Canada and the Asian Observers to the Arctic Council: Anxiety and Opportunity

Separatism and Regionalism in Modern Europe

“…Such a comprehensive and diplomatic offensive challenges Western dominance in developing regions and is motivated by a desire to acquire vital resources and new markets to fuel its own economy. Work on China's investment foothold in Africa and Central Asia is extensive, the latest wave of which can be traced back to the burgeoning 21st century (Alden, 2005;Sheives, 2006); however, scholarship on China's interest and strategy in the Arctic has only taken off in the 2010s and relies a great deal more on conjecture from Chinese communications and promises, and a keen (if imperfect) ability to distinguish between expressed justifications and hidden motivations (Ingimundarson, 2014;Lackenbauer, 2014;Lackenbauer, Lajeunesse, Manicom, & Lasserre, 2018). Among the Greenlandic parties, different levels of willingness to partner with non-Arctic states are espoused.…”

Opening a new ocean: Arctic Ocean fisheries regime as a (potential) turning point for Canada’s Arctic policy

“…12 However, the great reluctance displayed by the Conservatives and Canadians downplayed the contributions that non-Arctic states could bring to strengthen Arctic governance: investments, scientific resources, and funding for working groups at the Arctic Council, to name a few. 13 Additionally, while China is one of the long-range fishing nations, many other natural Canadian allies (such as the European Union) are as well. Though Canadians were wary of China's involvement in Arctic issues, they saw cooperation and partnership with other Asian states, namely Japan and South Korea, in a more favourable light.…”

Shaping or Making Policy in a Melting Arctic: Examining the Institutional Effectiveness of the Arctic Council

“…Those scholars recognize the analytical richness of exploring the interplay between these scales to understand the complex connections that exist between the Arctic Council and other institutions at all levels -for example, Stone's (2016) The third feature that defines the Arctic Council literature is the unit of analysis, which refers to "the subject (the who or what) of study" (Lewis-Beck, Bryman, & Futing Liao, 2004). Examples of different units of analysis used in the context of the Arctic Council include: 1) the important role played by specific individuals in the creation or advancement of the Arctic Council, such as Mary Simon, Sheila Watt-Cloutier, Rosemarie Kuptana, Franklyn Griffith, Kalevi Sorsa or Kaj Barlund (English, 2013;Stone, 2016;Watt-Cloutier, 2015); 2) the contributions of specific organizations to the work of the Arctic Council, including the International Arctic Research Cooperation (IASC), Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) or the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) (Bravo & Rees, 2006;Koivurova, 2010;Rogne, Rachold, Hacquebord, & Corell, 2015;Young, 2009b) or 3) the involvement and activities of both Arctic states and non-Arctic states related to the Arctic Council (Exner-Pirot, 2011;Fenge, 2012a;Lackenbauer, 2014;Spence, 2013). Each of these units of analysis offers unique insights that inform our understanding of how the Arctic Council functions.…”

“…And yet discussions and debates about what role Arctic Council observers can or should play has consumed a large quantity of ink in recent yearsespecially with respect to powerful actors, like China, India and the E.U.. Some authors express concern about the economic interests, influence and power of the states and organizations seeking observer status; others focus on the impact of an increased number of participants on how the Arctic Council functions (Fenge, 2012a;Lackenbauer, 2014). Overall, experts expressed unease that the participation of high profile observers could dilute the influence of permanent participants (L. Axworthy & Simon, 2015;Brown, 2013).…”

“…In current discussions about the Arctic Council, there is an abundance of commentary on the role of non-Arctic states in the region (Brown, 2013;Graczyk, 2012;Lackenbauer, 2014). While this is an interesting discussion to explore in its own right, for the purposes of this analysis what it highlights is how little debate there is about the legitimacy of those states that have acquired the status of 'Arctic state' and, by extension, a position as member of the Arctic Council.…”