While a long-term decrease in overall Arctic sea ice extent has been recorded by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (2014) since the late 1970s, the unprecedented levels of ice melting and thinning experienced in the region in 2007, and subsequently in 2012, have brought the Arctic once again to the forefront of international affairs. Much popular and academic attention has focused on whether the Arctic is likely to remain a zone of cooperation, or descend into conflict. However, less attention has been paid to examining the evolution and role of fora in the region, such as the Arctic Council. In this paper, it is argued that three visions are presently shaping ways of thinking about the Council: the first envisages the Council as a society for Arctic states; the second sees the Council as a steward for the Arctic; and the third imagines the Council as a fully-fledged security actor. The extent to which each vision is manifested in the practices of the Council and its members is also examined. Finally, the paper considers what the ongoing tensions within and among these three ways of conceptualising the Council means for its future prospects, and for Arctic politics more generally.

Over the last decade claims that an Arctic ‘cold rush’ is taking place have intensified. Proponents of the argument contend that the unprecedented effects of climate change plus strong global demand for the region's natural resources are creating the conditions for a future economic boom. In both of these respects, Greenland merits particular attention. Some recent predictions suggest great riches accruing to Greenland, on account of its abundance of oil, gas and mineral deposits; as a consequence, some further argue, Greenlandic independence from Denmark is assured. In response, this article contests these arguments. For now, the natural and mineral resource sector in Greenland is tiny, and thus it is still much too soon to know whether it will even deliver the dazzling economic outcome forecast – let alone whether or not this outcome will benefit Greenland. In addition, the question of Greenlandic independence does not simply boil down to economics, but also raises various social, political, legal and strategic issues which are not easily resolvable. Consequently, Greenland's independence from Denmark is not simply a matter of time, but remains very much an open question.

No abstract

No abstract