Can the Arctic Council and the Northern Forum find common ground?

Polar Record ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 38 (207) ◽  
pp. 289-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oran R. Young
Keyword(s):  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Bureaucratic Politics ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
Global Issues ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
The Voice ◽  
Two Bodies

AbstractThe Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (the forerunner of the Arctic Council) and the Northern Forum are both products of the sea change in Arctic politics occurring in the wake of the end of the Cold War. Both are soft law arrangements and both are lightly institutionalized. Yet these similarities have not provided a basis for collaboration between the Arctic Council (AC) and the Northern Forum (NF). For the most part, the two bodies have behaved like ships passing in the night. This article seeks to explain this lack of collaboration and to evaluate future prospects in this realm. The lack of collaboration is attributable in part to a number of sources of tension or fault lines, including issues relating to core-periphery relations, the concerns of indigenous peoples, divergent constituencies, the Russian connection, and bureaucratic politics and the complexities of political leadership. In part, it stems from ambiguities about the status of the AC and the NF combined with restrictions on the roles these bodies can play. There is little prospect of combining the two bodies into a more comprehensive Arctic regime. But there are opportunities to devise a realistic division of labor and to develop useful coordination mechanisms. The AC, for example, is the appropriate vehicle for efforts to strengthen the voice of the Arctic regarding global issues; the NF is well-suited to dealing with matters of community viability. Ultimately, the two bodies might consider creating a joint working group on sustainable development or organizing occasional joint meetings of the AC's Senior Arctic Officials and the NF's Executive Committee.

scholarly journals Constructing the “New” Arctic: The Future of the Circumpolar North in a Changing Global Order

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 6-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
O. R. Young
Keyword(s):  
International Society ◽  
Peripheral Region ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
Global Issues ◽  
Socially Constructed ◽  
History Of ◽  
Circumpolar North ◽  
The Cold War

Like all spatially delimited regions in international society, the Arctic is socially constructed. Political and economic considerations play prominent roles as determinants of the region’s boundaries, the identity of those states regarded as Arctic states, and the nature of the interactions between the Arctic and the outside world. From this perspective the recent history of the Arctic divides into two distinct periods: the late 1980s through 2007 and 2007 to the present. As the cold war faded, the Arctic became a peripheral region of declining importance in global political calculations. No one challenged the dominance of the eight Arctic states in regional affairs, and the Arctic Council focused on regional concerns relating to environmental protection and sus tainable development. Today, by contrast, the ‘new’ Arctic is a focus of intense glo bal interest, largely because climate change is proceeding more rapidly in this region than anywhere else on Earth with global consequences and because the increasing accessibility of the Arctic’s natural resources has generated enhanced interest on the part of outside actors. As a result, Arctic issues have merged into global issues, making the region a prominent arena for the interplay of geopolitical forces. Cooperative arrangements established during the first period (e.g. the Arctic Council) may require adjustment to operate effectively in the ‘new’ Arctic. Treated as a case study, the Arctic story provides an illuminating lens through which to analyze the forces that shape thinking about the nature of regions in international society and the role of cooperative arrangements at the regional level.

Human Rights and the Arctic

2009 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 233-243
Author(s):  
Gudmundur Alfredsson
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Independent State ◽  
The Status ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
The Many ◽  
The Right

Abstract This article surveys some of the many international human rights law issues that come up in connection with the Arctic, such as the rights of indigenous peoples and the formulation of these rights in a draft Nordic Sami Convention. The focus, however, is on recent developments concerning the status of Greenland as a result of an agreement concluded in 2008 between the Danish and Greenlandic authorities. This agreement foresees not only a significant increase in self-government but also opens the door for the Greenlandic people to create an independent State through the exercise of the right to external self-determination as a matter of political decolonisation of an overseas colonial territory.

