RUSSIAN AND NORTHERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES COOPERATION IN DEVELOPING ARCTIC TOURISM

The Arctic as a territory of strategic presence is in the field of close attention of many players in the geopolitical and international economic arena. The Arctic tourism development over the past 15 years is due not only to the influence of business, social and cultural factors, as well as the growing interest of consumers to get a unique experience of travel to northern tourism destinations but is also associated with the development of global economic processes and diplomatic relations, which determine successful bilateral cooperation in interdepartmental and intergovernmental level. Multilateral cooperation and the implementation of jointly adopted tourism development programs within the framework of the activities of international organizations are also of great importance. With the restrictions on international and domestic travel in two recent years, the global tourism market entered a crisis state, which affected the dynamics of tourist arrivals in the Arctic and slowed down this development. The author, drawing attention to the current bilateral and intergovernmental agreements on cooperation in tourism between Russia and the Nordic countries and the Plan of significant events in connection with Russia's chairmanship in the Arctic Council in 2021–2023 proposes to support a peaceful and friendly policy of good-neighbourliness and cooperation in matters of sustainable tourism development in the Arctic, despite the claims of the European Union for interference in Arctic affairs, which were reflected in the European Commission's Joint Communication dated October 13, 2021.

Key scientific-research institutes of the Scandinavian countries and international projects conducting research and development of the Arctic

The Arctic region, having tremendous natural resources, is of strategic importance for the Russian Federation. Protection of the Arctic environment, its progressive development, modernization and reorganization of the expeditionary infrastructure as well as scientific research implementation become more effective in close international cooperation. Establishment of strong scientific relationships between research institutes of the Arctic Council States is essential for the achievement of their national and regional goals. This article is concerned with the description of the scientific-research institutes based in Norway, Finland and Sweden, which focus on the study of the Arctic. The paper covers their main objectives, areas of a scientific activity, educational projects arrangement and participation in the Arctic expeditions. The article discusses an existing interaction of the considered scientific institutes of the Scandinavian countries with the institutes and universities of the Russian Federation, investigating the Arctic and Antarctic. This review will allow expanding current ways and outlining new possibilities of collaboration between the countries of the Arctic pool within the Arctic exploration and development. The paper particularly emphasizes on such large international projects as the University of the Arctic (UArctic), the MOSAiC expedition and the International Meteorological Institute (IMI).

Fuzzy Signals to Potential Observer States in the Arctic Council

The attention to the Arctic is fuelled by the prospect of economic development, emerging shipping routes, and changing geopolitics. Since 1996 the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum for Arctic cooperation, has served to foster environmental protection and sustainable development in the region. The Arctic Council is composed of the eight Arctic states with territory north of the Arctic Circle and six Permanent Participants representing Arctic Indigenous People. Since its inception, the Arctic Council has admitted 13 non-Arctic Observer states. However, in 2021 three new candidates (Ireland, Czech Republic, and Estonia) were not successful with their applications despite proven records of Arctic research and influence in the region. This article will elaborate on the dynamics of Observer states admittance to the Arctic Council. Signalling theory is applied in this paper as a theoretical lens. More precisely, this paper will concentrate on fuzzy signalling, because such signals do not fall into binary classification and require a lot of contextual geopolitical information for interpretation. The data consists of research articles, publicly available statements, and media articles. The findings demonstrate that the admittance of Observer states to the Arctic Council can be viewed as fuzzy signalling. This paper will argue that fuzzy signalling is intrinsic to a multi-actor governance forum like the Arctic Council, where decisions are made on a consensus basis.

Involvement of 'Outsiders' in the Arctic Region

Since ancient times people have had access to the Arctic Circle, however, the last few decades have seen recent technological advancements that have allowed the area to be explored more comprehensively. This has created a significantly more complex picture than before as it has been called the new “Great Game.” With the rising interests of eight nations and other non-Arctic countries in the region, overlapping territorial claims have the potential to create new challenges. It is anticipated that increased interest will lead to an increase in the number of vessels transiting the region, despite harsh climate conditions. Meanwhile, the Arctic is experiencing environmental change that is inescapably leading to a new geopolitical reality. Authors, such as Jason Dittmer, have claimed that “The Arctic is evolving from a regional frozen backwater into a global hot issue.” This article discusses the colliding interests and current state of affairs of the three Arctic Council Asian observer countries, China, Japan, and South Korea, as well as those of two observer organizations, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the European Union (EU). Sustainability is one of the major priorities of these countries, which has been reflected in their Arctic policies. The reason for examining China, Japan, and South Korea is that they are growing superpowers and industrialized countries with varying interests in regards to the Arctic region.

