Arctic Sovereignty Disputes: International Relations Theory in the High North
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As an emerging geopolitical hotspot, will the future of the Arctic be dominated by conflict or cooperation among states? With the potential for vast natural resources and the promise of transpolar shipping, the opening Arctic may be the new frontier for global competition. This thesis uses two theories of international relations, neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism, to evaluate the geopolitical landscape of an opening Arctic. This thesis argues that the characterization of the Arctic as a zone of either competition or cooperation is overly simplistic. While structural neorealist theory can accurately account for some of the Arctic countries' behavior, it is unable to explain forms of cooperation existing and emerging among them. In addition to laying out the overall state of cooperation and conflict among the Arctic countries, this thesis also examines two cases in detail: conflicts between Russia and Norway over the Barents Sea, and the United States and Canada over the Northwest Passage. Neorealism fails to account fully for the emergence of cooperation in the form of an equitable treaty on the maritime delimitation line between Russian and Norway. The international regimes were enablers of inter-state cooperation in the U.S.-Canadian case, and were a contributing factor in dispute settlement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".