Out of all of the International Relations theories, I would argue that Realism best explains how I think about International relationships and problem solving. Typically when looking at international conflicts, the root of the problem in my eyes boils down to one nation’s interest in accumulating wealth or power through natural resources or land, and another nation standing in their way. Whether these interactions lead to the use of force, or some kind of compromise, it is always in pursuit of some economic end. These nations make deals and treaties on the basis of mutual gain, not simply because they want to be a nice neighbor. This view aligns well with the Realist perspective, where states are seen to act in their own self-interest towards.
Hi Olivia,
Interesting viewpoint! I was thinking about how all the different theories would relate to reality, and I found that all are applicable at least a little bit. However, what you say also makes sense. I am interested in Greenland, for example, and it is pronounced that a lot of the interest in Greenland comes from other nations who are after raw materials or other hidden gems still to be found there. So, in that case, the realist perspective would probably be very accurate.
Olivia, good insights! If you read any of the Law of the Sea texts from last week, do you think that it’s a strong enough institution to ward off conflict relating to resources in the Arctic?