Since the Americans want political freedom for the people of the world and look towards global cooperation in order to earn global prosperity, it becomes clear that the theory that the Americans are applying is Liberalism. This is because liberalism has the same qualities in its theoretical frameworks as the ones that are mentioned by the Americans. In this manner, their goals also become clear that they want prosperity and want to evolve as good natured human beings in the future. The historical context of this theoretical basis would be the 19th century modernization through industrial and scientific revolutions around the world. However, it can also be said that in a way, the Americans reflect Marxism in their theoretical framework approach since they are one of a number of nations that practice dominating smaller countries just because they are more economical and more powerful in terms of influence as well as military than most small countries. This can be observed by the various invasions that the Americans have implemented around the world, mostly in countries that are much smaller in scale and in terms of economic or military capacity when compared to the Americans.

The Europeans are adamant on allowing the world to solve national crisis on a global scale that are turning into natural disasters and producing damages beyond repair for several countries. In this bid, the Europeans also want to revitalize the world and its several states in different measures. Therefore, it becomes clear that the Europeans display the theory of constructivism, which is a relatively new theory and emphasizes sociological issues to be reduced, states to be given their own identities, as well as allow humanitarian and philanthropic practices to continue around the world.

The Russians tell how smaller countries are always dominated by bigger countries. They also enlighten the group with the fact that the gap between the rich and poor has been increasing for long now. This goes to show that the Russians are following the theoretical framework of Marxism as this framework allows nations to develop from uneven economic circumstances as well as dominate other countries and focus on the income gap between the dominating upper class and the working lower class. The historical context for this theoretical framework could well be the breakup of the USSR and the practices that were incorporated within the government infrastructure of the USSR.

The South Americans state their position as one where they have uneven distribution of trade with developed countries while they see themselves as developing countries. Moreover, the inequality of trade in the region has also come to affect the countries on a global scale. This means that the theoretical framework of the South Americans is one of dependency and they follow this theory since the theory of dependency makes it clear that developed countries will always exploit developing countries and that developing countries will always have uneven trade with such mentioned countries. The historical context for this theoretical framework would be the 1970s upsurge of dependency in developing countries for developed countries. The fact that the South Americans have always been influenced to adopt languages and cultures of foreign and developed countries while their countries remain undeveloped is fact and more evidence to conclude that these countries follow the theoretical framework of dependency. Another fact that is evident is that the South Americans are also susceptible to Marxism as they are often small countries being dominated by bigger countries, such as the United States of America.

Finally, the Arabs reflect the theoretical approach of realism. This is because the Arabs say that countries should reach a decision by equal measures and through balance of power rather than unequal distribution of power. These motives are also the basis of the theory of realism and hence, it can be said that the Arabs indeed follow the theory of realism in their theoretical framework and approach to global problems. While many would argue on the fact that there is still quite a lot of speculation that the Arabs may have been reflecting the theory of liberalism, such as the Americans, this is not really the case.

As one may understand, liberalism talks for freedom and prosperity along with rights provided such as human rights within the same distinguished theory. However, the fact that liberalism is not the theory that the Arabs reflect is purely due to their ideas and motivation for reflecting a theory in the first place. They talk about equal measures and balance of power in the region yet they also go against such basic beliefs when they leave the people out of their votes and cause extremist rules to be taken into consideration.

It also becomes a thought provoking moment when one may believe the theory of Marxism to be compared with the Arab situation. This is not because of what the Arabs say but simply because of the way the Arabs behave and reflect their theoretical framework in international relations as well as within their own nations. The Arabs are also people who dominate smaller countries quite easily and this can go to show as to how the Arabs are sharing the same theoretical framework as the Russians, albeit in a different and more secretive manner.

When it comes to my preference for one of the theories that I mentioned in the case study, I would vote for the theory of realism. This is because most theories have a bad effect on one or more stakeholders within the nation where the theory is emphasized. For liberalism, the theory has a bad effect o the people who are conservative and leftist in their aims. For people who indulge in the theory of Marxism, there is always domination of minorities.

Marxism and liberalism, therefore, are consistent with having one or more bad effects on the nations around the world or on the people of particular nations. When it comes to the theory of dependency, the fact that the developing countries are always going to stay under the influence of major developed countries is one sore thought that will always produce inequality in the region and therefore, it is unacceptable. As for the theory of constructivism, while it may seem to be more appropriate than the others in terms of the benefits that the theory persists on bringing to the world, it is a fact that constructivism does not mention any balance of power in the world and therefore, totalitarian rule can abide as long as it is not a global threat. Dictatorships can also abide as long as they are not global threats and therefore, the theory of constructivism is not preferable to me because it also has minor deficits and faults in its framework.

This brings the reason as to why I prefer realism over all other mentioned theories and frameworks because realism has a more appropriate approach to influence, domination, solution for global problems, as well as the most important factor of all, which is balance of power in the world. Realism looks at uniting the world, where both minorities and majorities share the same prestige, power, and wealth according to the theory. This theory also relates as to how countries can easily stop going at war with another or dominating one another since all countries, no matter how large or how small, would have equal distribution of power, and other factors alongside. Hence, I also becomes clear that not only is realism my most preferable theoretical framework, it is also one that can finally bring peace to the world.