The political order in the Arctic: power structures, regimes and influence

Wegge, Njord

doi:10.1017/s0032247410000331

Cited by 35 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…70 On a similar topic, Wegge, who refers to governance but, like Murray, does not conceptualize the term, applies insights from classical international theory to analyze the political order in the Arctic: but, unlike Murray, he concludes on the stability of the multipolar system in the Arctic which he explains by the role of multilateral institutions, and by the balance of power between the actors involved. 71 The four categories highlighted in this study should not be seen as mutually exclusive. Indeed, a clear-cut distinction between these categories is no more than an analytical device, and academics may incorporate several features of these categories.…”

Section: Policy Makers: a Westphalian Model Of Governance For The Arcticmentioning

confidence: 88%

What is “Arctic Governance”? A Critical Assessment of the Diverse Meanings of “Arctic Governance”

Pelaudeix

2014

Yearb Polar Law Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The history of the concept of governance in Arctic social science does not necessarily take into account the process and degree of conceptualization pertaining to the subject or any semantic consistency in its use. Unlike the homogeneous or 'taken-for-granted' use of the concept by policy-makers in general, centered on a Westphalian or statecentered understanding of governance, the academic production on Arctic governance is characterized by four categories of approaches -pragmatic, prescriptive, functional and critical -which do not attempt to coincide with disciplinary borders or theoretical framework distinctions. The substantive goals of these approaches differ depending on the context -the likeliness of implementation, compliance with law, efficiency and effectiveness of processes, or the framing or re-framing of issues. Whereas not mutually exclusive, the four approaches contrast in the role they grant to law and normativity in the governance process, as well as in their assessment of effectiveness, and the specificity of the yardsticks used. This diversity leads to very contrasted assessment of governance. Although, economic governance is poorly investigated in governance studies, as well as the diverging views on governance amongst the actors concerned, the concept of governance has provided a valuable tool, affording complementary or contrasting insights, in understanding the state of the Arctic and anticipating its future.

show abstract

Section: Policy Makers: a Westphalian Model Of Governance For The Arcticmentioning

confidence: 88%

What is “Arctic Governance”? A Critical Assessment of the Diverse Meanings of “Arctic Governance”

Pelaudeix

2014

Yearb Polar Law Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many of the studies focusing on state-level Arctic politics and interactions among states in the Arctic have focused on security questions -both broadly construed (e.g. Heininen, 2015;Hoogensen Gjørv et al, 2013;Huebert et al, 2012;Sergunin and Konyshev, 2015;Wegge, 2010) and more specifically focused on the military preparedness and capacities of Arctic states (e.g. Blunden, 2012;Kraska, 2011;Zysk, 2011).…”

Section: Regional Arctic Institutions/ Legal Framework/ Regimesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Arctic governance

Rowe¹

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This electronic version has been made freely available under a Creative Commons (CC-BY-NC-ND) licence, which permits non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction provided the author(s) and Manchester University Press are fully cited and no modifications or adaptations are made. Details of the licence can be viewed at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. The publisher has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for any external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. Typeset by Out of House Publishing AcknowledgementsThis book would have been impossible to carry out without the contributions of others.I am grateful to all of the interviewees from many years from Moscow; Murmansk; Ottawa; Washington, DC; Iqaluit; Copenhagen; Oslo; Anchorage; and elsewhere. All of these interviewees are busy practitioners, whose responsibilities and schedules are not necessarily designed to accommodate discussing questions with a researcher. Yet they found the time and energy to meet with me, and their insights have been invaluable.The enthusiasm of these practitioners is matched by a thriving world of Arctic social-science scholars, who continuously produce so much new, interesting research that I had to keep updating the references of this book until the very last minute. Discussions with this community of scholars, established and junior, at project workshops, at the International Congress of Arctic Social Sciences, Arctic Circle and Arctic Frontiers have been inspiring and formative. My 'long ago' friends and teachers from student days at the Scott Polar Research Institute continue to shape my thinking. My 'part-time' colleagues, Frode Mellemvik, Anatoli Bourmistrov and Elena Dybtsyna, as well as students at the High North Centre for Business at Nord University in Bodø, have increased my understanding of Arctic politics.I also appreciate the efforts of the anonymous reviewers who took time to comment, and of Jessica Shadian, who looked closely at the manuscript for me at an important juncture. From the days of the Greek cartographers dreaming about Ultima Thule at the edges of the known world, the cold reaches of the northern hemisphere have inspired grandiose caricatures of risk and opportunity. The region is often imagined from a distance as sublime, exceptional and prone to extremes. Out of space and out of time, as Poe put it, the circumpolar North is frequently envisioned as fundamentally apart from the complexities, indeterminacies and intricacies of life and politics in other parts of the globe. We see some of this exceptionalism in the application of dichotomies to the Arctic: the Arctic will either be preserved as humanity's last wilderness, or plundered by coastal states jealously guarding their natural resource treasure chests. All Arctic states are completely equal in Arctic governance, or the USA and Russia dominate militarily and diplomatically against a ve...

show abstract

“…The Arctic coastal states such as Canada, Greenland/Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the USA have also taken to meeting biannually to discuss issues of particular interest to Arctic coastal states more specifically. In particular, these states have been coordinated in asserting the primacy and sufficiency of existing international law, which gives these coastal states a special responsibility and authority in regional governance questions (Ilulissat Declaration 2008;Wegge 2011).…”

Section: Analyzing the 'Conduct Of Conduct' In Arctic Politicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In other words: to what extent do the USA, Norway, and Russia welcome Asian countries into the Arctic cold? These countries are selected as the USA and Russia are important in setting the overall tone of Arctic politics (Wegge 2011;Wilson Rowe and Blakkisrud 2013), while Norway is an important policy entrepreneur in the region and invests a significant amount of funding and political capital in shaping Arctic governance (Jensen and Hønneland 2011;Tamnes 2011;Wilson Rowe 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coming into the cold: Asia's Arctic interests

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In their Arctic strategy documents, the five Arctic coastal states (Canada, Greenland/Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the USA) all point to increased traffic and regional activity as a promising economic possibility and a security and governance challenge. These developments have not gone unnoticed by nonArctic states who have demonstrated an increasing interest in the region, most noticeably through their successful applications to gain permanent observer status in the preeminent regional forum Á the eight-country Arctic Council. We argue that the rising interest of non-Arctic actors highlights some interesting questions about how governance in the region will develop and how Arctic states envision the region's global significance. This article engages with questions about Arctic governance through a study of the Arctic interests of four Asian states (China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea) and how Arctic states are meeting this increased interest. We focus on the varied reception of non-Arctic states by established Arctic actors, namely the USA, Russia, and Norway, and how they have reacted to the idea of Asian observer states in the Arctic Council. This study is primarily based on a set of qualitative interviews with civil servants and nonstate actors engaged in Arctic governance, media reports and primary documents.

show abstract

The political order in the Arctic: power structures, regimes and influence

Cited by 35 publications

References 28 publications

What is “Arctic Governance”? A Critical Assessment of the Diverse Meanings of “Arctic Governance”

What is “Arctic Governance”? A Critical Assessment of the Diverse Meanings of “Arctic Governance”

Arctic governance

Coming into the cold: Asia's Arctic interests

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About