The Political Architecture of Security in the Arctic ? the Case of Norway

• Author: Svein Vigeland Rottem
• Pages: 97-117

234

[start kap]

Arctic Revie w on Law and Politics, vol. 4 , 2/2013 pp. 234–254. ISSN 1891-6252

The Political Architecture of Security

in the Arctic – the Case of Norway

Svein Vigeland Rottem

Svein Vigeland Rottem, Senior Research Fellow, Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Norway.

His research interests fo cus on two areas: climate change and adaptat ion and security

issues in the Arctic . E-mail: svr@fni.no

Received December 2012, Accepted May 2013

Abstract: With receding sea ice, a new reality is taking hold in the Arctic. e

purpose of this ar ticle is to explore Norway’s defense and security chal lenges in the

region in light of this development. We argue for a broader analysis of the pa ram-

eters of security policy. Although the a rticle makes analyt ical distinction between

security at the regiona l, national, and international level, these various categories

do not exist in isolation but are used here for discussion purpose s only. It is argued

that there is a good chance of a civilized Arctic in the future, and soer national

security challenges are then more likely to take precedence. However, interna-

tional and regional sec urity and defence interests will continue to be important.

Keywords: Arctic, Norway, security, climate change

Introduction

Many observers have formed the belief that the Arctic is facing radical transfor-

mation. With receding sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, a new reality is taking hold.1

1. Climate cha nge is not the only engine of change i n the Arctic. It might be prud ent to recall

Professor Lawson Br igham’s argument: “(…) the transform ation in how humans use t he Arctic

hinterland s is being driven as muc h by global economics a nd natural res ource availabi lity

as it is by climate c hange”. Brigham, Laws on, “ink Aga in: e Arctic” in Fore ign Policy,

October/November (2010). e changing cl imate is nonetheless a n essential asp ect of any

analysis of t he Arctic’s future.

the political architecture of security in the arc tic – the case of norway

235

Human activity will increase, and natural resources become more easily acces-

sible.2 New possibilities will open up. But alongside the burgeoning commercial

activity there is a compendium of security issues to be addressed. Changes will

aect the type of militar y footprint we will be seeing in the region. At the same

time the concept of securit y has widened.

3

While governments have reduced threat

levels for territorial invasion, they a re having to deal w ith new security challenges

including humanitarian disasters, major accidents, environmental degradation,

and international terrorism.

e purpose of this article is to explore Norway’s security and defence chal-

lenges in the Arctic,4 recognizing that Norway is a small player in international

relations, but has an important role in what has been called the “great game” in

the Arctic. One of the main theses of this article concerns the need for a broader

analysis of the political architecture of security in the Arctic, looking at the re-

gional, national and international level. is does not mean to imply that t he dif-

ferent levels exist in isolation with no mutua l inuence. We argue we should move

beyond the two major political philosophica l discourses competing in the Arctic

at this stage, which Oran Young labels the “discours e of geopolitics/political real-

ism” and the “discourse of ecosys tem-based management”.5 It wil l be arg ued that

broader national security and safety issues are the most important as far as eve-

ryday operations in the High North6 are concerned at the present time, although

we must not ignore t he international and regional security questions.

2. Several bo oks on the subject have bee n published, see for exa mple Seidler, Christi an, Arktisches

Monopoly, Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, Münc hen 2009; Howard, Rober t, e A rct ic Go ld R ush ,

Continuum, L ondon 2009; Sale, R ichard & Potapov, Eugene, e Scramble f or the Arctic,

Frances Li ncoln Ltd., London 2010; Fairhall, D avid, Cold Front: conict ah ead in Arctic wa-

ters, I.B. Tauris.Fai rhall, London 2010; and Kr aska, James (ed.) Arctic Se curity in an Age of

Climate Change, Cambridge Uni versity Press, Cambridge 2 011.

3. For an e xcellent overview on t he development of securit y studies, see Bu zan, Barr y & Hansen,

Lene, e Evolution of International Security Studies, Cambridge Universit y Press, New York

2009.

4. “Arctic” has nu merous denitions : areas with a n average temperature of u nder 10 degrees

Celsius for ever y month of the year and the a rea north of the Arct ic Circle. Hoel, Alf Håkon ,

“Do we need a new legal reg ime for the Arctic O cean?” in International Journal of Marine

and Coastal L aw, Vol. 24, No.2 2009 pp. 4 43–456, 4 44. For the purp oses of the argu ments

here, an exact d enition is not essentia l, and unless stated other wise, Arctic wi ll be referred

to as the area nor th of the Arctic Circle, t hough there will be a pa rticula r focus on areas in

Norway’s vici nity.

5. Young, O., “e Arct ic in Play: Governance i n a Time of Rapid Change” in e International

Journal of Mari ne and Coastal Law, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2009 pp. 423– 442: 432.

6. High Nort h here dened as the Arct ic area in Norway’s vicinit y.