non-Arctic States Research Articles

A research on the Turkish shipyards in the Arctic: Opportunities and challenges

The Arctic region has been experiencing an extensive transformation and several economic opportunities have emerged due to the shrinking sea ice. While the Arctic Ocean has become more convenient for navigation, both Arctic and non-Arctic states have updated their Arctic policies according to recent developments. There has been a substantial increase in the number of studies studying three main Arctic sea routes: Northwest Passage (NWP), Northeast Passage (NEP), and Trans-Polar Sea Route (TSR). Albeit the existence of contradictory results, the interest in Arctic shipping presents a growing trend. The Turkish shipyards increasingly participate in tenders as well. While Çelik Tekne Shipyard stands out as the first Turkish shipyard to win the shipbuilding tender in accordance with polar conditions, a significant increase has been observed in the number of shipyards within the Arctic shipping tenders since 2018. In addition to Atlas and Akdeniz Shipyards, producing ice-class vehicles in accordance with the requirements of the Polar Code, it is possible to multiply examples from Beşiktaş Shipyard, which built ice class fuel ships, Sanmar Shipyard, which won the icebreaker tugboat tender, and Sefine and Kuzey Star Shipyards, which participated in the icebreaker tenders. Besides, the participation of Turkish shipyards as sole contractors in the Russian Arctic as of 2021 indicates their determination to become active actors in the Arctic shipping industry. Accordingly, this paper discusses the opportunities and challenges of Arctic shipping based on the Turkish case.

Characterizing collaborative networks for different arctic issues based on complex network analysis

International collaboration is widely accepted as an effective way to address Arctic-related issues, and these collaborative events have been frequently reported in recent years. To obtain the potential regular pattern hidden behind these events, a comprehensive methodology is proposed in this study. A database containing all the international collaborative events in terms of Arctic issues reported in the last decade was first developed, and these events were categorized into six aspects. Correspondingly, six subnetworks are developed, in which the nodes are represented by collaborative states, while the edges are denoted by collaborative relationships. These subnetworks are then characterized and compared by quantitative network parameters of total connections, network density, average path length, network transitivity, degree centrality, closeness centrality, and clustering coefficients. Finally, the performance of the individual states in each subnetwork is quantitatively analysed. The results show that Arctic science and research are the top priorities for international collaboration, and many uncertainties are involved in collaboration for Arctic resource utilization. In addition, the challenges faced by the non-Arctic states participating in Arctic issues are explained, and suggestions to promote international collaboration in terms of Arctic issues are proposed.

The Arctic Region as an Object of Geopolitical Contradictions

Over the past thirty years, the world community has increased interest in the Arctic, new opportunities are emerging due to global warming, and many states have seen new prospects for their own development and strengthening their influence in the world. But non-Arctic states will have to prove the validity of their interests in order to get the right to participate in decision-making in the region. The results of many scientific studies indicate large oil and gas deposits, as well as reserves of many other types of minerals, respectively, interested countries will need to confirm the legitimacy of their rights to extract resources. With the melting of glaciers, new transport hubs are opening up, such as the NSR and NWP, which Russia and Canada seek to control, and where the United States and other countries insist that the NSR and NWP should have the status of international straits. Tensions are growing around the island of Svalbard, although the Paris Convention on Svalbard was signed in 1920, which implies Norway's sovereignty over the island, other countries have retained the right to conduct economic activities on the island, and Norway is trying to challenge this right in various ways. This paper examines hypothetical areas of cooperation and disagreements between stakeholders in the Arctic. The article describes the structure of relations between actors in the Arctic region, their problems and national interests, as well as cooperation in various fields. So countries that usually oppose each other in many regions can cooperate, sometimes even having contradictions in the Arctic, which ultimately allows us to see how many states can simultaneously converge and disagree on many issues in the Arctic. What makes this region unique in international relations.

