The bent towards constructivism, besides other important theories of IR, was smoothened by the finish of the Cold War and the incapability of IR academics to have predicted its finish (Fierke, 2010).Constructivism can be observed dynamically distinct from the conservative theories of IR like Realism and Liberalism, besides their new versions. Although there are various kinds of constructivism, there is a common element between them, with mass stress on the significance of ideas and how these ideas relate to the global mechanism (Barnett, 2008). Besides, a concern was observed for the meaning of this mechanism and how it designed and impacted the identities and stakes of states. This mechanism, in turn, is recreated and changed by both state and nonstate players (Bolt, 2011).Identities in constructivist study play a very important role because they are central to the stakes of the state. According to constructivists explanations based primarily on interests and the material distribution of power cannot fully account for important international phenomena and that analysis of the social construction of state identities ought to precede, and may even explain, the genesis of state interests (Bukovansk, 1997, p. 209). Wendt discusses that what kind of anarchy (or cultures of anarchy) that will prevail depends on how [actors] construe their identity in relation to others (Zehfuss, 2001, p. 318). Wendt (1992) indicates that shared identity could be created internally at the systemic level and such a procedure would friendly environment.The constructivist approach considers the concept of identity quite significant, especially the state identity. Both Wendt (1999) and Katzenstein (1996a) have approached constructivism from the perspective of state identity. That’s why it has become a segment of the nearly reserved rationalist mainstream of international relations theory.