Abstract
As climate change and globalization are opening the Arctic to human activities, the debate about how best to organize Arctic institutions in order to facilitate regional governance has been invigorated. One of the most controversial ideas in this debate has been the notion that a comprehensive treaty should govern the Arctic. Depending on its exact design, such a treaty could radically transform regional decision-making procedures and substantial issue areas. It has been opposed by several regional stakeholders, including most regional states. This article examines how specific factors determine the prominence of the idea of an Arctic treaty in governance debates, and whether it is likely to become a crucial feature in future discussions. It argues that there are multiple ideas concerning the content and purpose of an Arctic treaty. Some of its proponents favor radical transformation of the regional order, while others envision more moderate reforms of existing institutions. It maps how the Arctic treaty debate has developed in four phases from 1970 until today, showing that it has been driven by a combination of functional gaps in the regional institutional setup, changing public political discourses about Arctic governance, and the degree of opposition among regional stakeholders. As some of these factors persist, the Arctic treaty will most likely continue to play a role in regional governance debates. In case of a regional crisis, it can once again become a focal point for discussion.
Highlights
International interest in Arctic governance has increased significantly over the past decade
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), to name one example, quickly issued a public statement in which Neil Hamilton, the director of its International Arctic Program, argued that the combination of environmental and military threats necessitated a radical Arctic treaty that would break with UNCLOS and create a new body to replace the Arctic Council: The political and symbolic gestures of recent expeditions asserting territorial claims and rights to unrestricted exploitation lead to nowhere and could revive conflicts that have affected the region in the past
The idea of an Arctic treaty has evolved as a response to functional gaps in Arctic governance
Summary
International interest in Arctic governance (the governing that occurs internationally through cooperation between several Arctic states and entities without one sovereign authority in charge [Finkelstein, 1995:369]) has increased significantly over the past decade. The new challenges have led to a continuous debate between policymakers and academics about how best to organize Arctic institutions in order to facilitate regional governance. Some proposed versions of an Arctic treaty would diminish the influence currently held by regional states and by organizations representing Indigenous and local communities, while banning or limiting several activities, including the exploitation of natural resources. This article examines how specific factors determine the prominence of the idea of an Arctic treaty in governance debates (focusing on the period from 1970 to 2017), and whether it is likely to become a crucial feature in future discussions. The first section defines the Arctic treaty and provides an analytical framework for analyzing its prominence in regional governance debates. The following four sections present the history of the idea of an Arctic treaty in four phases: 1970 – 96, 1996 – 2007, 2007 – 13, and 2013 – 17
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