Comparative Analysis of Arctic-Related Strategies at the National Level: Competition and Collaboration

The melting of ice creates favorable conditions for the development of the Arctic by elevating the Arctic’s geostrategic value and stoking national competition. As a result, many states, both within and beyond the Arctic region, have recently released Arctic strategies or updated existing ones, clarifying their roles, interests, priorities, and policies for Arctic international cooperation. In this study, a database is generated with a collection of Arctic strategies from 16 states, and then grounded theory is applied to code the texts in these strategy documents. Using this code, word-frequency analysis, cross-tabulation, correlation analysis, and cooperative-network analysis are implemented to explore competition and collaboration in the Arctic among these 16 states. The results indicate that Arctic states are significantly concerned with governance, economic and social development, and security and stability, while environmental protection and scientific research are given more attention by non-Arctic states. In addition, the highest value of the Pearson correlation coefficient is identified as 0.85 for collaboration and Arctic public security affairs, which indicates that collaboration on Arctic security will dominate the development of Arctic affairs in the near future.

Implementing the 2017 Arctic Science Cooperation Agreement: Challenges and Opportunities as regards Russia and Japan

This study sought to identify the major barriers to the implementation of the Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation (2017) and to uncover ways of facilitating the Agreement that may enhance Russia–Japan scientific cooperation in the High North. The Russia–Japan case exemplifies the difficulties as well as the potentials of the Agreement in enhancing Arctic scientific cooperation between Arctic states and non-Arctic states. Ultimately, the study identified several possible ways to facilitate the Agreement’s implementation. This paper first examines these means within the Agreement’s legal framework; more specifically, it explores how to operationalize the effective review process established under Art.12, utilize the 2000 Japan-Russia bilateral Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement to implement Art.17 on ‘Cooperation with non-Parties’, identify Arctic research projects and infrastructure available under the Agreement, and designate appropriate authorities as contact points under Annex 2 of the Agreement. The paper then examines the potential of linking the Agreement’s implementation with other forums and institutions. In particular, it recognizes the Arctic Council as a platform for enhancing Arctic scientific cooperation and considers how cooperation within various Arctic professional organizations and associations may be revived and how to create synergy between the Agreement and Arctic Science Ministerial processes. This paper’s discussion is largely based on information and political contexts before February 24, 2022, but the concluding section provides a few policy suggestions specific to the implementation of the Agreement in light of the post-Ukraine situation.

An Arctic in Flux: Singapore's Perspective

An Arctic in Flux:Singapore's Perspective Hema Nadarajah (bio) Amid multiple global crises and conflicts, the often-cited concept of Arctic exceptionalism—the unique governance that has facilitated cooperation in the region—has come under strain.1 A series of overlapping and multilayered geopolitical issues present challenges to Arctic governance, which is often assumed to be resistant to conflict elsewhere, and to cooperation, the "norm" of the region. From escalating tensions between the United States and China to Russia's invasion of Ukraine to the ever-accelerating climate crisis, the Arctic is undeniably at a point of inflection. With the Arctic Council's activities currently paused due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, concerns over the role of the council's observer states, including Asian states Singapore, China, Japan, South Korea, and India, have been raised. However, despite this pause in the region's preeminent high-level intergovernmental forum and the Covid-19 pandemic, not all activity in the high north has been frozen. States have remained active within the Arctic—observer states have continued to articulate official strategies and pay senior-level official visits to the region, while hopeful observers, such as Estonia, are advocating for admission to the Arctic Council.2 It is clear that non-Arctic states' interest in the polar region [End Page 39] has not waned. This essay examines the Arctic interests and development of one such non-Arctic observer—Singapore. Since its 2013 admission into the Arctic Council, Singapore has been referred to as the "unlikely candidate," the "odd one out," and an "Arctic novice."3 It is, however, time to move beyond such a narrative for the nonregional observer states for several reasons. First, the status and the future of the Arctic Council itself are unclear and, at best, bifurcated. Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which has gravely violated international law, has resulted in the other seven Arctic Council state members—Canada, the United States, Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark (now known as the A-7)—announcing their unanimous suspension of cooperation within the council.4 Second, nearly a decade has passed since the Asian states were admitted as observers.5 During this time, these states have made countless engagements with the region. Third, the concept of Arctic exceptionalism has come under increased scrutiny.6 The Arctic is not a discrete and isolated entity in international relations; what happens in the Arctic does not remain only in the Arctic, nor is the region unaffected by events elsewhere. Scholarship on the observer states needs to move beyond a perspective that questions their role in a compartmentalized region to one that examines their engagement in a globalized Arctic in flux. The first section provides background on Arctic governance and context for Singapore's progression to observer status in the Arctic Council. The second section assesses the state of the now indeterminate Arctic Council and Singaporean interests. In doing so, it postulates what the future of council observers might be and what a small state outside the high north can offer, given the current state of affairs in the Arctic. Finally, this essay concludes by assessing the necessity of an official Arctic policy and the path forward for tropical observer Singapore. [End Page 40] Background: The Arctic and Singapore Arctic governance Aside from global treaties such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Arctic7 is governed regionally by the high-level intergovernmental Arctic Council, the five coastal Arctic states (the Arctic Five—Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the United States), and the Barents-Euro Arctic Council.8 One way to view the governance process is as concentric, expanding circles—the Arctic Five, the Arctic Five-Plus-Five (the Arctic Five with China, the European Union, Iceland, Japan, and South Korea), the newly formed A-7, the Arctic Council, and then Arctic Council with observers.9 In 2008 the Arctic Five agreed to continue to utilize the existing international law as outlined in UNCLOS for matters pertaining to the Arctic and decided against the need for a "new legal framework."10 Some hard treaties, such as UNCLOS, the Polar Code, and the Montreal Protocol, govern the region but...

