The Nuances of Geopolitics in the Arctic (original) (raw)
This dissertation will seek to analyse the respective positions of the five ‘Arctic states’ and their policies with regard to the High Northern latitudes of the planet. These five states are Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the USA. Each one of these states has specific and unique characteristics that define and develop their respective policies. This dissertations maintains that whilst the Arctic as a geopolitical space attracts the attention of individuals and organisations from around the world it is fundamentally and undeniably altered and interpreted by these five states and their respective capabilities beyond the influence or ability of any and all other entities save nature. This dissertation does not seek to interpret or deconstruct the legitimacy of states or their right to exist although the relationship between the entity of the state and the Arctic as the natural physical world is observed in the Introduction. From analysis grounded inside the real and functional paradigms of state power and its projection inside the physical space of the Arctic this paper seeks knowledge in interpreting what is important to the ‘Arctic Five’ and how their outlooks, policies and actions have shaped and will shape the Arctic. This dissertation recognises two established and mainstay theories of international relations namely: Realism and Liberalism. The purpose and aim of this paper is to determine with good evidence and reason the nature of state relations within the Arctic and if the political precedent adheres to one theory over the other. However the argument and analysis followed should not entertain exclusion of either theory or discount the value afforded by other, revisionist, readings of international relations theory. Without complication the goal is to identify which pattern takes precedent in the Arctic: state driven strategy or new cooperation. Each of the five Arctic states is taken as its own unique case. Each state has coastline within the Arctic Circle and every state is researching and planning submissions to the Commission on Continental Shelf Extension under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. However, although the states interact and acknowledge each other’s presence and rights within the Arctic each has evaluated the space in a different way. Therefore each state specific chapter looks at the core driving factors behind each state’s Arctic policy and behaviour. These variables are extensive and do not lie easily within traditional political or economic paradigms. This reality renders well the difficulties of Arctic study in the frame of broader, global geopolitical analyses. The finite and delicate environmental nature or the region promotes the constant of uncertainty that has matriculated from scientific/climatic analyses to underpin technological, economic, political and social realities at all levels. Parallel to this is the reality of empty space. The Arctic is barely inhabited and state frameworks, both tangible and theoretical, easily perish in such an unforgiving and remote environment. This paper also includes a chapter on the impact of UNCLOS and the Arctic Council in the region. These forums hold particular and specific relevance to the Arctic and have been prevalent in the respective state policy formulations. Both provide international windows in the Arctic. The Arctic Council is heavily referenced in Arctic policies and viewed as a legitimate forum for state interaction and understanding in the Arctic. UNCLOS also provides a legal framework consistent with normative international law that has led to a previously unseen level of bathymetric data collection as states attempt to map out the possible extent of their underwater continental shelves for submission to international law and the creation of recognised sovereignty and the natural hydrocarbon wealth this entails. Scientific research and finding in the Arctic is extensive and much publicised. This paper will not seek to interpret or drawn down findings from these beyond an understanding that the Arctic is threatened by, and overtly vulnerable to, climate change, that the ice cap is shrinking and that human exploitation of the High North may take a substantial and irreversible toll on the fragile environment there. These realities provide the framework, structure and analysis of this dissertation accordingly. Any form of political analysis of the Arctic will inherently focus on the Arctic Five states as the region’s ‘power containers’ (Giddens). Their interaction and operation in the High North is our medium of understanding.
Geopolitics and International Governance in the Arctic
Arctic Governance: Volume 1, 2017
The Arctic has been the object of heated political discussion in recent years as the region has evolved from a potential conflict zone during the Cold War to an arena for international cooperation immediately afterwards. Since the mid-2000s attention has once again focused on the conflict potential of the Arctic, this time related to its resources. This article looks at how the research literature balances its prospects. The literature on international relations (IR) in the Arctic has been mainly empirical in orientation, although framed in the major IR traditions of realism (traditional geopolitics), institutionalism and (to a lesser extent) constructivism. The English-language literature on Arctic politics, which naturally dominates the field globally, is by and large framed in institutional terms. The discussion is not whether institutions matter in Arctic politics, but how they best can be crafted in order to maintain peace and stability in the region. Speculations about a 'scramble for the Arctic' have more or less unanimously been refuted in the literature. The French literature, on the other hand, is largely framed in a geopolitical context. French geopolitics is less concerned with the global power game than with the rivalry between states for strategic resources. The institutions of cooperation are, however, downplayed.
