Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T12:32:23.813Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2010

Njord Wegge
Njord Wegge*
Affiliation:
Department of political science, University of Tromsø, 9037 Tromsø, Norway ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the last few years, questions pertaining to cooperation and conflict in the Arctic have emerged in the media, as well as within academia. While many scholars have rightly rejected the prospect of an imminent escalation of conflicts, the current debate is insufficiently informed by the literature on political order within the field of international relations (IR). In this article, the author attempts to explain the political order in the Arctic, situating his analysis within the broader context of IR theory. Guided by the perspectives of ‘hegemonics stability’, ‘balance of power’ and ‘Kantian internationalist theory’, focus is laid on power capabilities, international regimes and domestic regime type as independent variables. The main finding is that the Arctic is a multipolar ‘region,’ the enduring stability and peacefulness of which can be explained by both the role played by international regimes, and by the balance of power between the ‘stakeholders’ involved. The paper concludes by explaining how and why the smaller littoral Arctic states are the prime beneficiaries of this order.

Type
Research Article
Information
Polar Record , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 165 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adler, E., and Barnett, M.. 1998. Security communities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arctic Council. 1996. Declaration on the establishment of the Arctic Council, by the representatives of the Arctic states. 19 September 1996. Ottawa: Arctic Council.Google Scholar
AMAP (Arctic Monitoring Assessment Programme). 2009. Arctic boundaries. URL: http://www.amap.no/ (accessed 12 May 2009).Google Scholar
AMSA (Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment). 2009. Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment Report 2009. Arctic Council.Google Scholar
Baev, P.K. 2009. Troublemaking and risk-taking: the north in Russian military activities. In: Rowe, E.W. (editor). Russia and the north. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
Barma, N., Ratner, E., and Weber, S.. 2007. A world without the west. The National Interest 90 (July/August 2007) 23–30.Google Scholar
Blunden, M. 2009. The new problem of Arctic stability. Survival 51 (5): 121–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgerson, S.G. 2008. Arctic meltdown; The economic and security implications of global warming. Foreign Affairs 87 (2): 63–77.Google Scholar
Borgerson, S.G. 2009. The national interest and the law of the sea. New York: Council on Foreign Relations (Council Special Report 46 (May 2009)).Google Scholar
Brooks, S.G., and Wohlforth, W.C.. 2005. Hard times for soft balancing. International Security 30 (1): 72–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bull, H. 1995. The anarchical society. A study of order in world politics. New York: Columbia University Press (2nd edition).Google Scholar
Carr, E. 2001. The twenty years’ crisis, 1919–1939. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Corell, H. 2009. The Arctic: an opportunity to cooperate and demonstrate statesmanship. Journal of Transnational Law 42: 1065–1079.Google Scholar
Cox, R.W. 2001. Approaches to world order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deutsch, K.W., and Singer, J.D.. 1964. Multipolar power systems and international stability. World Politics 16 (3): 390–406.Google Scholar
Doyle, M.W. 1986. Liberalism and world politics. American Political Science Review 80 (4): 1151–1169.Google Scholar
Elster, J. 1989. The cement of society. A study of social order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
EU. High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the European Commission. 2008. Climate change and international security. Btussels: The European Council. URL: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/reports/99387.pdfGoogle Scholar
EU. Commission. 2008. The European Union and the Arctic region. Brussels: The European Commission. URL: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/reports/99387.pdf.Google Scholar
EU. Council. 2009. Council conclusions on Arctic issues. 2985th Foreign Affairs Council meeting. Brussels, 8 December 2009. URL: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/reports/99387.pdfGoogle Scholar
EU. Parliament. 2008. European parliament resolution on Arctic governance, 9 October 2008. Brussels: European Parliament P6_TA(2008)0474,Google Scholar
Evans, G., and Newnham, J.. 1998. Dictionary of international relations. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Gilpin, R. 1975. U.S. power and the multinational corporation. New York: Basic Books, Inc.Google Scholar
Gilpin, R. 1989. War and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Graff, J. 2007. Who owns the Arctic? Fight for the top of the world. Time Magazine October 170 (14): 28 (1 October 2007). URL: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1663445-1,00.html).Google Scholar
Haas, E.B. 1980. Why collaborate? Issue-linkage and international regimes. WorldPolitics 32 (3): 357–405.Google Scholar
Handel, M. 1990. Weak states in the international system. New York: Frank Cass (2nd edition).Google Scholar
Harrington, C. 2008. Eying up the new Arctic: competition in the Arctic circle. Jane's Defence Weekly 3 (23 January 2008): 22–27.Google Scholar
Heininen, L., and Nicol, H.. 2007. The importance of northern dimension foreign policies in the geopolitics of the circumpolar north. Geopolitics 12: 133–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoel, A.H. 2009. The high north legal-political regime In: Holtsmark, S.G., and B.A. Smith–Windsor. Security prospects in the high north: geostrategic thaw or freeze? Rome: NATO Defence College (Forum paper 7): 10.Google Scholar