Global interest in the Arctic region: Naval operations impacting scientific-commercial activities

Abstract The Arctic region is rapidly changing as a result of climate alteration, political tensions and ambitions of the Arctic and non-Arctic states. Is the existing governance considered to be adequate for effective international security cooperation in the region? On the one hand, we look optimistic at the evolution of international relations in the areas of science and technology, conservation, search and rescue coordination, tourism, etc. On the other hand, there is a significantly increased militarisation of the Arctic region. The recent rise in military activities in the North has resulted in numerous regional deployments, patrols and other incidents in the maritime Arctic. In general, militarisation together with climate change are impacting scientific-commercial activities. Also, the absence of an adequate legal regime that may respond to climate change and interruption of civil activities by military exercises in a fast and effective way hampers international cooperation. This paper problematises various aspects of interaction between scientific-commercial activities and naval operations in the Arctic region.

Prefatory Notes to the Roundtable: Arctic Collaboration

Prefatory Notes to the RoundtableArctic Collaboration Yoko Kamikawa By the late 2030s, the Arctic may be largely ice-free in the summers. Ongoing environmental changes in the Arctic, such as those resulting from climate change, both pose a significant threat to the ecosystems and livelihoods of the Indigenous peoples there and serve as a warning about the precariousness of the global climate system. Unfortunately, however, even as these changes are already underway, we still need more data about many aspects of the Arctic. For example, the International Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean, ratified in 2021, regulated commercial fishing in the region due to inadequate information about the fish species available. Thus, we need to collaborate with various stakeholders to ensure a sustainable Arctic. First, it is vital to deepen discussions and knowledge exchanges about the Arctic between nations through multilateral and serial events, including the Arctic Circle Forums, the meetings of the International Symposium on Arctic Research, the Arctic Frontiers conferences, and the meetings of the Arctic Encounter Symposium. Second, the efforts of Track 1.5 diplomacy—such as the Arctic Cooperation Seminar hosted by the Sasakawa Peace Foundation and the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada that formed the basis for this roundtable—are also important. We need academics and think tank experts to act as knowledge brokers to facilitate information sharing between governments and the public and to promote evidence-based research about the Arctic in interdisciplinary fields. Finally, I would like to encourage more Arctic youth forums. Young people are future leaders and should take a proactive role in shaping global environmental issues. The Arctic region must embody international cooperation and be the "ocean of collaboration." Data sharing between the Arctic and non-Arctic nations is especially critical to facilitate scientific understanding and peace in the region. As Arctic affairs are shared issues for all humankind, non-Arctic states in Asia and elsewhere should be included in these critical dialogues. This inclusivity sends a powerful message under the theme of "knowledge for a sustainable Arctic" that can strengthen a functional and effective international cooperative system for the future. [End Page 2] Yoko Kamikawa Member, House of Representatives of Japan Chief Secretary, Parliamentary League of Arctic Frontier Study (Japan) Copyright © 2023 The National Bureau of Asian Research, Seattle, Washington

