Pub Date : 2023-01-06DOI: 10.23865/arctic.v14.5083
E. Zmyvalova
The present article is a response to the call for papers focusing on the war in Ukraine and its effect on different aspects of life in the Arctic. This article sheds some light on the consequences of Russia’s partial military mobilization on the rights of Indigenous peoples. The partial military mobilization was announced by the President of the Russian Federation on September 21, 2022.
{"title":"The Rights of Indigenous Peoples of Russia after Partial Military Mobilization","authors":"E. Zmyvalova","doi":"10.23865/arctic.v14.5083","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v14.5083","url":null,"abstract":"The present article is a response to the call for papers focusing on the war in Ukraine and its effect on different aspects of life in the Arctic. This article sheds some light on the consequences of Russia’s partial military mobilization on the rights of Indigenous peoples. The partial military mobilization was announced by the President of the Russian Federation on September 21, 2022.","PeriodicalId":36694,"journal":{"name":"Arctic Review on Law and Politics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91329153","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-06DOI: 10.23865/arctic.v14.3478
M. Hammer
New ideas are constantly being produced as a changing world demands solutions to new problems. International environmental regimes often present ideas to reduce negative human effects on the environment. Implementation of ideas has often been studied through diffusion theory, where ideas are expected to be implemented in their original version. Translation theory from New Scandinavian Institutionalism allows for an analysis of how ideas invented to solve problems change from introduction to implementation. Ideas heralded through UN processes may face a very long route from introduction to local implementation, during which the idea can become radically changed. Through a thorough study of documents, this article follows the trajectories of the idea of Ecosystem Approach (EA), from its first limited practical application in the US during the 1980s and 90s, during its travels in different United Nations fora, and ending up implemented locally through the 2006 Norwegian Barents Sea Management Plan. The novelty of this study is that the analyses cover a long timeframe combined with a focus on all the different steps of translation combined. This also allows for possible drivers of change to be identified. The results show that there are changes made to the idea to such an extent that what is finally implemented is something quite different from the original idea, and more like “business as usual”. According to the theory, discrepancies do not necessarily mean the idea has not been successful; on the contrary, ideas that can be changed may be more likely to become institutionalized.
{"title":"Lost in Translation – Following the Ecosystem Approach from Malawi to the Barents Sea","authors":"M. Hammer","doi":"10.23865/arctic.v14.3478","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v14.3478","url":null,"abstract":"New ideas are constantly being produced as a changing world demands solutions to new problems. International environmental regimes often present ideas to reduce negative human effects on the environment. Implementation of ideas has often been studied through diffusion theory, where ideas are expected to be implemented in their original version. Translation theory from New Scandinavian Institutionalism allows for an analysis of how ideas invented to solve problems change from introduction to implementation. Ideas heralded through UN processes may face a very long route from introduction to local implementation, during which the idea can become radically changed. Through a thorough study of documents, this article follows the trajectories of the idea of Ecosystem Approach (EA), from its first limited practical application in the US during the 1980s and 90s, during its travels in different United Nations fora, and ending up implemented locally through the 2006 Norwegian Barents Sea Management Plan. The novelty of this study is that the analyses cover a long timeframe combined with a focus on all the different steps of translation combined. This also allows for possible drivers of change to be identified. The results show that there are changes made to the idea to such an extent that what is finally implemented is something quite different from the original idea, and more like “business as usual”. According to the theory, discrepancies do not necessarily mean the idea has not been successful; on the contrary, ideas that can be changed may be more likely to become institutionalized.","PeriodicalId":36694,"journal":{"name":"Arctic Review on Law and Politics","volume":"56 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83206051","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-06DOI: 10.23865/arctic.v14.5197
Pauline Baudu
Although the opportunity, form and level of NATO’s High North engagement have long been a matter of debate, the renewed invasion of Ukraine by Russia and its strategic implications at the global level have dragged a reunified NATO into the Arctic as a fait accompli. Yet, the Arctic is not one uniform bloc. When pondering its involvement, the Alliance should consider the particulars of each Arctic territory in its area of responsibility. The Svalbard archipelago, under the sovereignty of Norway -the most vocal advocate of NATO’s High North increased presence- is one of the Arctic areas falling under NATO’s responsibility. Global geopolitical trends, combined with Svalbard’s specific points of contention, may exacerbate the risk of conflict affecting the archipelago. This paper argues that NATO should consider the security concerns specific to Svalbard when pondering its High North involvement and highlights two elements that should be factored in the Alliance’s strategic and operational thinking over the archipelago. The first relates to the diverging interpretations of Article 9 of the Svalbard Treaty while the second lies in Svalbard’s vulnerability to gray-zone tactics due to its particular legal and geographical features. Bearing these particulars in mind, the paper provides key recommendations for NATO to adopt a tailored approach to the archipelago.
