Even though already slightly dated, a review of the Arctic Yearbook 2016, which this reviewer has been able to obtain as a paper copy, is necessary. This is because the Arctic Yearbook is truly a unique publication series in Arctic scholarship. Although the hardcopy version has the appearance of some kind of master's or doctoral thesis, this should not mask the fact that it contains high-level contributions from early-career as well as well-established scholars of Arctic affairs. Besides, the Arctic Yearbook is not meant to be distributed as a paper copy, but stands synonymous for open access. Via the series’ website, www.arcticyearbook.com, all yearbooks since the first one, published in 2012, can be accessed and downloaded. This fact alone is laudable, particularly given the oftentimes horrendous costs of accessing scholarly research. The Editors of the series have furthermore gathered an illustrious Editorial Board from academia and politics, which underlines the relevance of this series.

The Arctic Yearbook 2016 deals exclusively with the Arctic Council, marking its 20th anniversary: the subtitle of this expansive volume is ‘The Arctic Council: 20 Years of Regional Cooperation and Policy-Shaping’. The volume encompasses an impressive 49 contributions, consisting of rather short research articles, briefing notes and commentaries. I think it is a fair statement by the Editors (along with Lawson Brigham) that this book is “the most substantial evaluation of the Arctic Council ever published” (p. 19). In order to bring a structure to the vast number of contributions, the Editors have subdivided the book into five sections: 1. Introduction (with four contributions); 2. The Arctic Council as an Institution (with 11 contributions); 3. Arctic Science, Diplomacy and Policy (with 11 contributions); 4. Local and Indigenous Issues in Arctic Governance (with nine contributions); and 5. Arctic Geopolitics and Security (with 12 contributions). Lastly, the Epilogue holds two contributions, one of which is an obituary for Alyson Bailes.

Given the number of contributions it is impossible to write a critique of each single one. I therefore highlight just a few and leave it to the reader to judge the others. Let us thus begin with Camille Escudé’s paper ‘The strength of flexibility: the Arctic Council in the Arctic norm-setting process’, which shows how the Arctic Council (AC), despite its soft-law setting, has managed to normatively bring the Arctic onto the world's agenda by producing high-level scientific reports and making non-state actors part of Arctic deliberations – a new norm which may also affect other regions and political areas in the world. Given the scope of the chapter it is impossible to delve into broader issues relating to norms in the Arctic, so the author may be excused for not having dealt with national implementation of the norms the AC has generated over time – the Arctic countries’ different dealings with the rights of indigenous peoples is a case in point. The study of norm-creation in the Arctic is a rather new one and Escudé’s chapter should be considered the starting point for more research rather than concluded work (see also Lanteigne, Reference Lanteigne2017).

Clemens Binder's chapter ‘Science as a catalyst for deeper Arctic cooperation? Science diplomacy & the transformation of the Arctic Council’ shows how in the name of scientific knowledge-generation the AC has been able to establish trust between the Arctic states, particularly as regards NATO states and Russia, and has contributed to a more integrated approach to scientific inquiry by placing greater emphasis on the inclusion of indigenous knowledge. Binder also considers the gradual transformation of the Arctic Council towards a full-fledged institution in light of the recent Agreement on Scientific Cooperation, which was concluded between the Arctic states under the auspices of the Arctic Council. This is an interesting subject that warrants further investigation in the future, after the normative influence (or lack thereof) of the agreement on Arctic cooperation becomes more prevalent.

As a last example, Florian Vidal's chapter ‘Barents Region: the Arctic Council as a stabilizing magnet’ investigates the interplay between the Barents Euro-Arctic Region (BEAR) and the AC. While not delving into too much detail, Vidal shows how the cooperative structures in the AC also translate into deepened effectiveness of the BEAR. For instance, the location of the AC secretariat in Tromsø in association with the relocation of the Indigenous Peoples Secretariat from Copenhagen to Tromsø is a sign of the collaborative spirit between Russia and the western states in the Arctic as a whole, and particularly regarding the Barents Region. Indeed, to this reviewer's knowledge there is not much scholarly literature on the way the AC and the BEAR work or even compete with one another. Common threads between the AC, the BEAR and the Northern Forum have been identified (e.g. Hasanat, Reference Hasanat2013), but a critical analysis of the interplay between these organisations appears to be lacking.

These three examples show that the contributions to the Arctic Yearbook 2016 are thought-provoking and serve as inspiration for further research. What concerned me in some instances, however, was the terminology applied. For instance, the Arctic Council is often referred to as an ‘institution’ rather than a forum. Of course, there is no clear-cut definition of an institution per se, but I would argue that given the rather loose cooperative, indeed soft-law, structure of the Arctic Council it is not an institution at this point in time. The process of institutionalisation has without a doubt begun, best exemplified by the establishment of the secretariat and the conclusion of three legally binding regimes under its auspices. Also, some of the legal terminology used raises issues, for instance in Vidal's chapter, in which he claims that the US has not ‘signed’ the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (p. 308). This is factually incorrect, as the US signed it in 1994. It has, however, not ratified the convention and is therefore not party to it. While this may be the case, first, the UNCLOS is to a large degree shaped by customary law and the US accepts many of these provisions, and second, by signing it, based on the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the US cannot act contrary to its purpose. In this sense, therefore, the US is indeed ‘bound by this international legal framework’ (p. 308) – at least to some degree.

These smaller issues notwithstanding, the Arctic Yearbook 2016 is an important and recommendable publication focusing exclusively on the Arctic Council. In light of the diverse nature of the contributions and the multifaceted approach to analysing the Arctic Council it can be expected that it will serve as a reference work for future research on Arctic cooperation. The fact that all articles are readable and downloadable free of charge adds to this expectation.