An Overview of National and International Environmental Laws pertaining to Arctic States and Their Work with the Arctic Council

The latest International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report published in August 2021 demonstrated that the Arctic region drastically feels the impacts of climate change. Several laws and policies contribute to the governance of the reduction of emissions which impact the Arctic polar region. This work will analyse the inclusion of language relating to the Arctic region in several key Arctic countries’ climate policies and in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) submitted in requirement of being parties to the Paris Agreement. Arctic policies of these same countries will then be analysed to determine the degree to which they stipulate action relating to the Arctic environment. Finally, the several research projects and initiatives conducted by the Arctic Council’s two working groups, the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) and the Arctic Contaminants Action Programme (ACAP), will be overviewed to demonstrate their contributions to the best available science and practice in the region. This paper will look into how, and to what extent, the research of the Arctic Council working groups can be considered a mechanism of soft law in Arctic environmental governance. Consideration will also be given to how this relates to soft law governance stemming from the Law of the Sea (LOSC).

European Union and Cooperation in the Arctic Council

Since 2008, the European Union has unsuccessfully tried to obtain permanent observer status in the Arctic Council, the central cooperation forum in the Arctic. The analysis shows that the EU's failures in this area are connected both with its location mostly outside of the region and remoteness from the northern realities, as well as global geopolitical tensions. However, the EU has had de facto observer ad hoc status since 2013, allowing it to participate in almost all formats of interaction in the Arctic Council. Considering this fact, the permanent observer status has rather a symbolic meaning and is equivalent to joining a kind of “privileged Arctic club”. An analysis of the EU's functioning in its relations with the Arctic Council and its members shows that the EU is ready to adapt and listen to the opinion of the Arctic countries in order to become a legitimate Arctic actor. The Arctic Council is of uneven importance for the different EU member states: Denmark, Finland and Sweden are full members, several countries are permanent observers, but most EU countries are not interested in the Arctic issues. Because of this multifaceted nature, the collective EU is more of an extra-regional player on the platform, but one with serious Arctic claims. The EU is actively working on a common Arctic policy. It is represented in the Arctic Council by the Ambassador-at-Large for Arctic Affairs, introduced in 2017, who acts in coordination with the European Commission and the member states concerned. The EU's overall approach is not unsuccessful: it has managed to engage more member states on the Arctic vector, and European expertise and input on sustainable development issues is already becoming an integral part of the AC's work and promises to evolve further.

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

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.

Assessing Japan’s Arctic Engagement during the ArCS Project (2015–2020)

As Japan is considered a non-regional actor in Arctic governance, this paper begins with analysing how Japan navigates the web of Arctic governance and how it manages to create a coherent Arctic narrative and engages with the Arctic both inside and outside the region. The present research argues that the construction of an Arctic identity is a praxis performed through time that needs to be constantly reaffirmed. To illustrate this point, the paper then uses a lateral rather than linear approach to assess the influence of the Arctic on Japan at present. This paper assesses Japan’s engagement on the main stage where Arctic governance is performed (i.e. The Arctic Council) since the release of Japan’s Arctic Policy and under the Arctic Challenge for Sustainability project, Japan’s flagship program for Arctic research. Looking to the future, countries such as Japan who are willing to be involved in all parts of Arctic governance will have to make a choice about what kind of Arctic relationships they want to create and in which of these relationships Japan could invest more.

8. Arctic futures

‘Arctic futures’ discusses the future of the Arctic that starts in the Norwegian territory of Svalbard wherein the Global Seed Vault functions as an Arctic sanctuary for the genetic diversity of crops. The Svalbard archipelago is a hotspot of Arctic amplification as rapid warming has been keenly felt by the small community. However, the environmental changes, no matter how stark and widespread, will not dampen interest in economic development and strategic posturing. Arctic states and northern peoples remain eager to improve their social and economic conditions as well as adapt to ongoing climate change. The Arctic is a haven of international peace and cooperation as the Arctic Council is cited as a governance model that others could emulate.