Preview

GEOGRAPHY, ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY

Advanced search

ARCTIC GEOPOLITICS FROM CLASSICAL TO CRITICAL APPROACH – IMPORTANCE OF IMMATERIAL FACTORS

https://doi.org/10.24057/2071-9388-2018-11-1-171-186

Full Text:

Abstract

Despite different perceptions, discourses and approaches, the post-Cold War Arctic is with a high geopolitical stability based on institutional, international cooperation started by the Arctic states and supported by Arctic indigenous peoples, non- governmental organizations and sub-national governments. As a result, there are neither armed conflicts nor serious disputes on national borders. Behind the high geopolitical stability are on the one hand, common interests of the Arctic states to decrease military tension and increase political stability by causing a transformation from confrontation to environmental cooperation. On the other hand, there are certain features of Arctic geopolitics as prerequisites for a transformation, such as firm state sovereignty, high degree of legal certainty, and flexibility in agenda setting. When assessing a state of Arctic geopolitics and IR of the post-Cold War era, there is an ambivalence on how ‘geopolitics’ is defined. Behind are the dualism of military presence based on the nuclear weapons’ systems and the high stability based on international, institutional cooperation between the eight Arctic states. As well as, that there are two major competing discourses: first, the Arctic as a ’zone of peace’ and exceptional in world politics, and second, that there is a race of resources and the consequent emerging conflicts in theArctic. In addition, there are fresh reminders that Arctic geopolitics is impacted by (grand) environmental challenges and ‘wicked problems’, in particular climate change; and that new multi- dimensional dynamics has made Arctic geopolitics global. The article aims to draw up a holistic picture of the post-Cold War Arctic, and discuss what might be special features of Arctic geopolitics in globalization. The article examines and discusses the transformation of approach from classical geopolitics to critical geopolitics by applying main approaches of geopolitics to the Arctic/Arctic geopolitics.

About the Author

Lassi Heininen
International Institute for Applied System Analysis; University of Lapland
Finland
Dr. Lassi Heininen is a Professor of Arctic Politics at University of Lapland (Finland) and Senior Research Scholar (associate) at IIASA (Austria).


References

1. Abele F. and Rodon T. (2007).“Inuit Diplomacy in the Global Era: The Strengths of Multilateral Internationalism.” Canadian Foreign Policy, (13)3 (2007), pp. 45-63.

2. Ackren M. (2014). “Greenlandic Paradiplomatic Relations.” Security and Sovereignty in the North Atlantic. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, Palgrave Pivot, 42-61.

3. AHDR (2004). Arctic Human Development Report, AHDR 2004. Akureyri: Stefansson Arctic Institute.

4. The Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation (2017). Signed on 11 May 2017 by the Arctic States.

5. Allison G. (2017). High stakes: Can Trump and Xi avoid war and strike a North Korea deal? TIME, April 17, 2017, pp. 8-9.

6. The Arctic Yearbook 2017 – “Change and Innovation in the Arctic: Policy, Society & Environment.” Eds. by L. Heininen, H. Exner-Pirot & J. Plouffe. [online] Thematic Network on Geopolitics and Security, and Northern Research Forum. Available at: http://www.arcticyearbook.com

7. The Arctic Yearbook 2015 “Arctic Governance and Governing.” Eds. by L. Heininen, H. Exner- Pirot and J. Plouffe. [online] Thematic Network on Geopolitics and Security, and Northern Research Forum. Available at: http://www.arcticyearbook.com

8. Borgerson S.G. (2008).“Arctic Meltdown: The Economic and Security Implications of Global Warming”. Foreign Affairs, March/April 2008.

9. Byers M. (2017). Crises and international cooperation: an Arctic case study. International Relations 2017, Vol. 31(4) 375-402.

10. Byers M. (2013). International Law and the Arctic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law.

11. Clifford R. (2017). How has cooperation in the Arctic survived Western-Russian geopolitical tension? Available at: http://pagebuilder.arctic.arcpublishing.com/pb/voices/analysis/2017/01/04/how-has-cooperation-in-the-arctic-survived-western-russian- geopolitical-tension/

12. Dalby S. (2002).“Environmental Security.”Borderlines, Volume 20. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

13. Dougherty J.E. and Pfaltzgraff R.L. Jr. (1990). Contending Theories of International Relations. A Comprehensive Survey. Third Edition. USA: Harper Collins Publishers.

