I’ve usually characterized the ‘Arctic’ in a literal sense, being anywhere located within the Arctic Circle. Hough describes this view of the Arctic in the textbook as the scientific definition, labeling everything above the 66th degree 32 N as ‘Arctic’. This definition seems more rigid and defined than definitions with potential variables, such as temperature-based definitions. However, one downside of this perspective is that it does not consider climate. I don’t view this as an issue though, as the climate in the long-term has never been static anyway.
As far as what theories I believe are the most applicable to international relations, I would say it is a combination of Realism and Constructivism. I believe states act in what they think is in their own best interest and tend to act rationally with occasional exceptions. However, I believe that what a political actor considers to be ‘rational’ is determined by their perception, which may or may not be based on reality, hence the constructivist side of things.
Hi Andrew,
Interestingly, you mention what your view of the Arctic was. I also find that an interesting point – the many definitions of the Arctic. As you also said, there are several different ones, each giving the Arctic a slightly different shape. This could affect international relations and policies, as other actors could define the Arctic space differently. New terminology is made up (for example, China claiming to be a “near-Arctic country”), and new interests are being formed.
Nice job, Andrew! You’re right that there is a fine line between belief and perception so all of these theories can come into play to help us understand what’s going on and why.