{"title":"Minding the Archipelago: What Svalbard Means to NATO","authors":"Pauline Baudu","doi":"10.23865/arctic.v14.5197","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v14.5197","url":null,"abstract":"Although the opportunity, form and level of NATO’s High North engagement have long been a matter of debate, the renewed invasion of Ukraine by Russia and its strategic implications at the global level have dragged a reunified NATO into the Arctic as a fait accompli. Yet, the Arctic is not one uniform bloc. When pondering its involvement, the Alliance should consider the particulars of each Arctic territory in its area of responsibility. The Svalbard archipelago, under the sovereignty of Norway -the most vocal advocate of NATO’s High North increased presence- is one of the Arctic areas falling under NATO’s responsibility. Global geopolitical trends, combined with Svalbard’s specific points of contention, may exacerbate the risk of conflict affecting the archipelago. This paper argues that NATO should consider the security concerns specific to Svalbard when pondering its High North involvement and highlights two elements that should be factored in the Alliance’s strategic and operational thinking over the archipelago. The first relates to the diverging interpretations of Article 9 of the Svalbard Treaty while the second lies in Svalbard’s vulnerability to gray-zone tactics due to its particular legal and geographical features. Bearing these particulars in mind, the paper provides key recommendations for NATO to adopt a tailored approach to the archipelago.","PeriodicalId":36694,"journal":{"name":"Arctic Review on Law and Politics","volume":"123 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81852056","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-06DOI: 10.23865/arctic.v14.3721
B. Bertheussen
The article debates the origin of rent in natural-resource based industries (NRBIs) such as fisheries, and how the rent generated can be appropriated. The Norwegian fish harvesting industry is used to illustrate the arguments. It is argued that the industry-specific institutional framework of the fish harvesting industry positively affects the competitive forces of the industry, and thereby its economic performance. Fishery management institutions create high barriers to entry for outside firms, and they dampen internal rivalry between incumbent firms. As a result, the opportunity to earn what this paper labels institutional rent arises. The article further argues that nature itself and how it is managed through, for example, harvesting rules, enables an NRBI to earn resource rent if the players get free or cheap access to the input factor, in this case fish. Finally, the article argues that it is stakeholders other than the harvesting companies that control both the institutional and resource rents, that is, the owners of the natural resource and the authorities who manage it as well as the industry-specific institutional framework. Nevertheless, neither the owners nor the authorities benefit from the industry-specific rent generated. The rent is appropriated by the capital owners and the crew onboard the boats in the form of above-normal profits and above-normal wages. Whether or not such a skewed rent distribution is considered fair and sustainable is a political issue.
{"title":"Perspectives on Rent Generation and Rent Appropriation in Fisheries","authors":"B. Bertheussen","doi":"10.23865/arctic.v14.3721","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v14.3721","url":null,"abstract":"The article debates the origin of rent in natural-resource based industries (NRBIs) such as fisheries, and how the rent generated can be appropriated. The Norwegian fish harvesting industry is used to illustrate the arguments. It is argued that the industry-specific institutional framework of the fish harvesting industry positively affects the competitive forces of the industry, and thereby its economic performance. Fishery management institutions create high barriers to entry for outside firms, and they dampen internal rivalry between incumbent firms. As a result, the opportunity to earn what this paper labels institutional rent arises. The article further argues that nature itself and how it is managed through, for example, harvesting rules, enables an NRBI to earn resource rent if the players get free or cheap access to the input factor, in this case fish. Finally, the article argues that it is stakeholders other than the harvesting companies that control both the institutional and resource rents, that is, the owners of the natural resource and the authorities who manage it as well as the industry-specific institutional framework. Nevertheless, neither the owners nor the authorities benefit from the industry-specific rent generated. The rent is appropriated by the capital owners and the crew onboard the boats in the form of above-normal profits and above-normal wages. Whether or not such a skewed rent distribution is considered fair and sustainable is a political issue.","PeriodicalId":36694,"journal":{"name":"Arctic Review on Law and Politics","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83020212","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.23865/arctic.v13.3264
A. Sharapova, S. Seck, Sarah MacLeod, Olga Koubrak
The Arctic has been home to Indigenous peoples since long before the international legal system of sovereign states came into existence. International law has increasingly recognized the rights of Indigenous peoples, who also have status as Permanent Participants in the Arctic Council. In northern Canada, the majority of those who live in the Arctic are recognized as Indigenous. However, in northern Russia, a much smaller percentage of the population is identified as Indigenous, as legal recognition is only accorded to groups with a small population size. This article will compare Russian and Canadian approaches to recognition of Indigenous peoples and Indigenous rights in the Arctic with attention to the implications for Arctic Ocean governance. The article first introduces international legal instruments of importance to Indigenous peoples and their rights in the Arctic. Then it considers the domestic legal and policy frameworks that define Indigenous rights and interests in Russia and Canada. Despite both states being members of the Arctic Council and parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, there are many differences in their treatment of Indigenous peoples with implications for Arctic Ocean governance.
