Abstract
This thesis explores the historical origins of both Western and Islamic conceptions of order to better understand the decision-making calculus of actors in International Relations. By contrasting the development of the Western Westphalian nation-state system with an Islamic framework set forth in early historical texts like the Constitution of Medina, this thesis argues that non-Western actors are not driven by irrational zealotry or purely cultural clashes. Instead, this research proposes that actors consistently synthesize constructivist identity-building with realist grand strategy, and that Islam as a case study demonstrates that religion and politics cannot be easily divided. Through juxtaposing the origins of national movements, the United States and the Arab Revolt, respectively, the author bridges traditional political theory and international relations by demonstrating how foundational domestic governance frameworks and ideological concepts directly inform a state's global behavior. Perspective shapes reality, and the terminology and shared framework which one employs matters greatly. By applying international relations paradigms like realism and constructivism to these historical theories of governance, the thesis illustrates that abstract political ideas and religious doctrines are consistently adapted to navigate the hard, strategic constraints of the international arena.