Geopolitics and International Governance in the Arctic

• Author: Øyvind Østerud, Geir Hønneland
• Pages: 3-23

156

[start kap]

Geopolitics and International

Governance in the Arctic

Øyvind Østerud and Geir Hønneland

Øyvind Østerud, Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Oslo,

Norway (oyvind.osterud@stv.uio.no)

Geir Hønneland, Research Director, Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Norway (geir.honneland@fni.no)

Received April 2013, accepted September 2013

Abstract: e Arctic has been the object of heated political discussion in recent

years as the region has evolved from a potential conict zone during the Cold

War to an arena for international cooperation immediately aerwards. Since

the mid-2000s attention has once again focused on the conict potential of the

Arctic, this time related to its resources. is article looks at how the research

literature balances its prospects. e literature on international relations (IR)

in the Arctic has been mainly empirical in orientation, although framed in the

major IR traditions of realism (traditional geopolitics), institutionalism and

(to a lesser extent) constructivism. e English-language literature on Arctic

politics, which naturally dominates the eld globally, is by and large framed in

institutional terms. e discussion is not whether institutions matter in Arctic

politics, but how they best can be craed in order to maintain peace and stabil-

ity in the region. Speculations about a ‘scramble for the Arctic’ have more or

less unanimously been refuted in the literature. e French literature, on the

other hand, is largely framed in a geopolitical context. French geopolitics is less

concerned with the global power game than with the rivalry between states for

strategic resources. e institutions of cooperation are, however, downplayed.

Key words: Geopolitics, institutionalism, Arctic politics, scramble for the Arctic

Arctic Review on Law and Politics, vol. 5, 2/2014 pp. 156–176. ISSN 1891-6252

104715 GRTID Arctic Review on Law and Politics 1402.indd 156 19.09.14 12:29

geopolitics and international governance in the arctic

157

1. Geopolitics and Institutions in the Arctic1

1.1 Introduction

e Arctic icecap is melting and scientists are uncertain how this will aect eco-

systems. At the same time considerable deposits of oil and gas are believed to exist

in the Arctic. Debate has evolved around who shall extract the oil when the ice

disappears, and who shall control the new shipping routes that are opening up. Will

conict emerge among states – is a “scramble” for the Arctic underway?

In this article we examine basic research trends in the international relations (IR)

literature with regard to recent geopolitical transformations in the Arctic: To what

extent does the existing literature reect major turning points in Arctic interna-

tional politics over the last decade?

We start with a review of recent transformations in international politics in the

Arctic, including brief overviews of territorial conicts, the new strategic environ-

ment, and new patterns of cooperation between Arctic states. en we examine the

English- and French-language literature on international Arctic politics. We review

the literature through the lenses of the three major schools of international relations:

realism, institutionalism2, and constructivism, with an eye to geopolitical elements

in the perspectives. Institutionalism is basically concerned with common interests,

norms, and spheres of cooperation, and also in contexts where international realism

identies economic rivalry and the potential for zero-sum security games. Classical

geopolitics, as a brand of realism, is a more sombre interpretation of the territorial

imperatives and border issues connected to state sovereignty. Classical geopolitics

connect state power and interstate rivalry to geographical space, location, and trans-

port technology. It is a method trying to explain international behaviour and state

policy in terms of geographical variables.3 What has been called critical geopolitics –

inuenced by discourse analysis and social constructivism – is more concerned with

the political implications of cartographic representation, linguistic congurations,

and rhetorical patterns. Critical geopolitics illuminates how statecra constructs

1. e article has been prepared under the GeoPolitics in the High North project, nanced by the

Research Council of Norway for the period 2008–2012.

2. We use the term ‘institutionalism’ instead of the closely related concept ‘liberalism’ in this article,

as the argument of this tradition in the study of international politics in the Arctic is more that

‘institutions matter’ (Mitchell, Ronald B. (1994), ‘Regime design matters: intentional oil pollution

and treaty compliance’, International Organization, 48: 425–458) than questions related to complex

interdependence among the Arctic states.

3. See Kearns, Gerry (2009), Geopolitics and Empire. e Legacy of Halford Mackinder, Oxford Uni-

versity Press, Oxford.

104715 GRTID Arctic Review on Law and Politics 1402.indd 157 19.09.14 12:29