|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
108563
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
China has clearly emulated Russia's previous example of making loud claims and
increasing military patrols in the Arctic. China will likely become a major player
in Arctic trade routes and become a main destination for goods shipped through
the Northern Sea Route. It is likely that a significant part of future Russian oil
and gas production will ultimately be supplied to China. What are the strategic
implications of China's active involvement in Arctic politics? The Arctic "Great
Game" is often described as a new Cold War between the United States and Russia.
Regionally, the two main protagonists are Russia and Norway. This article makes a
different argument. The Arctic has recently become an issue on the Russo-Chinese,
and possibly Russo-Japanese security agenda. The first goal of this article is to
examine the Arctic policy and strategy of Russia, perhaps the most difficult nation
to understand in terms of Arctic security. The second goal of the article is to
explain how the Arctic has become an issue of concern in Russia's relationship
with China.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
166041
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
095575
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
181643
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
After the Cold War, international relations in the Arctic were characterised by cooperation and diplomacy. However, since Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, largely peaceful relations in the High North have been endangered by growing military competition between Russia and Western Arctic powers. The lack of military to military dialogue between Russia and the West has exacerbated the situation. Consequently, an Arctic security dilemma has arisen, which threatens stability and increases the danger of unintended armed conflict resulting from accidents or misunderstandings. Security dilemmas are as old as international politics. They occur when states feel threatened by the expanding military capabilities of their neighbours even if there is no deliberate hostile intent. This article will examine the developing Arctic security dilemma and the chances of its mitigation. Two recent developments provide potential grounds for optimism. The new United States’ administration has pledged to return America to global engagement and multilateralism. In 2021, the Russian Federation is scheduled to become chair of the Arctic Council and the Arctic Coastguard Forum, the main intergovernmental institutions in the region. These events provide an opportunity to rebuild greater trust and confidence in relations between Russia and its Arctic neighbours and alleviate dangerous tensions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
169946
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Canada's policies to assert and maintain sovereignty over the High Arctic illuminate both the analytical leverage and blind spots of Foucault's influential Security, Territory, Population (2007) schema for understanding modern governmentality. Governmental logics of security, sovereignty, and biopolitics are contemporaneous and concomitant. The Arctic case demonstrates clearly that the Canadian state messily uses whatever governmental tools are in its grasp to manage the Inuit and claim territorial sovereignty over the High North. But, the case of Canadian High Arctic policies also illustrates the limitations of Foucault's schema. First, the Security, Territory, Population framework has no theorization of the international. In this article I show the simultaneous implementation of Canadian security-, territorial-, and population-oriented policies over the High Arctic. Next, I present the international catalysts that prompt and condition these polices and their specifically settler-colonial tenor. Finally, in line with the Foucauldian imperative to support the “resurrection of subjugated knowledges” (Foucault 2003, 7), I conclude by offering some of the Inuit ways of resisting and reshaping these policies, proving how the Inuit shaped Canadian Arctic sovereignty as much as Canadian Arctic sovereignty policies shaped the Inuit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
139208
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Defence collaboration is on the political agenda in most western countries. Simultaneously, maritime activity in the Arctic region is growing, spurring demand for various coast guard tasks of both civilian and military characters. How can defence collaboration be applied to deal with a changing situation in the Arctic? Arctic coastal states are facing heightened risks, and their various coast guard structures have to provide extended capacities for a number of tasks. Simultaneously, most Arctic coast guards are experiencing a stretch in capabilities, as demand grows. This study asks whether it is purposeful – or even possible – to conduct defence collaboration on coast guard tasks in the Arctic. Subsequently, what are the drivers of, and challenges to, such collaboration, and what forms can it take? Canada, Denmark and Norway form the basis of this comparative study, given their status as NATO members and small-to-medium powers with prominent geographical positions in the North Atlantic/Arctic oceans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
089875
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Northers hemisphere maritime powers are shifting their focus to waters above 66 -30 latitude. The 2 August 2007 planning of titanium Russian flag on the North Pole seabed by a Mir deep-water submersible supported by the nuclear-powered icebreaker Rossiya and research ship Akademik Federov generated significant global media coverage and a groundswell of domestic Russian pride. While not a military mission, this event triggered frantic arctic security interest reassessments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
106550
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|