Pub Date : 2022-08-08DOI: 10.1080/2154896x.2022.2096865
Emily Cowan, T. Oftebro, R. Kallenborn, G. Gabrielsen, Ida Beathe Overjordet, R. Tiller
{"title":"Global governance in Arctic waters – new times. new stressors. catching up with pharmaceuticals","authors":"Emily Cowan, T. Oftebro, R. Kallenborn, G. Gabrielsen, Ida Beathe Overjordet, R. Tiller","doi":"10.1080/2154896x.2022.2096865","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896x.2022.2096865","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48586049","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 : 2022-07-03DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2022.2137091
P. Devyatkin
ABSTRACT The Arctic has long been the setting for collaborative scientific discovery, but tensions related to the Cold War and now the worsening conflict in Ukraine have curtailed effective cooperation. At the same time, the intensifying climate emergency that disproportionately threatens the Arctic has been described as a security threat by policymakers in both the U.S. and Russia, leading to calls for more science diplomacy. This paper revisits the history of U.S.-Russia Arctic science diplomacy and examines how previous initiatives can help us to understand what can be achieved, as well as the challenges that have to be addressed. Science diplomacy can produce valuable results and may form a suitable communication channel during times of political tensions. However, it is also clear that science cooperation is more easily realised during periods of cordial relations.
{"title":"Environmental Détente: U.S.-Russia Arctic science diplomacy through political tensions","authors":"P. Devyatkin","doi":"10.1080/2154896X.2022.2137091","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2022.2137091","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Arctic has long been the setting for collaborative scientific discovery, but tensions related to the Cold War and now the worsening conflict in Ukraine have curtailed effective cooperation. At the same time, the intensifying climate emergency that disproportionately threatens the Arctic has been described as a security threat by policymakers in both the U.S. and Russia, leading to calls for more science diplomacy. This paper revisits the history of U.S.-Russia Arctic science diplomacy and examines how previous initiatives can help us to understand what can be achieved, as well as the challenges that have to be addressed. Science diplomacy can produce valuable results and may form a suitable communication channel during times of political tensions. However, it is also clear that science cooperation is more easily realised during periods of cordial relations.","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"12 1","pages":"322 - 342"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47867516","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 : 2022-07-03DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2022.2137085
S. Olsvig
ABSTRACT As a self-governing nation that exercises jurisdiction over most policy areas, Greenland is constantly testing its foreign policy and self-determination action space. Predominantly having aimed at increasing its action space towards Denmark, especially since inaugurating home rule in 1979 and self-government in 2009, Greenland has for the past decade been increasing its engagement as a direct partner to the US. In this paper, I analyse three cases where the Greenland-Denmark-US relations in different ways are delimited and affected by great power relations between the US, China, and Russia. In doing so, I demonstrate how Greenland increasingly uses its action space to affect the outcome of policies and initiatives that lie within the ‘grey zones’ between Greenlandic and Danish power relations. The paper contributes to the understanding of how state-like actors balance their relations in ambiguous ways towards larger states and creates action spaces to determine their own futures. The article argues that Greenland, by balancing the internal and external limitations determined by Greenland’s relations to Denmark and the US, is creating an ambiguous action space, where Greenlandic politicians can and do affect their action options. At the same time, these politicians must acknowledge that Greenland’s action space is constantly evolving against a backdrop of deepening relations between Nuuk and Washington, as well as increasing international tensions. The article is based on an analysis of official documents, media outlets and elite interviews.