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Three Levels of Arctic Geopolitics
2020
Few places have been the source of as much speculation, hype, and sweeping statements as the Arctic region at the start of the 21st century. Ever since 2006–07, a continuous narrative has portrayed the High North as the next arena for geopolitical conflict—the place where Russia, the United States, NATO, and eventually China are bound to clash. Propelled to the top of the international agenda by Russian flag-planting stunts and U.S. resource appraisals as much as the growing global concern for climate change, the Arctic keeps luring researchers and journalists northwards. It is here they expect the next “big scramble” to take place.1
ARCTIC - A REGION OF DISSONANT INTERNATIONAL INTERESTS.
The enduring global warming has opened new views of exploitation of the Arctic. The possibility to open new ship routes, huge resource reserves, and fishery are of interest of many entities, however experts’ opinions still differs. Although the cooperation between the nations has been peaceful, the military presence in the area is increasing and it remains to be seen how the recent Ukrainian crisis will affect the development in the area. As for now, no major conflicts in this area are likely and cooperation is supported by international treaties (e.g. UNCLOS) and organizations (e.g. the Arctic Council). There are several international disputes and also perils related to the Russian Federation, being major player there. Russia builds multidimensional capabilities, including military and economy ones, to support national interests. The Western sanctions are negatively influencing exploration of natural resources making Moscow nervous and it country must be treated very seriously to avoid creating new “Cold war” type icy relations and confrontation.
Geopolitics and Security in the Arctic: What Role for the EU?
European View
The Arctic has received considerable attention over the last decade due to climate change, positive resource appraisals and the increased military presence in the region. Portrayals range from those that warn of impending conflicts to those that emphasise the region's unique cooperative environment. To what extent are the generalisations about Arctic security and geopolitics accurate? What fuels these generalisations? Moreover, what is the role of the EU in this changing geopolitical environment? This article examines the causes of conflict in the Arctic and argues that the disputes over territory, resources and the North Pole are limited in magnitude. At the same time, the security dynamics within the Arctic are relevant, given each state's relations to Russia. The EU's role, however, is less a geopolitical one and more concerned with two dimensions, namely awareness and support. For EU policymakers and decision-makers, understanding the complexities of the north should...
International Rivalry for Arctic Chances and Its Impact on Regional and Global Security
American International Journal of Contemporary Research , 2016
The melting ices of the High North reveal its abundance of resources. Such a situation creates new multidimensional challenges and changes. They are accompanied with threats, anyway. The international rivalry between the states has been initiated. This article tackles the selected aspects of rivalry and its tools. Recently the three major players have appeared to play a primary role in the game for the access to the High North potential. Such circumstances accompanied with the legal gaps in normalization of the arctic problems cause tensions and inspire fears that the Arctic chances can be the reason for new threats. Some nations more and more visibly tending to militarization of the Arctic region provoke anxiety.
Changing Geopolitics Reinforcing Competitive Proclivities in the Arctic
Journal of Politics and International Studies, 2022
The US 2021 Arctic Strategy views the Arctic as a shared zone and potential corridor for strategic war. Arctic nations became more circumspect in 2014 after Russia intervened in Ukraine, and now that the war between Ukraine and Russia has advanced, the littoral governments are gravely concerned for their security and national interests. Russia's fear and quest for regional control are primarily caused by NATO's increasing involvement, which Moscow views as a threat to its national security. The possibility of expanded militarization and information-gathering activities are some of the new security realities in the Arctic. The politicization of the Arctic region can be understood by categorizing it into three major variables: security, economy, and climate change. Climate change has opened up new avenues for security and economic development. It has increased competitiveness in shipping and security. Each of these elements has been explored in this work. The paper is divided into two sections; the first explores how state actors might easily exploit trading opportunities and considerable economic prospects as a result of climate change. The second part of the article addresses how different actors' Arctic strategies create dilemmas and raise current security issues in the Arctic region.
Navigating Arctic Realities: Geopolitics, Security, and Climate Change
Il Politico, 2024
This paper aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the main issues related to geopolitical changes in the Arctic region, along with an overview of the scientific literature regarding these issues. After a historical analysis, the research focuses on the evolution of Arctic security, examining alleged militarization and the impact of climate change. Next, the major powers involved and their interests and strategies in the region are explored. Finally, we focus on economic enterprises and multilateralism in the area, both of which are affected by recent events and climate change.