![Sample our Geography journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5937/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Geography.jpg"})
Abstract
The article explores the tension between institutional integration and interstate bargaining in Arctic politics by focusing on the Arctic Council and on the role of Arctic and non-Arctic stakeholders. It argues that despite the growing influence of regionalism, intergovernmentalism continues to shape Arctic governance and to work against a “final” set of regional institutions or convergence. From the perspective of the eight Arctic states, the key problem has been to reconcile the desire to elevate the international standing and legitimacy of the Arctic Council by keeping its door open to non-regional actors with a determination to maintain their own privileged position. After adopting a postponement strategy at the 2011 Nuuk Ministerial Meetings, the Arctic Eight finally broke the deadlock by granting non-Arctic states, notably China, an observer status at the 2013 Kiruna Ministerial Meeting. Yet, the conclusion is that the Arctic Council has not been transformed into a body of political authority or a policy-making instrument. The Arctic Eight have opened up space for regionalism; the Search and Rescue Agreement and Oil Spill Preparedness agreements were the result of Arctic Council initiatives. The case is made, however, that the political end products are likely to be agreements between states without institutional enforcement mechanisms.
Acknowledgement
The author want to thank the University of Iceland Research Fund and the EDDA – Center of Excellence in Critical Contemporary Research for supporting my research on Arctic politics.
Notes
1 See Haas, “Turbulent Fields and the Theory of Regional Integration,” 175.
2 See Gómez-Mera, “How ‘New’ is the ‘New Regionalism’ in the Americas? The Case of MERCOSUR,” 279–308; Söderbaum and Shaw, Theories of New Regionalism; Mattle, “Explaining Regional Integration Outcomes,” 1–27.
3 Haas, “Turbulent Fields and the Theory of Regional Integration,” 179.
4 Cao, “Global Networks and Domestic Policy Convergence: A Network Explanation of Policy Changes,” 377.
5 Young, “Arctic Tipping Points: Governance in Turbulent Times,” 81–3.
6 See e.g., Koivurova, “The Arctic Council: A Testing Ground for New International Environmental Governance,” 141.
7 About the future and “anticipatory” role of the Arctic Council, see Dodds, “Anticipating the Arctic and the Arctic Council: Pre-emption, Precaution, and Preparedness.”
8 See e.g. Borgerson, “Arctic Meltdown: The Economic and Security Implications of Global Warming,” 63–77; Borgerson, “The Great Game Moves North,” http://foreignaffairs.com.
9 See Arctic Council Secretariat, Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution, Preparedness and Response in the Arctic.
10 See comments made by Gustav Lind, Sweden’s Arctic Ambassador and Chair of the Arctic Council’s Senior Officials during Sweden’s Chairmanship from 2011 to 2013, at the World Oceans Summit in Singapore on the panel entitled, The Arctic – Beacon of Hope?
11 See Katzenstein, A World of Regions: Asia, Europe in the American Imperium, 142.
12 See Sørensen, “From International Governance to Region Building in the Arctic?” 155–82.
13 Moe, Fjærtoft, and Øverland, “Space and Timing: Why Was Barents Sea Delimitation Dispute Resolved in 2010?” 145–62.
14 Moe, Fjærtoft, and Øverland, “Space and Timing: Why Was Barents Sea Delimitation Dispute Resolved in 2010?” 150–52.
15 Interview with a Senior Arctic Official, June 6, 2013.
16 Molenaar, “Arctic Fisheries and International Law: Gaps and Options to Address Them,” 69.
17 See Arctic Council Secretariat, Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution, Preparedness and Response in the Arctic.
18 Brigham, “Think Again. The Arctic,” 71–2.
19 See e.g. the comments by Russian Foreign Minister, Lavrov, in an interview with RIA Novosti.
20 On security communities, see Deutsch, Political Community in the North Atlantic Area; Adler and Barnett, eds, Security Communities; Russett and O’Neal, Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations.
21 Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, “Uneven Power and the Pursuit of Peace: How Regional Power Transitions Motive Integration,” 102.