14. Fairbanks Declaration (2017). Fairbanks Declaration On the Occasion of the Tenth Ministerial Meeting of the Arctic Council. (mimeo)

15. Forbis R.Jr. and Hayhoe K. (2018). “Does Arctic Governance hold the key to achieving climate policy targets?”Environmental Research Letters 13 [online] (2018) 020201 Available at: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa359

16. Goes M. (2017). Extracting human security from the Shtokman gas field. Security assemblage in the Murmansk region (2007-2012). Doctoral thesis submitted for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor. Faculty of Humanities, Social Sciences and Education. UiT– Norwegian Arctic University. September 2017.

17. Gorbachev M. (1987). The Speech in Murmansk at the ceremonial meeting of the occasion of the presentation of the Order of Lenin and the Glod Star Medal to the city of Murmansk, October 1, 1987. Moscow: Novosti Press Agency.

18. Harle V. (2003).“Onko kriittinen geopolitiikka kriittistä tiedettä? Muuttuva geopolitikka. Eds. by V. Harle and S. Moisio. Tampere: Gaudeamus, pp. 17-35.

19. Heininen L. (forth-coming). “Special Features of Arctic Geopolitics – a potential asset for world politics?” GlobalArctic Handbook. Eds. by M. Finger & L. Heininen. Springer. (will be published in autumn 2018)

20. Heininen L. (2016). “Security of the Global Arctic in Transformation – Changes in Problem Definition of Security”. Future Security of the Global Arctic. State Policy, Economic Security and Climate. Ed. by Lassi Heininen. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, Palgrave Pivot, 2016, pp. 12-34.

21. Heininen L. (2014).“Northern Geopolitics: Actors, Interests and Processes in the circumpolar Arctic.” Polar Geopolitics: Knowledges, Resources and Legal Regimes. Edited by Richard C. Powell and Klaus Dodds. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, Massachusetts, 2014, pp. 241-258.

22. Heininen L. (2013). “’Politicization’ of the Environment: Environmental Politics and Security in the Circumpolar North.” The Fast-Changing Arctic: Rethinking Arctic Security for a warmer World. Edited by Barry Scott Zellen. Calgary: University of Calgary Press, pp. 35-55.

23. Heininen, L. (2011). “Arctic Strategies and Policies - Inventory and Comparative Study.” Akureyri: The Northern Research Forum & The University of Lapland. August 2011.

24. Heininen L. (2010). “Pohjoiset alueet muutoksessa – geopoliittinen näkökulma (The High North in a Change – Geopolitical point of view).” Politiikka 1 / 2010, pp. 5-19.

25. Heininen L. (2004). “Circumpolar International Relations and Geopolitics.” In: AHDR (Arctic Human Development Report) 2004. Akureyri: Stefansson Arctic Institute, pp. 207-225.

26. Heininen L. (1991). ”Sotilaallisen läsnäolon ympäristöriskit Arktiksessa - Kohti Arktiksen säätelyjärjestelmää.” Tampere Peace Research Institute. Research Report No. 43. Tampere: Tampereen yliopisto.

27. Heininen L. and Finger M. (2017). “The ‘Global Arctic’ as a New Geopolitical Context and Method.” Journal of Borderlands Studies, 2017. [online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/08865655.2017.1315605 (downloaded at 05:37 04 December 2017)

28. Heininen L. and Southcott C., ed. (2010). The Circumpolar North and Globalization. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press.

29. Heininen L., Sergunin A. and Yarovoy G. (2014). “Russian Strategies in the Arctic: Avoiding a New Cold War.”The Valdai Discussion Club, Grantees Report. Moscow, Russia, September 2014. Available at: www.valdaiclub.com. Accessed on 22nd of October 2014.

30. Hoogensen Gjörv G., Bazely D.R., Goloviznina M. and Tanentzap A.J., eds. (2013). Environmental and Human Security in the Arctic. Tonbridge, Kent: Routledge and Eartscan from Routledge.

31. Inuit Declaration (2009). A Circumpolar Inuit Declaration on Sovereignty in the Arctic.” adopted by the Inuit Circumpolar Council.

32. The Ilulissat Declaration (2008). Arctic Ocean Conference – Ilulissat, Greenland, 27-29 May 2008. (mimeo)

33. Iqaluit Declaration (2015). On the occasion of the Ninth Ministerial Meeting of the Arctic Council. Iqaluit, Canada, 24 April 20015. (mimeo)

34. Jukarainen P. (1999). “Norden is Dead - Long Live the Eastwards Faced Euro-North. Geopolitical Re-making of Norden in a Nordic Journal.”Cooperation and Conflict, vol. 34(4), pp. 355-382. SAGE Publications.

