Defining security in a changing Arctic: helping to prevent an Arctic security dilemma

Polar Record ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 52 (6) ◽  
pp. 672-679 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marzia Scopelliti ◽  
Elena Conde Pérez
Keyword(s):  
Regional Cooperation ◽  
Spillover Effect ◽  
Arctic Region ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
Regional Stability ◽  
Security Issues ◽  
Arctic Security ◽  
Ice Retreat ◽  
Regional Institution

ABSTRACTIn recent years, radical changes such as rapid warming and ice retreat have become evident in the Arctic region, as recognised by the scientific community, as well as Arctic and non-Arctic states. Against this background, where the Arctic is accumulating economic importance and geopolitical significance for Arctic states and international stakeholders, the main regional actors have engaged in increased cooperation efforts, which is in contrast to the often invoked talk about an imminent conflict or ‘race for resources in the region’. At the same time, modernisation and expansion of military activities and capabilities have been pursued by several Arctic states. While these measures cannot be exclusively attributed to a militarisation of the Arctic and require further discussion, a misperception of such actions may result in the destabilisation of regional cooperation efforts. Furthermore, when considered in a broader context, possible threats to peaceful coexistence in the Arctic are more likely to arise from the present global situation. For example, the invasion of Ukraine has provoked a partial shift in regional cooperation and an uncontrolled spillover effect of the conflict between Russia and Western countries could disrupt regional stability. Drawing on the perspective of International Relations (IR) literature, and considering the absence of a regional institution devoted to security issues, this article highlights the importance of adopting confidence- and security-building measures among all relevant actors in order to create a forum for the discussion of ‘hard’ security topics, to prevent any destabilising effect on Arctic cooperation and security. Such measures may be promoted within existing fora, primarily the Arctic Council.

Securing sustainability: the case for critical environmental security in the Arctic

Polar Record ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 52 (6) ◽  
pp. 660-671 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Greaves
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Change ◽  
Environmental Changes ◽  
Arctic Region ◽  
Environmental Security ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Security Issues ◽  
Arctic Security ◽  
Robert Cox ◽  
Critical Account ◽  
The Relationship

ABSTRACTThe politics, economies, and ecology of the Arctic region are experiencing fundamental transformation driven largely by human-caused environmental change. Drawing on the work of Robert Cox, this article presents a critical account of environmental security that allows security issues in the Arctic to be reconceptualised. It outlines the environmental changes transforming the Arctic, and theorises the Arctic as a regional environmental security complex in which conditions of security for state and non-state referent objects are predicated on a particular ecological context. It then surveys state- and human security issues in the Arctic, and argues that environmental change has destabilised the ecological base on which the contemporary Arctic as a cooperative region supportive of human activity has been built. The article concludes by outlining alternative ways of conceiving of Arctic security that are more compatible with maintaining the region's ecological base, and suggests that dominant approaches to Arctic security are pathological because they remain premised on the control, extraction and consumption of hydrocarbon resources. It argues that, in the context of the geological Anthropocene, security cannot be sustainable if it fails to address the relationship between human wellbeing and human-caused environmental change, or informs practices that further contribute to environmental change.

scholarly journals ‘Soft Securitization’: Unconventional Security Issues and the Arctic Council

Politik ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wilfrid Greaves ◽  
Daniel Pomerants
Keyword(s):  
Working Group ◽  
Textual Analysis ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
Security Issues ◽  
Arctic Security ◽  
Securitization Theory ◽  
Security Actor

This article assesses the Arctic Council’s role as a security actor in the context of a rapidly changing circumpolar region. It investigates how the Arctic Council uses security language, and which issues it depicts as relevant to Arctic security. The article does this by undertaking textual analysis of ‘securitizing moves’ represented in the Council’s publicly available online documents, including declarations and agreements, policy papers, working group reports, public statements, and other related sources. The findings offer empirical insights into the Arctic Council and the construction of Arctic security issues, as well as theoretical reflections on the analytical usefulness of securitization theory, and the dynamics of constructing unconventional security issues in a multilateral intergovernmental forum.

