Re-thinking Global Governance as Fuzzy: Multi-Scalar Boundaries of Responsibility in the Arctic

ABSTRACT

The article reconsiders global governance as fuzzy and situated across multiple scales rather than multi-level. It revisits Global Governance research, whose introspective focus on opening “black boxes” has marginalized “in-between” approaches. The article highlights the value of “in-between” approaches for mid-range theorizing on global normative order using the Arctic as an example. It shows how sovereignty and “projects of belonging” unfold across diverse fora in designating “responsibility.” In legal, cultural, and epistemic contexts, boundary work by national and non-state actors demarcates jurisdiction and shields claims of responsibility to prevent others from gaining rights or access to the region. Through examples, the article demonstrates that normative boundary practices do not form a homogenous project of belonging. Instead, these practices blur the lines of where “all things Arctic” are negotiated, who holds legitimate voice to influence governance, and complicate long-term decision-making.

KEYWORDS:

• Arctic
• boundaries
• epistemic
• legal
• culture
• responsibility
• governance
• justice
• norms

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge helpful feedback on earlier versions of this article from Maren Hofius and Mathias Kranke as well as the contribution by Klaus Dodds during the “boundaries” online workshop at the Käte Hamburger Kolleg, and Mathias Albert, who commented at the conventions of the European and International Studies Association, respectively. They would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their encouragement and helpful comments in improving the script.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 While the Arctic has specific geographic and cultural features, and some authors have highlighted Arctic exceptionalism addressing the observation that diplomacy between Cold War rivals works despite geopolitical conflict elsewhere in the world, our study functions irrespective of this debate. What we are addressing are intersections, connections, and governance issues which one should be able to find in other regions of the world as well, though perhaps the governance setup and degree of Indigenous participation will vary.

2 Since the invasion and its consequences are ongoing, it remains to be seen whether they ultimately represent a departure from this article’s examination of polar governance up to present day, though the Arctic Council’s recent (March 2024) partial resumption of working group activities could indicate that the article’s findings continue to apply to the post-Crimean and Ukranian invasion polar governance contexts.

3 As one of the anonymous reviewers remarked, despite its usual keenness to incorporate new literatures, IR has almost completely ignored these strands – perhaps with the exception of Karl Deutsch.

4 This approach provides a methodological access point that overcomes the problem of communicative interaction in systemic approaches, arguing that systemic approaches ultimately remain tied up in functionally differentiated spheres. Yet, the focus on a particular governance field – security – comes at the cost of investigating how different fields hang together.

5 In this regard we take inspiration from T.H. Marshall’s approach to citizenship, which has been applied to, for example, the European Union (Wiener 1997).

6 This is similar to the “translation zones” identified by Berling et al. (2022) but, in contrast, not confined to specific locations.

7 We have insufficient data to verify or refute the claim that conferences invite Indigenous representatives for the single purpose of legitimising their programme, as insinuated by one of the reviewers of this article, without engaging in genuine dialogue. Regardless of the validity of this claim, financial costs to participate in conferences are a recurring theme in conference contributions of Indigenous representatives and their respective partners (personal communication to authors). Furthermore, regardless of the conference organisers’ and attendees’ intentions and reception of the contributions of Indigenous representatives, they nonetheless provide a point of access for different ways of knowing that can be underrepresented at conferences focused on ‘conventional science.’

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Hannes Hansen-Magnusson

Hannes Hansen-Magnusson is Reader in International Relations at Cardiff University. His research addresses questions of global order, normativity and norms with regard to the geopolitics of polar regions and oceans, European and global politics of responsibility, and theories of global politics. It draws on hermeneutic methodology to understand micro-practices of interaction processes and their relation to macro structures.

Charlotte Gehrke

Charlotte Gehrke is a PhD fellow studying science communication and diplomacy at Nord University (Norway). Her research explores how environmental issues are addressed in news and politics, with a particular focus on the Arctic region.