. Several works are typically highlighted as central to understanding his thought.

World of Our Making (1989)

This book is widely regarded as his seminal contribution. It introduces a systematic rule‑based constructivist social theory and applies it to international relations. Onuf develops the claim that social and international “worlds” are constituted through rules and speech acts, outlines a typology of rules, and links patterns of rule‑following to different forms of rule (governance and domination). Many scholars treat this work as the foundational text of constructivism in international relations, though some view it as one among several early constructivist formulations.

The Eagle and the Lion: The Tragedy of American‑Iranian Relations (1987)

Co‑authored with James Bill, this empirical study examines the breakdown of U.S.–Iranian relations. It reflects Onuf’s early engagement with foreign policy and international law, illustrating how misperceptions, legal arguments, and norms interacted in a specific bilateral relationship. Commentators sometimes use it to show how his later theoretical concerns grew out of empirical puzzles.

Levels, Limits, and Loyalties: Essays in World Politics

This collection gathers essays on international relations, sovereignty, and identity. It provides intermediate steps between World of Our Making and later writings, demonstrating how Onuf applied and refined his constructivist framework across varied topics, including loyalty, hierarchy, and global order.

International Legal Theory: Essays and Engagements, 1966–2006

Spanning four decades, this volume documents Onuf’s sustained engagement with international legal theory. It traces his movement from doctrinal analysis to a constructivist view of law as world‑making rules embedded in social practices.

Making Sense, Making Worlds (2013)

This later work synthesizes and clarifies his constructivism, focusing on meta‑theoretical and philosophical issues. It revisits key concepts—world‑making, rules, speech acts, agency, identity—and addresses methodological questions about interpretation, narrative, and the responsibilities of scholars. Readers often use it to access a more explicit and reflective statement of his overall position.

5. Core Ideas and World-Making

At the center of Onuf’s thought lies the concept of world‑making: the idea that social and international realities are actively produced and reproduced through rule‑governed practices and language. Rather than treating “the international system” as a pre‑existing structure, he argues that people continuously make and remake their worlds by following, invoking, contesting, and changing rules.

People Make Rules, Rules Make People

Onuf encapsulates his view in the formula:

"

“People make society, society makes people. People make rules, rules make people.”

— Nicholas G. Onuf, World of Our Making

Rules, in this account, are not merely constraints on behavior; they also constitute agents’ identities, interests, and capacities. For instance, diplomatic recognition, citizenship, or sovereignty are understood as outcomes of shared rule‑governed practices, not as purely material facts.

Types of Worlds

Onuf links different configurations of rules to different “worlds” or patterns of rule (governance and domination). He distinguishes, for example, worlds characterized by hierarchy, heteronomy, and equality, each associated with specific types of rules and distributions of power. Commentators often use this framework to analyze how particular historical orders—such as colonial empires, bipolar Cold War structures, or contemporary global governance regimes—are sustained through particular rule complexes.

Constructivism in Social Theory and IR

Onuf’s constructivism asserts that:

• Social facts depend on shared understandings and practices.
• Language, especially in the form of speech acts, plays a constitutive role.
• Agency and structure are co‑constituted through ongoing world‑making.

Some interpreters emphasize the critical implications of this view—that if worlds are made, they can be remade—while others stress its institutional dimension, focusing on how stable rule systems generate predictable patterns of behavior. Debate continues over how far his notion of world‑making implies radical contingency versus enduring structural constraints.

6. Rules, Speech Acts, and Social Ontology

Onuf’s social ontology is built around the interaction of rules and speech acts, drawing heavily on the philosophy of language.

Rules as Constitutive and Regulatory

Onuf treats rules as shared prescriptions that both regulate behavior and constitute social entities. He develops a typology—often summarized as instructional, directive, and commitment rules—each contributing to different patterns of social order. Instructional rules tell agents how to perform tasks, directive rules allocate authority and status, and commitment rules bind agents through promises and obligations.

"

“Rules are not just constraints on behavior; they are the means by which we become who we are.”

— Nicholas G. Onuf, World of Our Making (interpretive summary)

In this view, rules are building blocks of social reality: states, offices, rights, and obligations exist because relevant agents recognize and act according to certain rules.

Speech Acts and “Words as Deeds”

Influenced by J. L. Austin and John Searle, Onuf extends speech act theory to international politics. He argues that utterances such as “We recognize this government,” “We declare war,” or “We accede to this treaty” are not merely descriptive but performative—they bring into being or transform social facts when performed under appropriate rules.

"

“Words are deeds. Saying is doing, and what we say makes worlds.”