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 (in)security and Indigenous peoples: Comparing Inuit in Canada and Sámi in Norway

2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (6) ◽  
pp. 461-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wilfrid Greaves
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Environmental Change ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Social Inclusion ◽  
Social Issues ◽  
Arctic Region ◽  
Security Studies ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Related Field ◽  
Security Issues

While international relations has increasingly begun to recognize the political salience of Indigenous peoples, the related field of security studies has not significantly incorporated Indigenous peoples either theoretically or empirically. This article helps to address this gap by comparing two Arctic Indigenous peoples – Inuit in Canada and Sámi in Norway – as ‘securitizing actors’ within their respective states. It examines how organizations representing Inuit and Sámi each articulate the meaning of security in the circumpolar Arctic region. It finds that Inuit representatives have framed environmental and social challenges as security issues, identifying a conception of Arctic security that emphasizes environmental protection, preservation of cultural identity, and maintenance of Indigenous political autonomy. While there are some similarities between the two, Sámi generally do not employ securitizing language to discuss environmental and social issues, rarely characterizing them as existential issues threatening their survival or wellbeing. Drawing on securitization theory, this article proposes three factors to explain why Inuit have sought to construct serious challenges in the Arctic as security issues while Sámi have not: ecological differences between the Canadian and Norwegian Arctic regions, and resulting differences in experience of environmental change; the relative degree of social inclusion of Inuit and Sámi within their non-Indigenous majority societies; and geography, particularly the proximity of Norway to Russia, which results in a more robust conception of national security that restricts space for alternative, non-state security discourses. This article thus links recent developments in security studies and international relations with key trends in Indigenous politics, environmental change, and the geopolitics of the Arctic region.

Comparing the robustness of Arctic and Antarctic governance through the continental shelf submission process

Polar Record ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-59
Author(s):  
Melissa Weber
Keyword(s):  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Regional Cooperation ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Polar Regions ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
Governing System ◽  
Emerging Issues ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Antarctic

ABSTRACTThe processes undertaken by Arctic states and Antarctic claimant states to submit data to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) demonstrates the robustness of polar governance. The robustness of a governing system reflects its capacity to deal with emerging issues. For the purposes of this article, robustness comprises the effective protection of rights in the absence of prejudice and participant confidence. In the Arctic, unilateral assertion of continental shelf entitlement can proceed due to the nature of the CLCS process and recognition of sovereignty. Combined with the voluntary nature of Arctic governance, the process does not hamper cooperation in scientific research, boundary delimitation or engagement in initiatives such as the Arctic Council. In the Antarctic, a coordinated approach to continental shelf delimitation protected claimant states’ entitlement to a continental shelf and the right of other states not to recognise sovereignty. States demonstrated commitment to the Antarctic Treaty and acted according to accepted norms. Though different in structure, each polar governing system has its own characteristics of robustness. State authority drives participant confidence and regional cooperation in the Arctic. In the Antarctic, norms of behaviour foster system legitimacy and resilience is reinforced by the consequences of abandoning the system. With continued acceptance of the individual governing-system dynamics, emerging issues can be accommodated in both polar regions.

scholarly journals Revisiting Russian Presidency in the Arctic Council

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 62-68
Author(s):  
Valery Zhuravel ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Arctic Region ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
Shift Method ◽  
The Sustainable Development ◽  
Arctic Regions ◽  
Difficult Time ◽  
Environmental Requirements ◽  
And Control

The article notes that in the period of preparation for the chairmanship of the Arctic Council (2021–2023), in order to further develop the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation, new strategic documents, a package of benefits and preferences for business development were prepared and approved, measures were taken for the sustainable development of indigenous peoples, and to increase the role of science in Arctic research. The author draws attention to some unsolved problems of socio-economic development of the Arctic region (outflow of the population, especially young people; shortcomings of the organization of the shift method of work and centralized coordination and control of state orders and supplies to the population of hard-to-reach Arctic regions; violation of environmental requirements). It is emphasized that Russia assumes the post of chairman of the Arctic Council at a difficult time: the coronavirus pandemic, political tensions in relations with the West, including on issues of management and security of the Arctic, economic sanctions from the Arctic states, which creates certain difficulties in the activities in the Arctic direction. The author concludes that the developed program, the plan of main events, the activity of ministries and departments in the next 2 years will allow us to successfully cope with the chairmanship, show our foreign colleagues all the best that is available in the Russian Far North, and contribute to the strengthening of the Arctic Council.

