Arctic geopolitics revisited: spatialising governance in the circumpolar North

Abstract

With the Arctic ice barrier melting away due to anthropogenic global warming, Arctic states' governmental policies will inevitably determine future governance prospects in high northern latitudes. Whether multilateral cooperation will prevail over or at least complement national economic and security ambitions in the vulnerable Arctic ecosystem, is an often spotlighted but principally hypothetical question that lacks empirical depth. To shed light on this issue, we argue that foreign policy strategies on both sides of the Arctic Ocean are underpinned by a distinct "spatial logic" that drives state behaviour in a fuzzy definition of Arctic territory and accounts for recent region-building dynamics. Assessing geopolitical perceptions of the USA, Canada and the Russian Federation unveils the dichotomous nature of Arctic strategies swaying back and forth between "internal" and "common" waters. From this perspective, it is more Canada's domestically motivated demand for absolute sovereignty that hampers pan-Arctic collaboration rather than Russia's hegemon-like status as an Arctic actor.

Articulating state identity: ‘Peopling’ the Arctic state

“…Moreover, as noted, it works to position said state -at least in the eyes and minds of its practitioners -within relations of political power both with other states and with other spaces, institutions, and people. In other words, these identity discourses naturalise a certain, seemingly stable order (Knecht and Keil, 2013). This order, in turn, implies and conditions conduct.…”

Framing a ‘Climate Change Frontier’: International News Media Coverage Surrounding Natural Resource Development in Greenland

“…There is a general acceptance amongst Arctic scholars that growing interest in the region has largely been driven by a combination of rapidly warming climate and the perceived Ôopening upÕ of the region creating greater access to its abundant natural resource base and possible shipping routes (Lindholt, 2006). The literature examines various aspects of this ecological and socioeconomic change, from local to global, postulating possible futures and conceptually analysing the Arctic (Avango et al, 2013, Young 2012, Knecht and Keil, 2013, Keskitalo, 2004).…”

Pursuing national interests through international regimes the role of the unclos in shaping the arctic energy strategies of circumpolar states

“…The Commission´s role though, is limited to making recommendations as to how far the outer continental shelf should extend, but the final delimitation pertains to the individual states. Therefore, the CLCS does not consider cases which imply a territorial dispute between two state parties, which will have to agree upon a maritime boundary (KEIL, 2013;WEBER, 2014, p.45). As the Commission does not possess power of enforcement of its recommendations, the diverging positions of states may be presented in notes verbales or in the form of revised submissions which the CLCS subsequently considers.…”