Arctic Ocean Management and Indigenous Peoples: Recent Legal Developments

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-120
Author(s):  
Nigel Bankes
Keyword(s):  
Arctic Ocean ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Scientific Cooperation ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
Central Arctic Ocean ◽  
Polar Code ◽  
Ocean Management ◽  
Marine Areas ◽  
Maritime Search And Rescue

This article examines recent legal developments in the management of human activities in Arctic marine areas and considers the extent to which these developments acknowledge or recognize the rights, roles and interests of Arctic Indigenous peoples. These developments include the negotiation of three treaties under the auspices of the Arctic Council: the Agreement on Cooperation on Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue in the Arctic, (Arctic SAR Agreement), the Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Spill Preparedness and Response in the Arctic (Arctic MOSPA), and the Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation (Arctic Science Agreement), the adoption of the Polar Code by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and, most recently, the signature of the Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean (the CAOF Agreement). It also examines more recent practice under the Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears (ACPB).

Global Co-management and the Emergent Arctic: Opportunities for Engagement and Collaboration between Arctic States, Indigenous Permanent Participants, and Observers on the Arctic Council

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 251-267
Author(s):  
Barry S. Zellen
Keyword(s):  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Arctic Region ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Management Systems ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
Indigenous Participation ◽  
Multi Level ◽  
New Institutions ◽  
Successful Collaboration ◽  
The Arctic Region

Successful collaboration between the indigenous peoples and the sovereign states of Arctic North America has helped to stabilise the Arctic region, fostering meaningful indigenous participation in the governance of their homeland, the introduction of new institutions of self-governance at the municipal, tribal and territorial levels, and successful diplomatic collaborations at the international level through the Arctic Council. This stability and the reciprocal and increasingly balanced relationship between sovereign states and indigenous stakeholders has yielded a widely recognised spirit of international collaboration often referred to as Arctic exceptionalism. With competition in the Arctic between states on the rise, the multitude of co-management systems and the multi-level, inter-governmental and inter-organisational relationships they have nurtured across the region will help to neutralise new threats to ‘Arctic Exceptionalism’ posed by intensifying inter-state tensions.

scholarly journals Arctic Futures–Future Arctics?

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (16) ◽  
pp. 9420
Author(s):  
Oran R. Young
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Driving Forces ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Multiple Perspectives ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
The Future ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
The One ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Socioeconomic Consequences

Is the Arctic sufficiently distinctive and uniform to justify adopting a holistic perspective in thinking about the future of the region? Or do we need to acknowledge that the Arctic encompasses a number of different subregions whose futures may diverge more or less profoundly? In the aftermath of the Cold War, a view of the Arctic as a distinctive region with a policy agenda of its own arose in many quarters and played a prominent role in shaping initiatives such as the launching of the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy in 1991 and the creation of the Arctic Council in 1996. Yet not everyone found this perspective persuasive at the time, and more recent developments have raised new questions about the usefulness of this perspective as a basis for thinking about the future of the Arctic. As a result, some observers take the view that we need to think more about future Arctics than about Arctic futures. Yet, today, climate change provides a central thread tying together multiple perspectives on the Arctic. The dramatic onset of climate change has turned the Arctic into the frontline with regard to the challenges of adapting to a changing biophysical setting. Ironically, the impacts of climate change also have increased the accessibility of massive reserves of hydrocarbons located in the Arctic, contributing to a feedback loop accelerating climate change. This means that the future of the Arctic will reflect the interplay between efforts to address the biophysical and socioeconomic consequences of climate change on the one hand and the influence of the driving forces underlying the political economy of energy development on the other.

scholarly journals Consultative meetings of non-Arctic states on the status of the Arctic

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 296-318
Author(s):  
Alexander N. Vylegzhanin ◽  
◽  
Elena V. Kienko ◽  
Keyword(s):  
South Korea ◽  
Arctic Ocean ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
The Arctic Ocean ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Arctic Policy ◽  
New Instruments

