How China Sees the Arctic: Reading Between Extraregional and Intraregional Narratives

Bennett, Mia M.

doi:10.1080/14650045.2015.1017757

Cited by 34 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The four principles articulated in China's Arctic policy sit well with Bennett's argument that China is systematically building two mutually reinforcing narratives to gain legitimacy as a regional stakeholder: one territorial, highlighting its "near-Arctic" location and involvement in Arctic research, and one globalist, highlighting the extra-regional impacts of Arctic change. 23 This balancing of territorial and globalist arguments for a role in Arctic affairs is also highly compatible with the general direction of policy spelt out in Japan's and Korea's Arctic documents.…”

Section: Chinamentioning

confidence: 62%

Asian Countries and Arctic Shipping: Policies, Interests and Footprints on Governance

Moe

Stokke

2019

Arctic Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most studies of Asian state involvement in Arctic affairs assume that shorter sea-lanes to Europe are a major driver of interest, so this article begins by examining the prominence of shipping concerns in Arctic policy statements made by major Asian states. Using a bottom-up approach, we consider the advantages of Arctic sea routes over the Suez and Panama alternatives in light of the political, bureaucratic and economic conditions surrounding shipping and shipbuilding in China, Japan and the Republic of Korea. Especially Japanese and Korean policy documents indicate soberness rather than optimism concerning Arctic sea routes, noting the remaining limitations and the need for in-depth feasibility studies. That policymakers show greater caution than analysts, links in with our second finding: in Japan and Korea, maritime-sector bureaucracies responsible for industries with Arctic experience have been closely involved in policy development, more so than in China. Thirdly, we find a clear tendency towards rising industry-level caution and restraint in all three countries, reflecting financial difficulties in several major companies as well as growing sensitivity to the economic and political risks associated with the Arctic routes. Finally, our examination of bilateral and multilateral Chinese, Japanese and Korean diplomatic activity concerning Arctic shipping exhibits a lower profile than indicated by earlier studies. Responsible Editor: Øyvind Ravna, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway

show abstract

Section: Chinamentioning

confidence: 62%

Asian Countries and Arctic Shipping: Policies, Interests and Footprints on Governance

Moe

Stokke

2019

Arctic Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such a distinction recognized that China, alongside other extra-territorial states and organizations, had legitimate interests in the Arctic regarding climate change, sea ice melting, natural resource development and shipping. This is a distinction that Mia Bennett has helpfully described as the inchoate intersection of extra-regional and inter-regional narratives (Bennett, 2015).…”

Section: 'Observing' the Arctic (And Arctic Council)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction: the Arctic Council, Asian states and the global Arctic

Dodds¹,

Woon²

2020

‘Observing’ the Arctic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This is done essentially by highlighting the inability of the members of the AC (but also the five Arctic Ocean coastal states) to comprehensively address 'Arctic' issues by themselves. In this light, foregrounding the scientific efforts to 'work toward a comprehensive understanding of the environmental changes in the Arctic and their effect on the rest of the globe' in Japan's Arctic policy document (2015, p. 7), can be viewed as a speech act aimed at solidifying a new object of cooperation: a 'global Arctic' (a framing that has lately attained much prominence, see Bennett, 2015). We argue that such 'global Arctic' language is a speech act designed to facilitate the engagement of the 'non-Arctic' states even further, potentially leading to a new kind of political assemblage in which the prevailing power relations are transformed.…”

Section: From Politics Of Inclusion To Politics Of Transformationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The selection was done on the rationale that both of these states have relatively recently adopted Arctic policies, yet they represent different 'generations' of observers within the AC. In addition, these states have not attained as much analytical attention as, for example, the UK in Europe (Depledge, 2013) or China in Asia (Bennett, 2015). Employing a comparative approach between European and non-European countries also helps to tease out and better contextualize the speech acts through which 'arcticization' occurs globally, thus bringing added value in illustrating how the territory-network interplay between the Arctic and nation states unfolds.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Territory–network interplay in the co-constitution of the Arctic and ‘to-be’ Arctic states

Väätänen

Zimmerbauer

2019

Territory, Politics, Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Territory-network interplay in the co-constitution of the Arctic and 'to-be' Arctic states This paper discusses the (re)production of state and supranational regional spaces through speech acts. Emphasis is placed especially on speech acts that 'construct' regions and concurrently (re)position specific states as 'legitimized' actors within supranational space. Relatedly, focus is directed to how such repositioning is linked to territory-network interplay in establishing and contesting power relations in supranational regional institutions. The article discusses first how the region-building process in the Arcticand power relations within the Arctic Councilhas relied on territorial legitimation in which 'Arctic states' are rendered as the key 'Arctic' actors. Then the focus is shifted to how France and Japan, states considered 'non-Arctic', have recently repositioned themselves in relation to the region in order to gain influence. The key conclusion of the analysis is that by engaging with the observer criteria set by the AC, 'non-Arctic' states are redefining themselves in relation to the region, simultaneously (re)producing the Arctic region and non-Arctic states in relation to each other. This paper also argues that in attempting to dismantle some of the territorial criteria on which the established power relations within the AC rely, these states are pursuing the reinstitutionalization of a 'global' Arctic with renegotiated power relations.

show abstract

How China Sees the Arctic: Reading Between Extraregional and Intraregional Narratives

Cited by 34 publications

References 0 publications

Asian Countries and Arctic Shipping: Policies, Interests and Footprints on Governance

Asian Countries and Arctic Shipping: Policies, Interests and Footprints on Governance

Introduction: the Arctic Council, Asian states and the global Arctic

Territory–network interplay in the co-constitution of the Arctic and ‘to-be’ Arctic states

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About