— Paraphrased from World of Our Making

Here, illocutionary acts (promises, declarations, recognitions) and perlocutionary effects (persuasion, deterrence) are integrated into a broader practice‑theoretical account of world‑making.

Social Ontology and Agency–Structure

Onuf’s ontology emphasizes mutual constitution: agents use rules and speech acts to create structures (institutions, norms, orders), while those structures shape agents’ identities and possibilities for action. This position is often contrasted with:

Some readers align his view with broader constructivist social ontologies (e.g., Searle’s institutional facts), while others highlight its distinct focus on rule complexes and political “rule” as domination or governance.

7. Methodology and Philosophy of Social Science

Onuf’s methodological reflections, especially in Making Sense, Making Worlds, articulate a constructivist philosophy of social science that resists both strict positivism and radical relativism.

Situated Knowledge and Interpretation

Onuf maintains that scholars are themselves participants in world‑making. Their concepts, classifications, and narratives contribute to how social reality is understood and thus potentially how it evolves. He emphasizes interpretation and context:

• Social facts are accessible only through meanings actors attach to practices.
• Explanation therefore involves reconstructing these meanings and the rules that organize them.
• There is no view from nowhere; researchers are historically situated.

Proponents see this as aligning with hermeneutic and pragmatic traditions, while critics sometimes argue that it leaves open questions about criteria for evaluating competing interpretations.

Beyond Positivism and Pure Relativism

Onuf questions the aspiration to theory‑neutral observation and law‑like generalizations in international relations. At the same time, he does not embrace a position where “anything goes.” Instead, he suggests that:

• Theories are tools that help us make sense of worlds.
• Their adequacy can be judged by coherence, fruitfulness, and sensitivity to practice.
• Methods should be chosen with attention to the kinds of rules and practices under investigation.

This stance is sometimes labeled “reflective” or “interpretive” constructivism, in contrast to more quantitative or causal‑mechanism‑oriented variants.

Normativity and Responsibility

Because world‑making is ongoing, Onuf argues that scholars bear responsibility for the worlds their theories help sustain. This introduces an explicit normative dimension to methodology: choosing certain framings or concepts can legitimize or challenge existing forms of rule.

"

“If we have made this world, we can make other worlds; this is the critical promise of constructivism.”

— Nicholas G. Onuf, Making Sense, Making Worlds

Some commentators highlight this as a bridge to critical theory; others treat it as an ethical supplement to an otherwise analytical framework. Debate continues over how prescriptive Onuf intends social science to be.

8. Impact on International Relations Theory

Onuf’s primary disciplinary impact has been on international relations (IR) theory, where he is frequently cited as an originator of constructivism.

Foundational Role in IR Constructivism

World of Our Making introduced the term constructivism into IR vocabulary and provided an early, systematic statement of a constructivist approach. Onuf’s emphasis on rules, speech acts, and world‑making helped shift attention from purely material capabilities to norms, identities, and discursive practices.

Later constructivist scholars—such as Alexander Wendt, Friedrich Kratochwil, Emanuel Adler, Martha Finnemore, and Kathryn Sikkink—developed distinct variants, sometimes more structural, sometimes more norm‑focused. Commentators disagree on the extent to which these later strands directly derive from Onuf; some see him as the key progenitor, others as one important influence among several.

Reframing Core IR Concepts

Onuf’s framework recast several central IR concepts:

By portraying these as socially constructed, he opened space for analyzing how they change over time and vary across contexts.

Methodological and Paradigm Debates

Onuf’s work influenced debates over whether constructivism constitutes a third paradigm alongside realism and liberalism, or a meta‑theoretical orientation compatible with diverse methods. His more interpretive, rule‑focused approach contrasts with Wendtian structural constructivism and with quantitative norm research, leading to intra‑constructivist discussions about ontology and method.

Critics from realist or rationalist perspectives contend that Onuf underestimates the role of material power and strategic calculation. Supporters argue that his account complements, rather than replaces, material explanations by showing how material factors gain significance only within rule‑governed practices.

Overall, his impact is visible in how mainstream IR now routinely considers norms, identities, and discourse as integral to explaining international outcomes.

9. Influence on Political and Legal Philosophy

Beyond international relations, Onuf’s ideas have intersected with political philosophy and legal theory, particularly regarding social ontology, authority, and normativity.

Political Philosophy: Authority, Justice, and World-Making

Onuf’s concept of world‑making has been used by political theorists to analyze sovereignty, global justice, and citizenship as products of historically contingent rule systems. His insistence that “there is no world apart from the many worlds that people make” has resonated with traditions emphasizing contingency and critique, including some strands of critical theory and republicanism.

