The Arctic: A new region of conflict? The case of oil and gas

Abstract

Neorealist and neoliberal institutionalist explanations for the state and future of the Arctic region dominate the Arctic debate in international relations. While both schools focus on different aspects concerning the current and future state of Arctic affairs -neorealism evokes a confrontational rush for the Arctic's resources, whereas neoliberal institutionalism propagates the necessary reform of the institutional system governing Arctic issues -both share the underlying assumption of significant and rising stakes towards Arctic commodities. However, this article argues that this debate has hitherto failed to substantiate the actual stakes of the main actors involved. Consequently, many studies make grandiloquent statements about prospects of cooperation and conflict and the appropriate institutional framework for the Arctic region, based on only limited empirical support. This article aims to fill this gap by analysing the Arctic oil and gas interests of the five Arctic littoral states (Russia, USA, Canada, Norway and Denmark/Greenland). The analysis shows greatly different levels of interests towards the High North among the Arctic states. The findings make it possible to make more credible statements about the likelihood of confrontation over Arctic resources and necessary institutional adjustments. The evidence shows that the often-evoked issue of geopolitical rush for Arctic resources is unlikely to eventuate. Nonetheless, there remain institutional challenges for the protection of the fragile Arctic ecosystem.

Arctic in Rapid Transition: Priorities for the future of marine and coastal research in the Arctic

“…concerning extended continental shelves in the Arctic Ocean especially among the five Arctic states (e.g., Elferink et al, 2001), and Questions of cooperation and conflict (e.g., Keil, 2014Keil, , 2015 as well as security questions, ranging from traditional, military issues of security to a more comprehensive understanding of security including human and environmental security (e.g., Young, 2011).…”

Modernisation of the Russian Energy Sector: Constraints on Utilising Arctic Offshore Oil Resources

“…This includes studies conducted in different disciplines, for example on Russia's Arctic resources (Kontorovich et al 2010;Zolotukhin & Gavrilov 2011;Kryukov & Moe 2013), on Russia's territorial claims on grounds of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) to access the offshore resources (Dodds 2010;Koivurova 2011), and on Russian interests vis-à-vis international cooperation and the role of institutions in the utilisation of the resources (Kraska 2011;Hong 2012;Filimonova 2013;Keil 2013;Klimenko 2014), as well as the associated ecological risks (Lesikhina et al 2007). However, there is a dearth of theoretical models to help to systematise existing knowledge on the resources, institutions and ecology.…”

Can zoning resolve nature use conflicts? The case of the Numto Nature Park in the Russian Arctic

“…Climate change, turbulent (geo)political developments and intensive exploitation of natural resources contrast with ambitions to keep this region as a territory of peace, protected nature and, not least, a safeguarded home of indigenous people (Berkman and Young 2009;Young 2011;Brosnan, Leschine, and Miles 2011;Hovelsrud et al 2011;Knecht and Keil 2013;Keil 2014). This dilemma of development versus conservation frequently upsets decision-makers and stakeholders since finding a middle ground between fossil fuel-based economic development, environmental protection and indigenous people, who try to maintain traditional ways of life (e.g.…”