{"title":"Indigenous Rights and Interests in a Changing Arctic Ocean: Canadian and Russian Experiences and Challenges","authors":"A. Sharapova, S. Seck, Sarah MacLeod, Olga Koubrak","doi":"10.23865/arctic.v13.3264","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v13.3264","url":null,"abstract":"The Arctic has been home to Indigenous peoples since long before the international legal system of sovereign states came into existence. International law has increasingly recognized the rights of Indigenous peoples, who also have status as Permanent Participants in the Arctic Council. In northern Canada, the majority of those who live in the Arctic are recognized as Indigenous. However, in northern Russia, a much smaller percentage of the population is identified as Indigenous, as legal recognition is only accorded to groups with a small population size. This article will compare Russian and Canadian approaches to recognition of Indigenous peoples and Indigenous rights in the Arctic with attention to the implications for Arctic Ocean governance. The article first introduces international legal instruments of importance to Indigenous peoples and their rights in the Arctic. Then it considers the domestic legal and policy frameworks that define Indigenous rights and interests in Russia and Canada. Despite both states being members of the Arctic Council and parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, there are many differences in their treatment of Indigenous peoples with implications for Arctic Ocean governance.","PeriodicalId":36694,"journal":{"name":"Arctic Review on Law and Politics","volume":"154 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77731373","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.23865/arctic.v13.3233
V. Gavrilov, T. McDorman, C. Schofield
The Arctic region has been the focus of considerable attention in recent years, often concerned with maritime claims and an alleged race for the region’s resources. Against this narrative, the article focuses on the practices of Canada and the Russian Federation with respect to their maritime jurisdictional claims and the delimitation of maritime boundaries with their Arctic neighbours. The article provides an overview of the Arctic region and the international law of the sea with an emphasis on the baselines and maritime claims of the Arctic coastal states. Discussion then turns to the maritime boundary agreements that have been concluded in the Arctic region before overlapping claims to areas of continental shelf underlying the central part of the Arctic Ocean are appraised. The article concludes that Canada and the Russian Federation have enjoyed considerable success in resolving overlapping maritime claims and their pragmatic and innovative approaches coupled with existing regional cooperation bode well for finding peaceful solutions to Arctic Ocean governance challenges in the future.