Political philosophers draw on Onuf to argue that:

• Authority and legitimacy hinge on shared rules and recognition practices.
• Hierarchies in world politics (e.g., core–periphery structures) reflect entrenched rule complexes rather than natural or inevitable orders.
• Normative projects—such as cosmopolitan justice or democratic global governance—must attend to the rule‑making practices that could realize them.

Some commentators see affinities between Onuf’s position and pragmatist or constructivist accounts of morality, though he does not develop a full normative ethical theory.

International Legal Theory

In legal philosophy, Onuf is associated with a constructivist theory of international law. Across his legal writings and in International Legal Theory: Essays and Engagements, he presents law as a subset of world‑making rules embedded in broader social practices.

Key implications include:

• Legal validity and effectiveness depend on patterns of practice and recognition, not only on formal sources.
• International legal norms contribute to constituting states, organizations, and individuals as legal subjects.
• The boundary between “law” and “politics” is itself produced by rule‑governed distinctions.

This view engages with, and partly challenges, legal positivism and natural law traditions. Positivists may welcome his focus on rules but question his emphasis on social construction and speech acts; natural‑law theorists may view his approach as underplaying substantive moral criteria. Critical legal scholars often find in his work resources for examining how legal rules sustain or contest global hierarchies.

Overall, Onuf has provided a bridge between analytical legal theory, international relations, and normative political thought by foregrounding the constitutive role of rules in shaping both authority and obligation.

10. Critiques and Debates

Onuf’s work has generated a range of critical responses, both from outside constructivism and within it.

Material Power and Strategic Rationality

Realist and rationalist critics argue that Onuf overstates the role of rules and language relative to material capabilities and strategic interests. They contend that while norms and speech acts matter, they are ultimately constrained by power distributions and rational calculations. From this view, world‑making is shaped primarily by powerful actors using rules instrumentally.

Supporters of Onuf respond that his framework does not deny material factors but treats their significance as mediated by rules and meanings. Debates continue over how to balance material and ideational explanations in practice.

Vagueness and Operationalization

Some commentators find Onuf’s key notions—“world‑making,” “rules,” and types of “worlds”—valuable but difficult to operationalize for empirical research. They argue that his categories can be abstract and that empirical applications in IR often rely on more specific mechanisms developed by later constructivists.

Others maintain that this openness allows the framework to be adapted across contexts and that the challenge lies in careful case‑specific interpretation rather than universal metrics.

Meta-Theory and Relativism

Onuf’s emphasis on situated knowledge and the constructive role of scholarship has raised concerns about relativism. Critics question whether his approach offers clear criteria for evaluating competing theoretical accounts or for adjudicating normative disputes.

Proponents counter that he advocates fallibilism rather than relativism: theories can be judged by coherence, explanatory reach, and responsiveness to practice, even if no final, theory‑independent standpoint exists.

Relation to Other Constructivisms

Within constructivism, debates focus on how Onuf’s version compares to others:

These debates position Onuf’s work within a spectrum from more analytical‑institutional to more critical‑normative constructivist approaches, with scholars differing on how they interpret his overall orientation.

11. Legacy and Historical Significance

Onuf’s legacy is closely tied to his role in reshaping how scholars conceive the ontology and theory of international relations and social order.

Place in the History of IR Theory

Many historical overviews of IR theory present World of Our Making as a pioneering constructivist text that helped inaugurate a shift away from purely materialist and positivist paradigms. Onuf is often listed among key figures of the “constructivist turn,” alongside contemporaries who independently developed related ideas.

There is, however, variation in how central he is portrayed. Some narratives foreground later, more widely cited constructivists and treat Onuf as a precursor; others emphasize his priority in articulating a comprehensive constructivist framework and coining the term for IR.

Contribution to Social Ontology and Interdisciplinarity

Onuf’s rule‑based account of world‑making has had lasting influence beyond IR, contributing to discussions in social ontology, legal theory, and political philosophy about how institutions, norms, and identities are constituted. His integration of speech act theory, international law, and social theory is frequently cited as an example of productive interdisciplinary work.

Impact on Subsequent Research and Teaching

Constructivist approaches inspired by or compatible with Onuf’s ideas have generated extensive empirical research on topics such as human rights, security communities, international organizations, and global governance. His emphasis on rules and practices informs pedagogical approaches that teach students to see international politics as historically contingent and socially constituted.

Continuing Relevance

While some details of his typologies or formulations are debated, the central insight that “what we say makes worlds” remains influential. Contemporary discussions of norms, discourse, and institutional change in global politics often implicitly rely on assumptions similar to those Onuf made explicit. Commentators thus commonly regard him as a key figure in the late twentieth‑century reorientation of international relations and as an enduring reference point for debates on the social construction of political reality.