| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
132327
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Neorealist and neoliberal institutionalist explanations for the state and future of the Arctic region dominate the Arctic debate in international relations. While both schools focus on different aspects concerning the current and future state of Arctic affairs - neorealism evokes a confrontational rush for the Arctic's resources, whereas neoliberal institutionalism propagates the necessary reform of the institutional system governing Arctic issues - both share the underlying assumption of significant and rising stakes towards Arctic commodities. However, this article argues that this debate has hitherto failed to substantiate the actual stakes of the main actors involved. Consequently, many studies make grandiloquent statements about prospects of cooperation and conflict and the appropriate institutional framework for the Arctic region, based on only limited empirical support. This article aims to fill this gap by analysing the Arctic oil and gas interests of the five Arctic littoral states (Russia, USA, Canada, Norway and Denmark/Greenland). The analysis shows greatly different levels of interests towards the High North among the Arctic states. The findings make it possible to make more credible statements about the likelihood of confrontation over Arctic resources and necessary institutional adjustments. The evidence shows that the often-evoked issue of geopolitical rush for Arctic resources is unlikely to eventuate. Nonetheless, there remain institutional challenges for the protection of the fragile Arctic ecosystem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
121224
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Arctic Council is a high-level, mainly intergovernmental forum for
cooperation, coordination, and interaction among Arctic states,1
indigenous
groups, and interested parties of two issue areas, sustainable development in
the Arctic and the protection and study of the fragile Arctic ecosystem. The
council is poorly understood and little advertised. And while it cannot enact
binding legislation (except among the member states) or discuss issues of
military security, these supposed "weaknesses" have actually helped to forge
consensus in other important issue areas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|