35. Kaplan R.D. (2002). The Coming Anarchy. Shattering the Dreams of the Post Cold War. USA: Random House.

36. Keil K. and Knecht S., ed. (2017). Governing Arctic Change. Global Perspectives. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

37. Käpylä J. and Mikkola H. (2015). On Arctic Exceptionalism. Critical reflections in the light of the Arctic Sunrise case and the crisis in Ukraine. The Finnish Institute of International Affars, FIIA Working Paper, April 2015.

38. Lamy S.L., Baylis J., Smith S., Owens P. (2013). Introduction to Global Politics. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Second Edition.

39. Mackinder H.J. (1904). The Geographical Pivot of History. The Geographical Journal, Vol. XXIII. No. 4, April 1904, pp. 421-444.

40. Mahan A.T. (1918). The Influence of Sea Power upon History 1660-1783. Boston.

41. Miller S. (1986). The Maritime Strategy and Geopolitics in the High North. September 1986. (mimeo)

42. Moisio S. (2003). ”Geopolitiikka kamppailuna”. Muuttuva geopolitikka. Eds. by V. Harle & S. Moisio. Tampere: Gaudeamus, pp. 93-109.

43. Murray R.W. and Nuttall A.D., ed.(2014). International Relationsandthe Arctic. Understanding Policy and Governance. Amherst, New York: Cambria Press.

44. Newcombe H. (1986). “Collective Security, Common Security and Alternative Security: A Conceptual Comparison.” Peace Research Reviews, 10(3), pp. 1-8, 95-99.

45. NGP Yearbook 2011, ”Sustainable Development in the Arctic region though peace and stability”(2012). Nordia Geographical Publications, Volume 40: 4.2012. Tornio: Geographical Society of Northern Finland.

46. Ohmae K. (1995). The End of the Nation State. The Rise of Regional Economics. New York: The Free Press.

47. Ottawa Declaration (1996). Declaration on the Establishment of the Arctic Council. Ottawa, Canada – September 19, 1996. (mimeo)

48. Posen B. (1987). U.S. Maritime Strategy: a dangerous game. Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Vol. 43. No. 7, September 1987, pp. 24-29.

49. Powell R.C. and Dodds K., ed. (2014) Polar Geopolitics: Knowledges, Resources and Legal Regimes. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, Massachusetts: Edward Elgar.

50. Raspotnik A. (2016). The European Union and its Northern Frontier: European Geopolitics and its Arctic Context. PhD. Universität zu Köln, Deutscland.

51. Spykman N.J. (1938). Geography and Foreign Policy I. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 32, Issue 1.

52. Spykman N.J. (1944). The Geography of Peace. New York.

53. Steinberg P.E., Tasch J. and Gerhardt H., ed. (2015). Contesting the Arctic, Politics and imaginaries in the Circumpolar North. London: I.B. Tauris Publishers.

54. Toyama Conference Statement (2015). Integrating Arctic Research: A Roadmap for the Future. ASSW 2015 in Toyama, 30 April 2015. (mimeo)

55. Traufetter G. (2008). The Battle for the North Pole. Melting Ice Brings Competition for Resources. Der Spiegel, 19 September 2008.

56. Tuathail G.O. and Agnew J. (1992). “Geopolitics and discourse: practical geopolitical reasoning in American foreign policy.” Political Geography, Volume 11, Issue 2, March 1992, pp. 190-204.

57. USGS (2008). ‘Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal: Estimates of Undiscovered Oil and Gas North of the Arctic Circle.’ US Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2008-3049. July 2008, http://www.eurasiareview.com

58. Vuori A. (2017). “The emerging political space of the internet: Geopolitics in the digital world.” Research Plan for a PhD studies (September 2017). University of Lapland. (mimeo)

59. Wezeman S.T. (2012). Military Capabilities in the Arctic. SIPRI Background Paper, March 2012.

60. The Yearbook of Polar Law Volume 5, 2013 (2013). Edited by G. Alfredsson, T. Koivurova and I.Stepien.

61. Zagorski A. (2017). “Arctic Consensus.” The Arctic Herald, Information & Analytical Journal, 1(20). 2017, pp. 42-47.


For citation:


Heininen L. ARCTIC GEOPOLITICS FROM CLASSICAL TO CRITICAL APPROACH – IMPORTANCE OF IMMATERIAL FACTORS. GEOGRAPHY, ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY. 2018;11(1):171-186. https://doi.org/10.24057/2071-9388-2018-11-1-171-186

Views: 448


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2071-9388 (Print)
ISSN 2542-1565 (Online)