Between classical and critical geopolitics in a changing Arctic

Abstract

Puzzled by how geographical changes in the Arctic might cause changes in state behavior the authors of this article have been inspired to return to the roots of geopolitical reasoning. By combining insights from the intellectual roots of the geopolitical tradition with empirical data on geographical changes as well as policy changes in the Arctic today, we investigate the degree to which geopolitics, in the sense of geography influencing politics, is still a useful approach in the discipline of International Relations (IR). In limiting our primary focus to the state level, and investigating the period since the turn of the millennium, this article seeks to develop new knowledge concerning if, how, and to what extent geography matters in international politics. Our empirical investigation indicates that geographical changes in the Arctic have indeed had an effect on power relations among several states. Overall, this article shows that geography is an important factor in IR in the sense of enabling or empowering state actors. However, while it appears that physical geography is a possible factor in the cases analyzed to explain changes in identified power potentials, it does not always account for these changes on its own. Economic, political, legal, and historical factors also play a role in the observed power shifts.

The role of conferences within Arctic governance

“…The origin of the Arctic Circle Assembly was well-timed with Iceland's changing position on the global arena. In 2006, the United States withdrew its military forces from Keflavik airbase, which, coupled with Russia resuming its long-range military aviation in 2007, forced the Icelandic government to rethink its strategic options (Ingimundarson, 2015;Wegge & Keil, 2018). The 2008 financial crisis further added a need for economic revitalization (Depledge & Dodds, 2017, p. 143).…”

Arctic Security Strategies and the North Atlantic States

“…20,21 With the Russian flag planted on the sea floor of the North Pole in 2007, 22 fueled by high energy prices and global warming, a wave of debate on Arctic geopolitics followed. 23 While the media debate that followed the flag planting was largely centered on traditional aspects of security, the epistemological point of departure of many of the academic studies fits well within the tradition of critical geopolitics, by not having traditional aspects of state security and strategic interest at their core. 24,25 However, with the increased tensions following Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, the debate in the last few years has also led to greater interest in the genuine security and defence dimension 26,27 of the Arctic, as found within the tradition of strategic studies.…”

Arctic Geopolitics, Media and Power

“…Mediation takes place in a range of contexts, such as the articulation of national Arctic policies, texts and images in popular culture, museum exhibits and new media, and the role of such expressions in public life and politics has come into increasing focus in studies of the critical geopolitics of the Arctic (e.g. Dittmer et al, 2011;Dittmer and Dodds, 2013;Wegge and Keil, 2018). Secondary information about the region is likely to play a prominent role in how the Arctic is framed, as relatively few people have any first-hand knowledge of the region.…”

“…Understandings of the role of geopolitics in international dynamics have oscillated between classical and critical schools of the discipline, and Arctic change in combination with how the region is narrated provides fertile ground for comparing and contrasting the different schools (Eklund and van der Watt, 2017;Wegge and Keil, 2018). Furthermore, these trends highlight a need to understand the role of media and mediation, including the dialectical relationship between the discursive realm and materiality.…”