{"title":"Greenland’s ambiguous action space: testing internal and external limitations between US and Danish Arctic interests","authors":"S. Olsvig","doi":"10.1080/2154896X.2022.2137085","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2022.2137085","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT As a self-governing nation that exercises jurisdiction over most policy areas, Greenland is constantly testing its foreign policy and self-determination action space. Predominantly having aimed at increasing its action space towards Denmark, especially since inaugurating home rule in 1979 and self-government in 2009, Greenland has for the past decade been increasing its engagement as a direct partner to the US. In this paper, I analyse three cases where the Greenland-Denmark-US relations in different ways are delimited and affected by great power relations between the US, China, and Russia. In doing so, I demonstrate how Greenland increasingly uses its action space to affect the outcome of policies and initiatives that lie within the ‘grey zones’ between Greenlandic and Danish power relations. The paper contributes to the understanding of how state-like actors balance their relations in ambiguous ways towards larger states and creates action spaces to determine their own futures. The article argues that Greenland, by balancing the internal and external limitations determined by Greenland’s relations to Denmark and the US, is creating an ambiguous action space, where Greenlandic politicians can and do affect their action options. At the same time, these politicians must acknowledge that Greenland’s action space is constantly evolving against a backdrop of deepening relations between Nuuk and Washington, as well as increasing international tensions. The article is based on an analysis of official documents, media outlets and elite interviews.","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"12 1","pages":"215 - 239"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47343828","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 : 2022-07-03DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2022.2137086
Beate Steinveg
ABSTRACT International Relations (IR) considers states to be the central actors in the international system, and IR’s main theories have been heavily focused on great powers. While many scholars recognise that politics is about more than government and broadens the analytical emphasis to also include non-state, sub-national, sub-regional actors – conferences have attracted limited attention. Still, global conferences do function as arenas for states, non-state, sub-national and sub-regional entities to advance their interests and position within a region or within an issue area. Conferences are arenas for dialogue and cooperation, as well as for political games. This article adopts a comprehensive approach to what should be considered relevant empirical entities, and inquiries into the space for conferences in IR-analysis. The article applies realism and neoliberalism to conceptualise conferences within established frames of the discipline, and examine whether conferences can be instruments of statecraft, drivers of innovation, or contribute to shape preferences and outcomes. Applying these perspectives enables scholars to assess whether conferences have similar characteristics to institutions, or whether they should be treated as separate empirical entities within IR analysis. The article also questions the state-centric view of these perspectives by asking whether including conferences in analysis of policymaking can make an empirical contribution. Specifically, the article asks whether conferences produce outcomes that must be addressed when analysing how and where policy, diplomacy, deal-making and cooperation occur. The article looks specifically at the functions of conferences within Arctic governance, and the Arctic Circle Assembly in particular. The article accounts for the novel function conferences appear to have taken within Arctic governance – also for small states and non-state actors – and enquires what we can infer from this when examining both cooperation and interests within international relations.
{"title":"Arctic conferences as arenas for power games and collaboration in international relations","authors":"Beate Steinveg","doi":"10.1080/2154896X.2022.2137086","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2022.2137086","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT International Relations (IR) considers states to be the central actors in the international system, and IR’s main theories have been heavily focused on great powers. While many scholars recognise that politics is about more than government and broadens the analytical emphasis to also include non-state, sub-national, sub-regional actors – conferences have attracted limited attention. Still, global conferences do function as arenas for states, non-state, sub-national and sub-regional entities to advance their interests and position within a region or within an issue area. Conferences are arenas for dialogue and cooperation, as well as for political games. This article adopts a comprehensive approach to what should be considered relevant empirical entities, and inquiries into the space for conferences in IR-analysis. The article applies realism and neoliberalism to conceptualise conferences within established frames of the discipline, and examine whether conferences can be instruments of statecraft, drivers of innovation, or contribute to shape preferences and outcomes. Applying these perspectives enables scholars to assess whether conferences have similar characteristics to institutions, or whether they should be treated as separate empirical entities within IR analysis. The article also questions the state-centric view of these perspectives by asking whether including conferences in analysis of policymaking can make an empirical contribution. Specifically, the article asks whether conferences produce outcomes that must be addressed when analysing how and where policy, diplomacy, deal-making and cooperation occur. The article looks specifically at the functions of conferences within Arctic governance, and the Arctic Circle Assembly in particular. The article accounts for the novel function conferences appear to have taken within Arctic governance – also for small states and non-state actors – and enquires what we can infer from this when examining both cooperation and interests within international relations.","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"12 1","pages":"240 - 260"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49113186","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 : 2022-07-03DOI: 10.1080/2154896x.2022.2133384
M. Haward
{"title":"The dawning of Antarctica: through exploration to occupation","authors":"M. Haward","doi":"10.1080/2154896x.2022.2133384","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896x.2022.2133384","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"12 1","pages":"387 - 388"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41818576","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 : 2022-07-03DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2022.2137092
K. Sikora
ABSTRACT The Russian Federation defines indigeneity narrowly. Under Russian law, only those groups that inhabit the territories of the North, Siberia and the Far East, comprise fewer than 50,000 people, maintain a traditional, nature-based way of life, and self-identify as a separate ethnic group can be recognised as so-called small-numbered indigenous peoples (KMNS). As a result, several de-facto indigenous groups cannot obtain the status of KMNS and benefit from related rights. There are also peoples that, despite fulfilling the Russian criteria of indigeneity, still fail to be recognised as KMNS. Russian legislation nevertheless does provide certain rights for some non-KMNS groups. This article is based on a literature review and fieldwork research among one such non-recognised community, the Izhma people, who belong to the wider Komi group. It asks what legitimate rights the Izhma Komi possess as an indigenous group and how these are exercised on the ground. In doing so, this article provides new knowledge that reduces confusion among scholars and practitioners regarding Izhma Komi legal and factual positions. The paper focuses specifically on legislation that covers the traditional economic activities of reindeer herding, fishing, and hunting, as embodied in both federal and republic regulations, to demonstrate the interplay between written laws and their non-coherent implementation on the ground.