{"title":"Canada and the Russian Federation: Maritime Boundaries and Jurisdiction in the Arctic Ocean","authors":"V. Gavrilov, T. McDorman, C. Schofield","doi":"10.23865/arctic.v13.3233","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v13.3233","url":null,"abstract":"The Arctic region has been the focus of considerable attention in recent years, often concerned with maritime claims and an alleged race for the region’s resources. Against this narrative, the article focuses on the practices of Canada and the Russian Federation with respect to their maritime jurisdictional claims and the delimitation of maritime boundaries with their Arctic neighbours. The article provides an overview of the Arctic region and the international law of the sea with an emphasis on the baselines and maritime claims of the Arctic coastal states. Discussion then turns to the maritime boundary agreements that have been concluded in the Arctic region before overlapping claims to areas of continental shelf underlying the central part of the Arctic Ocean are appraised. The article concludes that Canada and the Russian Federation have enjoyed considerable success in resolving overlapping maritime claims and their pragmatic and innovative approaches coupled with existing regional cooperation bode well for finding peaceful solutions to Arctic Ocean governance challenges in the future.","PeriodicalId":36694,"journal":{"name":"Arctic Review on Law and Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87250732","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.23865/arctic.v13.3635
C. Prip
The distribution of legal authority to protect biodiversity in marine areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) between the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the UN Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) has been a contentious issue. In practice, main responsibility has been allocated to LOSC, under which a new implementing agreement on conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ) is currently being negotiated. CBD was allocated responsibility for providing scientific information and advice on marine biodiversity, which has resulted in the identification and description of 321 Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs) worldwide, within and beyond national jurisdiction. These could provide important scientific backing for a coming BBNJ instrument under LOSC, especially as regards the designation of marine protected areas and the conduct of environmental impact assessments in ABNJ. However, the process of modifying EBSAs and identifying new ones has recently been challenged by the CBD Conference of the Parties, harking back to previous disputes over the legal mandate and thereby threatening the entire mechanism that has been established. In the context of international environmental law and law of the sea, this article discusses the potential importance of EBSAs for the expected BBNJ instrument, using the Central Arctic Ocean EBSA as an example. Responsible Editor: Øyvind Ravna, Faculty of Law, UiT The Arctic University of Norway
{"title":"Identifying and Describing Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs): A Key Tool for the Protection of Ocean Biodiversity in Dispute","authors":"C. Prip","doi":"10.23865/arctic.v13.3635","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v13.3635","url":null,"abstract":"The distribution of legal authority to protect biodiversity in marine areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) between the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the UN Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) has been a contentious issue. In practice, main responsibility has been allocated to LOSC, under which a new implementing agreement on conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ) is currently being negotiated. CBD was allocated responsibility for providing scientific information and advice on marine biodiversity, which has resulted in the identification and description of 321 Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs) worldwide, within and beyond national jurisdiction. These could provide important scientific backing for a coming BBNJ instrument under LOSC, especially as regards the designation of marine protected areas and the conduct of environmental impact assessments in ABNJ. However, the process of modifying EBSAs and identifying new ones has recently been challenged by the CBD Conference of the Parties, harking back to previous disputes over the legal mandate and thereby threatening the entire mechanism that has been established. In the context of international environmental law and law of the sea, this article discusses the potential importance of EBSAs for the expected BBNJ instrument, using the Central Arctic Ocean EBSA as an example. Responsible Editor: Øyvind Ravna, Faculty of Law, UiT The Arctic University of Norway","PeriodicalId":36694,"journal":{"name":"Arctic Review on Law and Politics","volume":"31 1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90444818","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.23865/arctic.v13.3380
Håkon Lunde Saxi
Since the start of the Ukrainian crisis in 2014, the Nordic states have sought to advance their defence cooperation “beyond peacetime” to also encompass operational military cooperation in crisis and armed conflict. Relations between the two Nordic non-NATO members, Sweden and Finland, have formed a vanguard, encompassing bilateral operational planning beyond peacetime. While no formal security policy guarantees have been exchanged, Sweden and Finland have created strong expectations that they will lend each other support in a crisis. In short, while no formal alliance treaty exists, the two states have nevertheless become closely aligned. In 2020, Sweden and Finland joined NATO member Norway in signalling their intention to strengthen their trilateral defence relationship. The following year, NATO members Norway and Denmark signed a similar agreement with Sweden. The goal of these documents was to coordinate their national operational plans – their “war plans” – and perhaps develop some common operational plans. In this article, it is argued that these agreements fall short of a formal military alliance, but that they represent an alignment policy between the Nordic states.