22 Interviews with Permanent Representatives to NATO and Senior NATO Officials, December 10 and 12, 2012.
23 Interviews with NATO Officials, December 12, 2012.
24 Wezeman, “Military Capabilities in the Arctic.”
25 Nuuk Declaration on the Occasion of the Seventh Ministerial Meeting of the Arctic Council, May 12, 2011.
26 The Ilulissat Declaration.
27 Howlett and Rayner, “Convergence and Divergence in ‘New Governance’ Arrangements: Evidence from European Integrated Natural Resource Strategies,” 182.
28 Interviews with two Senior Arctic Officials, May 28, 2013.
29 Interview with Senior Arctic Officials, December 12, 2012 and May 28, 2013.
30 See “Snow Dragons. As the Arctic Melts, Asia Shudders at the Risks but Slavers at the Opportunities.”
31 Arctic Council Secretariat, Kiruna Senior Arctic Officials Report to Minister, May 15, 2013.
32 See European Commission, “The European Union and the Arctic Region,” November 20, 2008.
33 Prime Minister’s Office, Finland’s Strategy for the Arctic Region 2010; Finland’s support for a role for the EU in the Arctic was reaffirmed in the 2013 strategy document. See Prime Minister’s Office, Finland’s Strategy for the Arctic Region 2013.
34 Interviews with EU Officials, December 10, 2012; European Commission, “Developing a European Union Policy toward the Arctic Region: Progress since 2008 and Next Steps,” June 26, 2012.
35 Interview with a Senior Arctic Official, May 28, 2013.
36 Arctic Council Secretariat, Kiruna Declaration, May 15, 2013.
37 Ashton, and Maria, “Joint Statement Regarding Arctic Council Decision on EU’s Observer Status,” May 15, 2013.
38 Jakobson and Peng, “China’s Arctic Aspirations,” 1–36.
39 See e.g. “Race is On as Ice Melt Reveals Arctic Treasures.”
40 See “First Chinese Ship Crosses Arctic Ocean Amid Record Melt.”
41 Mansfield and Solingen, “Regionalism,”147.
42 Tavares, “Regional Clustering of Peace and Security,” 155.
43 Bloom, “Establishment of the Arctic Council,” 712.
44 Interview with a high-level Icelandic Official, December 20, 2012.
45 Standing Committee of the Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region (SCPAR), Conference Statement, “Arctic Governance in an Evolving Arctic Region” (final draft), September 5–7, 2012.
46 Declaration on the Establishment of the Arctic Council, September 19, 1996, http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about/documents/category/5-declarations.
47 “All Eyes are on the Arctic Council.”
48 See e.g. Icelandic President Ó.R. Grímsson’s address entitled “The Arctic: A New Model for Global Cooperation,” which he gave at a symposium on the Arctic hosted by the Edward R. Murrow Center at the Fletcher School in the United States, March 26, 2012.
49 Remarks by Grímsson at a symposium on the Arctic on the Occasion of the Visit of Finnish President Sauli Niinistö to Iceland held at the University of Iceland, May 28, 2013.
50 Cochrane, “Making Up a Region: The Rise and Fall of the ‘South East England’ as a political territory,” 95.
51 See Painter, “Rethinking Territory,” 194.
52 Fawn, “‘Regions’ and Their Study: Wherefrom, What For and Whereto,” 25.
53 Fawn, “‘Regions’ and Their Study: Wherefrom, What For and Whereto,” 13.
54 Young, “The Arctic in Play: Governance in a Time of Rapid Change,” 440.
55 Mattle, “Explaining Regional Integration Outcomes,” 6.
56 Young, “Arctic Tipping Points: Governance in Turbulent Times,” 82.
57 In some areas, such as shipping, other international institutions, are in a stronger position with respect to norm-setting and rule-enforcement. See Stokke, “Regime Interplay in Arctic Shipping Governance: Explaining Regional Niche Selection,” 81.
58 Haas, “Turbulent Fields and the Theory of Regional Integration,” 173.
59 Young, “The Arctic in Play: Governance in a Time of Rapid Change,” 441.
