Out of all of the theories explained in chapter one, I would say that social constructivism most aligns with my thinking on the subject. The approach to emerging issues and opportunities in the Arctic is not something that can be explained with just one theory. Of the three main theories I believe that Marxism comes closest; capitalism will always dictate that profits be made at the lowest cost, and right now the dominating powers in the world are entrenched in capitalist economic systems that exploit workers for material gain. Realism touches on some of this and could be plenty accurate in explaining the approach taken to economic opportunities in the region, such as oil and natural gas development. Liberalism seems the least likely to me, not because I believe that people don’t want to cooperate, but that any cooperation would be heavily constrained by what is profitable to those making the negotiations. I would love to be surprised on this but considering the current state of the world and the complexity of international relations, social constructivism seems the best fit to me.
I have read that Realism is an archaic theory in the international relations academy, but I do think it is a reasonable theory to apply to international relations of the Arctic. As the polar ice cap melts and global interests turn towards the Arctic, I believe the potential for resource dominance could influence state actions, and override the Arctic Council’s overtures towards lifting non-state actors to the prominence of states.