{"title":"Alignment but not Alliance: Nordic Operational Military Cooperation","authors":"Håkon Lunde Saxi","doi":"10.23865/arctic.v13.3380","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v13.3380","url":null,"abstract":"Since the start of the Ukrainian crisis in 2014, the Nordic states have sought to advance their defence cooperation “beyond peacetime” to also encompass operational military cooperation in crisis and armed conflict. Relations between the two Nordic non-NATO members, Sweden and Finland, have formed a vanguard, encompassing bilateral operational planning beyond peacetime. While no formal security policy guarantees have been exchanged, Sweden and Finland have created strong expectations that they will lend each other support in a crisis. In short, while no formal alliance treaty exists, the two states have nevertheless become closely aligned. In 2020, Sweden and Finland joined NATO member Norway in signalling their intention to strengthen their trilateral defence relationship. The following year, NATO members Norway and Denmark signed a similar agreement with Sweden. The goal of these documents was to coordinate their national operational plans – their “war plans” – and perhaps develop some common operational plans. In this article, it is argued that these agreements fall short of a formal military alliance, but that they represent an alignment policy between the Nordic states.","PeriodicalId":36694,"journal":{"name":"Arctic Review on Law and Politics","volume":"47 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78394161","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.23865/arctic.v13.3229
Kristin Bartenstein, R. Dremliuga, N. Prisekina
As Arctic navigation increases and states work, both at the international and the domestic level, at ensuring legal readiness, this article takes a closer look at regulation of Arctic Shipping in Canada and Russia. The analysis first focuses on the current domestic regimes that have developed over the past decades. It highlights that dissimilar political, economic and environmental contexts have shaped not only different shipping patterns off the Canadian and Russian coasts, but also dissimilar coastal state approaches that do not seem to converge noticeably under the influence of the Polar Code. The analysis then turns to challenges that lay ahead as existing regimes could be called into question due to receding ice cover and may need to adapt to evolving shipping patterns and technological innovations.
{"title":"Regulation of Arctic Shipping in Canada and Russia","authors":"Kristin Bartenstein, R. Dremliuga, N. Prisekina","doi":"10.23865/arctic.v13.3229","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v13.3229","url":null,"abstract":"As Arctic navigation increases and states work, both at the international and the domestic level, at ensuring legal readiness, this article takes a closer look at regulation of Arctic Shipping in Canada and Russia. The analysis first focuses on the current domestic regimes that have developed over the past decades. It highlights that dissimilar political, economic and environmental contexts have shaped not only different shipping patterns off the Canadian and Russian coasts, but also dissimilar coastal state approaches that do not seem to converge noticeably under the influence of the Polar Code. The analysis then turns to challenges that lay ahead as existing regimes could be called into question due to receding ice cover and may need to adapt to evolving shipping patterns and technological innovations.","PeriodicalId":36694,"journal":{"name":"Arctic Review on Law and Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79112575","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.23865/arctic.v13.3338
Jonas Kjellén
Over the last decade, Russia has considerably ramped up its military presence in the Arctic. This is something that attracted much attention from Western countries, especially against the backdrop of deteriorated relations and general mistrust following the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Current developments are to some extent familiar, as they echo the militarisation of the Arctic during the Cold War and the attendant US-Soviet tensions. Although comparisons with the Soviet Union’s Arctic military posture lie close at hand, we need to analyse Russia’s current military build-up in the Arctic with fresh eyes. Two of the most indicative developments were studied. Firstly, the formation of a single Arctic military command, with its implications for a reassessment of the Arctic strategic direction; secondly, the physical expansion of its Arctic military footprint, which includes both the construction of modern facilities and the increased activity of its armed forces there. In both these developments, the Northern Fleet is taking on a leading role, but the overall military posture relies on other military and civilian actors as well, and is closely related to security concerns of the developing latitudinal axis of the Northern Sea Route, rather than the Cold War longitudinal axis of a massive nuclear weapons exchange.
{"title":"The Russian Northern Fleet and the (Re)militarisation of the Arctic","authors":"Jonas Kjellén","doi":"10.23865/arctic.v13.3338","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v13.3338","url":null,"abstract":"Over the last decade, Russia has considerably ramped up its military presence in the Arctic. This is something that attracted much attention from Western countries, especially against the backdrop of deteriorated relations and general mistrust following the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Current developments are to some extent familiar, as they echo the militarisation of the Arctic during the Cold War and the attendant US-Soviet tensions. Although comparisons with the Soviet Union’s Arctic military posture lie close at hand, we need to analyse Russia’s current military build-up in the Arctic with fresh eyes. Two of the most indicative developments were studied. Firstly, the formation of a single Arctic military command, with its implications for a reassessment of the Arctic strategic direction; secondly, the physical expansion of its Arctic military footprint, which includes both the construction of modern facilities and the increased activity of its armed forces there. In both these developments, the Northern Fleet is taking on a leading role, but the overall military posture relies on other military and civilian actors as well, and is closely related to security concerns of the developing latitudinal axis of the Northern Sea Route, rather than the Cold War longitudinal axis of a massive nuclear weapons exchange.","PeriodicalId":36694,"journal":{"name":"Arctic Review on Law and Politics","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84444397","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：