scholarly journals International Arctic Scientific Cooperation: Institutionalization of the Legal Regime

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (9) ◽  
pp. 120-130
Author(s):  
N. A. Sokolova
Keyword(s):  
Arctic Region ◽  
Scientific Data ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Adaptation To Climate Change ◽  
Scientific Cooperation ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
Research Activities ◽  
Technological Cooperation ◽  
Integral Process ◽  
International Scientific Cooperation

Ensuring security in the Arctic in various areas and the need for a better understanding of the natural processes occurring in this region require intensification of scientific and technological cooperation, which opens up opportunities for closer interaction to solve other problems, for example, environmental protection, adaptation to climate change, safe maritime navigation and so on. Scientific and technological cooperation in the Arctic is carried out in various formats. The Arctic Council continues to play a peculiar coordinating role in international scientific cooperation, which has proposed various initiatives related to the development of scientific cooperation. The author emphasizes the implementation of scientific cooperation in the context of the scientific diplomacy development as an integral process in the information society, when scientific data is important for diplomatic activity, when diplomacy provides conditions for the development of international scientific cooperation, and finally, when science affects the vectors of cooperation, ensuring the solution of problems in various areas. Particular attention is given to the analysis of the 2017 Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation, since the problems existing in the Arctic region require coordinated and carefully planned collective actions. Issues related to the types of research activities, the specifics of the spatial scope of the Agreement and access to the established geographical areas are considered. Finally, some conclusions are proposed regarding the assessment of the Agreement. The agreement improves the quality of the legal environment for all 8 Arctic states simultaneously in terms of scientific cooperation, taking into account the relevant provisions of international law, including those related to marine scientific research.

scholarly journals The specificity of Russia’s chairmanship of the Arctic Council in 2021–2023

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Sofia Khusainova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Political Action ◽  
Arctic Region ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
National Interests ◽  
The North ◽  
Leading Role ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Arctic Region

The subject of this research is the policy of the Russian Federation in the Arctic. The object is Russia’s chairmanship of the Arctic Council in 2021–2023. The author meticulously analyzes the positions of the state, taking into account national interests and peculiarities of the current international situation in the region. The article examines the domestic legislative acts adopted for regulation of the Arctic Region, as well as international documents aimed at sustainable development of the North. The conditions of collective security dictate moderate and clearly defined policy in the Arctic, which is the central arena for political action with the leading role of the Russian Federation until 2023. The conclusion is drawn that the Arctic Region is currently the most relevant vector of the policy of northern states. Chairmanship of the Russian Federation imposes enormous responsibility on the country, as despite the overall state of security in the region, there remains a range of unresolved issues. The attempts of institutionalization of the Arctic Council may become an implicit threat for the Russian Federation; this is why the systematization of domestic legislation and foreign policy actions on maintaining the health of ecosystem, cultural heritage, and environmental policy have become the priority vectors in the first year of Russia’s chairmanship. The overall responsibility of the leading actor the Arctic does not exclude the existence of classic threats to the security of state’s sovereignty, which requires accurate planning in subsequent years of the chairmanship.

Comparison of the Nordic Chairmanship Programmes and the Outputs of the Arctic Council in 2000–2013

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 158-186
Author(s):  
Paula Kovari
Keyword(s):  
Arctic Region ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Economic Activities ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
Effective Governance ◽  
Foreign Politics ◽  
Over Time ◽  
Take All ◽  
Impacts Of Climate Change ◽  
The Arctic Region

The impacts of climate change as well as the increase of economic activities call for effective governance of the Arctic Region. The Arctic Council is the predominant intergovernmental forum in the region. The rotating chairmanships of the Member States have a defining role in the work of the Council. This paper compares the Arctic Council chairmanship programmes of the five Nordic Countries with the organisation’s outputs following the two-year chairmanship periods as expressed in the ministerial Declarations and the SAOs’ reports. The paper finds that the discourse on the studied topics has developed greatly over time and despite the similarities between the countries’ foreign politics in general, there are some notable differences in the way the countries see the future of the Arctic – for example through the region’s vast natural resources or as a unique environment of the Arctic biodiversity. The conclusion of this research is that even though the chair cannot take all the credit for its accomplishments during the chairmanship period in question, nor can it be blamed for all possible failures, the chair’s work does leave its mark on the Arctic Council’s performance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document