Holtsmark, S.G., and Smith-Windsor, B.A.. 2009. Introduction. In: Holtsmark, S.G., and B.A. Smith-Windsor Security prospects in the high north: geostrategic thaw or freeze? Rome: NATO Defence College (Forum paper 7).Google Scholar
Howard, R. 2009. The Arctic gold rush. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Huebert, R. 2009. Cooperation or conflict in the Arctic. Seward Alaska: Center for Oceans Law and Policy (Presentation at the 33rd Center for Oceans Law and Policy conference: Changes in the Arctic environment and the law of the sea. 21 May 2009).Google Scholar
Hønneland, G., and Stokke, O.S.. 2007. Introduction. In: Stokke, O.S., and Hønneland, G. (editors). International cooperation and Arctic governance. Regime effectiveness and northern region building. New York: Routledge, New York:1–12.Google Scholar
Iceland. 2010. Gallup poll on EU membership. URL: http://www.si.is/media/althjodlegt-samstarf/almenningur_2010-02.pdf (in Icelandic). URL: http://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/politikk/100323/kraftig-eu-motvind-i-island-og-norge (in Norwegian)Google Scholar
Ilulissat Declaration. 2008. Declaration by foreign ministers of Denmark, Norway, Russia, USA and Canada, 28 May 2008. Ilulissat, Greenland.Google Scholar
Jensen, Ø., and Rottem, S.V.. 2009. The politics of security and international law in Norway's Arctic waters. Polar Record 46 (236): 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jervis, R. 1978. Cooperation under the security dilemma. World Politics 30 (2): 176–214.Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1795. Perpetual peace. London: Swan Sonnenschein and Co.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R.D. 2009. The revenge of geography. Foreign Policy. May/June 2009: 96–105.Google Scholar
Keohane, R.O. 1980. The theory of hegemonic stability and changes. In: Holsti, O.R., Randolph, M.S., and George, A.L. (editors): Change in the international system. Boulder: Westview Press: 131–162.Google Scholar
Keohane, R.O. 1984. After hegemony. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, R.O. 1990. Multilateralism: An agenda for research. International Journal. 45 (4): 731–764.Google Scholar
Kindleberger, C.P. 1973. The world in depression 1929–1939. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd,Google Scholar
Koivurova, T., and Vanderzwaag, D.L.. 2007. The Arctic Council at 10 years: retrospect and prospects. University of British Columbia Law Review 40 (1): 121–194.Google Scholar
Koivurova, T., and Molenaar, E. 2009. International governance and regulation of the marine Arctic. Overview and gap analysis. Oslo: WWF.Google Scholar
Krasner, S.D. 1976. State power and the structure of international trade. World Politics 28 (3): 317–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krasner, S.D. 1982. Structural causes and regime consequences: regimes as intervening variables. International Organization 36 (2): 185–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layne, C. 2009. The waning of US hegemony-myth or reality? A review essay. International Security 34 (1): 147–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, J.S. 1989. Domestic politics and War. In: Rotberg, R.I., and Rabb, T.K. (editors). The origin and prevention of major wars. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Malnes, R. 2002. Etterord. Kant om krig og fred: fortolkning og kritikk [Epilogue. Kant on war and peace: Interpretation and criticism]. In: Kant, I.Den evige fred. En filosofisk plan [The perpetual peace. A philosophical plan]. Oslo: Aschehoug and Co.Google Scholar
Mastanduno, M. 1997. Preserving the unipolar moment. Realist theories and U.S. grand strategy after the Cold War. International Security, 21 (4): 49–88.Google Scholar
Mearsheimer, J.J. 2001. The tragedy of great power politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
NRC (National Research Council). 2007. Polar icebreakers in a changing world. An assessment of US needs. Washington DC: The National Academic Press.Google Scholar
Oneal, J.R., and Russett, B. 1999. The Kantianian peace. The pacific benefits of democracy, interdependence, and international organizations, 1885–1992. World Politics 52 (October): 1–37.Google Scholar
Owen, J.M. 1994. How liberalism produces democratic peace. International Security 19 (2): 87–125.Google Scholar
Pape, R.A. 2005. Soft balancing against the United States. International Security 30 (1): 7–45.Google Scholar
Potts, T., and Schofield, C.. 2008. Current legal developments in the Arctic. The International Journal of Marine and Costal Law 23: 151–176.Google Scholar
Schweller, R.L. 2004. Unanswered threats: a neoclassical realist theory of underbalancing. International Security 29 (2): 159–201.Google Scholar
Small, M., and Singer, J.D.. 1976. The war-proneness of democratic regimes, 1816–1965. Jerusalem Journal of International Relations I.Google Scholar
The Economist. 2008. The Economist Intelligence Unit's index of democracy 2008. London: The Economist Intelligence Unit.Google Scholar
Tromsø Declaration. 2009. Declaration. On the occasion of the sixth ministerial meeting of the Arctic Council, 29 April 2009. Tromsø: Arctic Council.Google Scholar
USA. 2009. National security/homeland security presidential directive on Arctic region policy. 9 January 2009: III c. URL: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-66.htmGoogle Scholar
Walt, S.M. 1987. The origins of alliances. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Waltz, K. 1979. Theory of international politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Wendt, A. 1992. Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics. International Organization 42 (2): 391–425.Google Scholar
Young, O.R. 2009. Whither the Arctic? Conflict or cooperation in the circumpolar north. Polar Record 45 (232): 73–82.Google Scholar