Международное измерение арктической политики Норвегии и накопленный капитал российско-норвежского сотрудничества

This article presents an analysis of Norway’s cooperation with Arctic and non-Arctic states in the Arctic over the past decade. The paper focuses on the priorities of the country’s new Arctic strategy adopted in 2020 in the areas of environmental protection, social and economic development, and improving the quality of life of indigenous peoples and residents of the northern regions. The paper aims at systematization of Norway’s experience of participation in various projects both under the aegis of international organizations in the region (the Arctic Council, the Barents-Euro-Arctic Council, the Nordic Council of Ministers, etc.) and in bilateral format with the Arctic countries. A special emphasis is placed on the analysis of Norwegian-Russian cooperation in the Arctic in the fields of environmental protection, fisheries, energy, joint operations to prevent and eliminate the consequences of oil spills and other environmental disasters, and social and cultural interaction. In addition, cooperation of Norway and Russia in multilateral formats in various sectors is examined. The current crisis in Russia-Western relations and its impact on the implementation of joint Russian-Norwegian projects and initiatives and the development of cooperation in the Arctic are analyzed.

INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL COOPERATION IN THE ARCTIC IN THE CONTEXT OF GLOBAL CHALLENGES AND CHANGES

The ongoing global processes are reorienting Russia's international cooperation in the Arctic in the field of scientific research and economic development. The SCO and the EAEU organizations are gaining significant international influence, and the formation of cooperation between the BRICS countries continues. Russia's growing interaction with non-Arctic states creates the need to search for (or develop) fundamentally new legal foundations for international environmental cooperation in the Arctic. The developed practice of regional legal regulation of certain environmental problems in the Arctic is leveled by the illegal behavior of the Arctic states. The international agreements adopted by the SCO, the EAEU and the BRICS in the field of environmental and Arctic cooperation are studied. The reasonability of developing and adopting a universal international agreement regulating the legal regime of the Arctic, capable of violating the national interests of Russia and the Arctic states, is disputed. At the same time, the elaboration of international environmental standards for navigation, fishing, development and processing of natural resources and other activities in the Arctic is of practical interest. It is noted that despite the proclamation of the Arctic vector of development by the organizations, the international legislation of the Arctic orientation is characterized by fragmentary elaboration of individual elements in the absence of integrated approaches.

International Legal Issues of Preventing Unregulated Fishing in the Arctic

INTRODUCTION. At various times, the sustainable use of marine living resources in the high seas outside exclusive economic zones, as well as in areas under the jurisdiction of Arctic coastal states, has been severely damaged by illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing. As the climate warms, the threat of unregulated fishing has also emerged on the high seas in the Central Arctic Ocean. As a result of multi-round negotiations on October 3, 2018 in Ilullissat (Greenland, Denmark) in the so-called «five plus five» format – representatives of five Arctic and four non-Arctic states, as well as the European Union, the Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean was signed. This new international legal document reflects national interests in the optimal use of marine living resources of the Arctic states, the Arctic indigenous peoples and residents, as well as interested states. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article shows the evolution of international legal instruments to prevent illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing in the high seas. Particular attention is paid to the study of normative and doctrinal materials revealing the treaty practice of states in the Arctic enclaves. The legal interpretation of the provisions of the 2018 Agreement is also given. In the study the authors used historical, comparative-legal and some other general scientific and special legal methods. RESEARCH RESULTS. From an international perspective, the 2018 Agreement is an innovative legal document that reflects the interests of not only the Arctic states but also non-Arctic states. Despite concerns about the participation of the latter (China, in particular)on the part of Western states, the Agreement was nevertheless signed and ratified before possible commercial fishing on the high seas in the Central Arctic Ocean starts. This would prevent illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing in advance and thus prevent the depletion of marine living resources in this part of the Arctic Ocean, unlike it happened in other enclaves of the high seas in the Northern Hemisphere. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The entry into force of the 2018 Agreement marked the beginning of cooperation among interested states in prevention of unregulated high seas fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean. Besides the general purpose of the Agreement, scientific cooperation between the Parties will contribute to better understandingof the least-explored area of the high seas. It is likely that the environmental cooperation in the Central Arctic Ocean will expand considerably in the future.