{"title":"Indigenous yet unrecognised. The legal reality of the Izhma Komi people","authors":"K. Sikora","doi":"10.1080/2154896X.2022.2137092","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2022.2137092","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Russian Federation defines indigeneity narrowly. Under Russian law, only those groups that inhabit the territories of the North, Siberia and the Far East, comprise fewer than 50,000 people, maintain a traditional, nature-based way of life, and self-identify as a separate ethnic group can be recognised as so-called small-numbered indigenous peoples (KMNS). As a result, several de-facto indigenous groups cannot obtain the status of KMNS and benefit from related rights. There are also peoples that, despite fulfilling the Russian criteria of indigeneity, still fail to be recognised as KMNS. Russian legislation nevertheless does provide certain rights for some non-KMNS groups. This article is based on a literature review and fieldwork research among one such non-recognised community, the Izhma people, who belong to the wider Komi group. It asks what legitimate rights the Izhma Komi possess as an indigenous group and how these are exercised on the ground. In doing so, this article provides new knowledge that reduces confusion among scholars and practitioners regarding Izhma Komi legal and factual positions. The paper focuses specifically on legislation that covers the traditional economic activities of reindeer herding, fishing, and hunting, as embodied in both federal and republic regulations, to demonstrate the interplay between written laws and their non-coherent implementation on the ground.","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"12 1","pages":"343 - 362"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46593627","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 : 2022-07-03DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2022.2137090
Ryan Dean
ABSTRACT The 2006–15 Stephen Harper Conservative government created a Canadian Arctic policy noted as an outlier both at home and abroad. Critics at home alleged that it was a retraction from Canada’s overall broadening and deepening Arctic policy trajectory, returning to the narrow concerns of sovereignty. Abroad, the security rhetoric the policy was clad in seemed out of step with the then increasing regional governance of a relatively peaceful Arctic. This article tests these criticisms through a discourse analysis that traces the creation of what is Canada’s first integrated Arctic policy during the life of the Harper Conservative government. It applies the Copenhagen School’s sectors of security and securitisation theory to mark the breadth and intensity of the discourse over time. It finds that the substance of the policy very much builds upon the preceding work of the Chrétien/Martin government. Whilst the security rhetoric quickly diminished, the actual threats posited conversely built over time with Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014. It concludes that whilst securitising language often benefits opposition parties, it does not always benefit governments.
{"title":"Speaking security: constructing Canada’s 2009 northern strategy","authors":"Ryan Dean","doi":"10.1080/2154896X.2022.2137090","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2022.2137090","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The 2006–15 Stephen Harper Conservative government created a Canadian Arctic policy noted as an outlier both at home and abroad. Critics at home alleged that it was a retraction from Canada’s overall broadening and deepening Arctic policy trajectory, returning to the narrow concerns of sovereignty. Abroad, the security rhetoric the policy was clad in seemed out of step with the then increasing regional governance of a relatively peaceful Arctic. This article tests these criticisms through a discourse analysis that traces the creation of what is Canada’s first integrated Arctic policy during the life of the Harper Conservative government. It applies the Copenhagen School’s sectors of security and securitisation theory to mark the breadth and intensity of the discourse over time. It finds that the substance of the policy very much builds upon the preceding work of the Chrétien/Martin government. Whilst the security rhetoric quickly diminished, the actual threats posited conversely built over time with Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014. It concludes that whilst securitising language often benefits opposition parties, it does not always benefit governments.","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"12 1","pages":"303 - 321"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45326461","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 : 2022-07-03DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2022.2137093
Adrian Nae
ABSTRACT In the context of Russia’s aggressiveness towards the ex-Soviet bloc since the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, Moscow’s messaging concerning other “spheres of interest’ has largely been overshadowed by Russia’s activities in its Eastern near abroad. This paper examines Moscow’s framings of the Arctic through the lenses of its Strategies from 2013 and 2020. The purpose is to extract the core strategic narratives and ‘read between the lines’ so that an evaluation can be made of how Moscow perceives the Arctic, defines its interests and assesses the prospect for future confrontation in the region. This provides the basis for the second part of the paper which investigates the way in which two Russian propaganda vectors – RT and Sputnik – presented Moscow’s strategic narratives for the Arctic between 2014 and 2021. Based on this analysis, the paper concludes that although RT and Sputnik act as vessels for Moscow’s strategic narratives, they also reveal Russia’s frustrations and misperceptions that are embedded in programmatic documents. The findings reinforce recent scholarly literature which claims that Russian media vectors of foreign propaganda are more complex than simple tools for disseminating misinformation and blatant lies.
