Chapter 1 – IR Theory on Arctic Policy

All theories of International Relations make compelling arguments in regards to state behavior in an international system. Personally, I believe that the realist perspective makes the most accurate assumptions on the state of Arctic policy and cooperation. Realism bases its argument on the fact that the world operates in a system of anarchy, which I hold to be true. States and state actors, just like the humans that participate in them, are motivate only by self-interest. No type of government or economic system is devoid of humanity’s selfish nature – not capitalism, not Marxism/communism, or anything else. The major flaw in the constructivist perspective, in my opinion, is that peoples’ wants, beliefs, and ideals dictate a state’s action on the global or international scale. Americans are quick to advocate for a livable wage and against hard working conditions, yet nearly 100% of us purchase items like phones, manufactured clothing, headphones, computers, etc. from nations like China where there are virtually no workers’ rights.

Liberalism fails to adequately explain the origins of war/cooperation. In the Arctic Council today, Russia no longer has a seat despite geographically consisting of over 40% of the Arctic region. Western nations like the United States and Scandinavian countries are refusing to cooperate with Russia on any international issues and priorities like reducing the effects of climate change or improving working conditions for people living in Arctic and sub-Arctic conditions. The example of the Arctic council failing as an international institution could be used to explain some of what is going on in the region, but every single nation is motivated by self-interest. The potential for cooperation between Alaska and Russia is immense – but if we were to think that either nation would be willing to lower its defense barriers in order to pursue a common or collective good, then we would be wrong.