The article, in the context of the contemporary status of the Arctic, examines the legal and political documents adopted by China, Japan and South Korea in regard to their arctic policy, including those agreed upon by these three States. The alarming reaction to such documents in the Arctic coastal states, firstly, in the USA and Canada, is also considered in the article. Relevant western scholars’ arguments are scrutinized, such as the increase of “China’s military power”; China’s “insatiable appetite” for access to natural resources in the Arctic; the argument that “China seeks to dominate” the Arctic and the situation when “the Arctic Council is split”; the notion that China makes other non-Arctic States create separate legal documents concerning the regime of the Arctic Ocean. The article concludes that the western interpretation of such documents is alarming only in relation to China. The research shows that up till now there are no grounds for such estimations of China’s negative role. However, statements by Chinese officials as cited in the article and some provisions stipulated in “China’s Arctic policy” contradict the common will of the Arctic coastal states in regard to the legal regime of the Arctic Ocean as reflected in the Ilulissat Declaration of 2008. In such a dynamic legal environment, new instruments of collaboration are in demand, which might involve China and other non-Arctic states in maintaining the established legal regime of the Arctic. Thus, the new instruments would deter the creation (with unpredictable consequences) by China, Japan and South Korea of new trilateral acts relating to the status of the Arctic.

Vocabularies for human development: Arctic politics and the power of knowledge

Polar Record ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heidi Sinevaara-Niskanen
Keyword(s):  
Human Development ◽  
Arctic Region ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
The Status ◽  
Common Notion ◽  
The Common ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Is Value ◽  
The Arctic Region

ABSTRACTThe Arctic Council (AC) has been accorded the status of knowledge holder and knowledge provider for the Arctic region. This paper probes the broader definition-making power of Arctic knowledge, challenging the common notion that this knowledge is value neutral. It argues that attention should be paid to the ways in which power is exercised in, and though, the various reports and assessments published under the auspices of the AC. The specific focus of the paper is human development and gender as an aspect of that development. The research analyses the Arctic Human Development Report (AHDR) in order to examine the ways in which knowledge defines human development and its agents in the Arctic. The paper draws on Foucault-inspired and feminist approaches to analyse three vocabularies of rule in particular: strength of the community, vulnerability and the need for adaptation. These vocabularies are coexistent and share an emphasis on communities. Yet, questions of gender seldom figure in them, a lack of salience that reveals the power of the partiality of knowledge. The politics of knowledge operate by placing in the foreground only certain accounts of Arctic development.

scholarly journals THE LEGAL CHARACTER AND STATUS OF THE ARCTIC COUNCIL WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE SEA AND THE ARCTIC. THE ROLE OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN THE ARCTIC COUNCIL AND ITS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 249-263
Author(s):  
Filip Farmas vel Król
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Regional Cooperation ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
External Agents ◽  
Legal Character

This article describes the legal character and status of the Arctic Council, focusing on the Council’s structure and powers in regional cooperation in the Arctic and elaborating on the decision-making process and the role of the indigenous peoples, both currently and from the point of view of suggested new legislation. The Arctic Council is also presented as a body in the tangible world, where other states and organisations may have a certain extent of influence over the Council’s capabilities. China and the European Union are good examples of such external agents. The aim of this article is to analyse the role of the indigenous peoples and their organisations in the Arctic Council. Te presence of representative bodies of the indigenous peoples within the frameworkof the Arctic Council is considered significant. I hold the view that an extensive range of powers should be granted to the organisations representing the indigenous peoples within the Arctic Council. My article elaborates on the details of these powers and their significance.

scholarly journals Circumpolar Indigeneity in Canada, Russia, and the United States (Alaska): Do Differences Result in Representational Challenges for the Arctic Council?

ARCTIC ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evgeniia Sidorova
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
Far North ◽  
Indigenous Groups ◽  
Indigenous Organizations ◽  
Definition Of

This article investigates differences in circumpolar indigeneities in three major Arctic nations: Russia, Canada, and the United States (Alaska). Russia has different ways of recognizing indigeneity in law, and that definition of indigeneity excludes larger Indigenous groups of the Far North (Sakha, Komi), rather than seeing them as ethnic (titular) minorities. This study reveals that: 1) not all Indigenous peoples are represented in the Arctic Council; 2) there are historical explanations for this underrepresentation; 3) the Arctic Council should include more Indigenous groups as Permanent Participants. The equal representation of Indigenous organizations as Permanent Participants in the Arctic Council is important because all Indigenous groups in the Arctic should be heard.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document