{"title":"Russian strategic narratives on the Arctic region: embedded in strategic documents and narrated by RT and Sputnik","authors":"Adrian Nae","doi":"10.1080/2154896X.2022.2137093","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2022.2137093","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In the context of Russia’s aggressiveness towards the ex-Soviet bloc since the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, Moscow’s messaging concerning other “spheres of interest’ has largely been overshadowed by Russia’s activities in its Eastern near abroad. This paper examines Moscow’s framings of the Arctic through the lenses of its Strategies from 2013 and 2020. The purpose is to extract the core strategic narratives and ‘read between the lines’ so that an evaluation can be made of how Moscow perceives the Arctic, defines its interests and assesses the prospect for future confrontation in the region. This provides the basis for the second part of the paper which investigates the way in which two Russian propaganda vectors – RT and Sputnik – presented Moscow’s strategic narratives for the Arctic between 2014 and 2021. Based on this analysis, the paper concludes that although RT and Sputnik act as vessels for Moscow’s strategic narratives, they also reveal Russia’s frustrations and misperceptions that are embedded in programmatic documents. The findings reinforce recent scholarly literature which claims that Russian media vectors of foreign propaganda are more complex than simple tools for disseminating misinformation and blatant lies.","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"12 1","pages":"363 - 383"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47586161","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 : 2022-07-03DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2022.2137084
Gabriella Gricius
ABSTRACT Traditional readings of state-centric security in the Arctic centre questions of physical, political, and economic security as the primary issues for the eight Arctic states. These more material aspects of security, however, do not adequately explain the role of coloniality in Arctic security policies and the prevalence of coloniality-based narratives of wilderness in Arctic policy. I argue that in sustaining its ontological security in the Arctic, the United States – across the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations – uses coloniality-based narratives of wilderness to justify policy. By conducting a discourse analysis focused on ‘wilderness’ conceptualisations of American Arctic policy from 2009 to 2021, I demonstrate that the United States continues to use coloniality-based narratives to understand the Arctic and that this has serious consequences for how the United States can act in the Arctic now and in the future. As a settler colonial state, the continuation of the United States’ sense of self is intrinsically connected to coloniality, which has profound implications for Indigenous and northern peoples.
{"title":"Pulling back the curtain: coloniality-based narratives of wilderness in US Arctic policy","authors":"Gabriella Gricius","doi":"10.1080/2154896X.2022.2137084","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2022.2137084","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Traditional readings of state-centric security in the Arctic centre questions of physical, political, and economic security as the primary issues for the eight Arctic states. These more material aspects of security, however, do not adequately explain the role of coloniality in Arctic security policies and the prevalence of coloniality-based narratives of wilderness in Arctic policy. I argue that in sustaining its ontological security in the Arctic, the United States – across the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations – uses coloniality-based narratives of wilderness to justify policy. By conducting a discourse analysis focused on ‘wilderness’ conceptualisations of American Arctic policy from 2009 to 2021, I demonstrate that the United States continues to use coloniality-based narratives to understand the Arctic and that this has serious consequences for how the United States can act in the Arctic now and in the future. As a settler colonial state, the continuation of the United States’ sense of self is intrinsically connected to coloniality, which has profound implications for Indigenous and northern peoples.","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"12 1","pages":"198 - 214"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46625403","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：