РЕАЛИЗАЦИЯ НАЦИОНАЛЬНЫХ ИНТЕРЕСОВ АЗИАТСКИХ ГОСУДАРСТВ В АРКТИКЕ НА ПРИМЕРЕ ЯПОНИИ

The resource, transport, geopolitical significance of the Arctic zone in the current conditions of the crisis in the system of international relations is becoming a subject of rivalry on various platforms. Regional organizations (on the example of the Arctic Council, the Northern Forum), supranational international associations (SArctic), non-governmental organizations, communities, scientific institutions and other structures become tools for involving non-Arctic states in the Arctic agenda. At the level of strategic documents, the states fix the conceptual tasks of the presence in the Arctic, form programs of activities that ensure the presence. Among the eastern developed countries in the framework of this study is Japan, whose Arctic policy is analyzed by this study.

Enhancing International Scientific Cooperation: Arctic Science and Technology Advice with Ministries

This sixth Synthesis with the Science Diplomacy Action serial is the product of the February-March 2022 webinar series on Enhancing International Scientific Cooperation: Arctic Science and Technology Advice with Ministries, funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan to EvREsearch LTD with Science Diplomacy Center™ coordination and logistics provided by the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). These inclusive webinars began on 21 February 2022 and continued despite Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, emphasizing the importance of “open science” with both allies and adversaries for our shared survival as a globally interconnected civilization. The webinar series was designed to address an inevitable question: “What are the relationships and synergies between the Arctic Science Ministerial (ASM) process and the 2017 Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation, both of which involve ministries and science?” The three webinars involved keynote presentations from leaders of the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC), International Arctic Social Sciences Association (IASSA) and University of the Arctic (UArctic) as well as from ASM1 (2016), ASM2 (2018), ASM3 (2021) and ASM4 (2023 pending). Each webinar was designed further around leading questions with keynote presenters from Arctic and non-Arctic states inclusively, involving: Finland, Germany, Japan, Norway, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and Unites States with registered participants from 49 nations. The first webinar focused on “What is Science” with expert contributions from the perspectives of the natural sciences, social sciences and Indigenous knowledge. The second webinar was convened on 10 March 2022 to address: “How Can Science Transform Data into Evidence for Informed Decisionmaking?” The third webinar was convened on 24 March 2022, focusing on “What International Efforts/Processes Are Needed to Facilitate Progress in Understanding the Arctic System and Its Global Impacts?” These transdisciplinary dialogues demonstrated the importance of international cooperation and common-interest building with science diplomacy, enabling open science with inclusion and continuity despite global geopolitics. The webinar series originated in sight of Science and Technology Advice with Ministries, initially with foreign affairs, science and environment ministries but extending to ministries of defense under current world affairs. Lessons from this holistic (international, interdisciplinary and inclusive) webinar series reinforce strategies with informed decisionmaking to operate across a continuum of urgencies, short-to-long term (pandemic to climate timescales) “for benefit of all on Earth across generations.”

Interaction between the Arctic and Non-Arctic States in Scientific Research and Practical Development of the Geopolitical Potential of the Arctic

Aim. Reveal the methodological role of ideas about the geopolitical potential of the state in making managerial decisions in the development of the space of the Russian Arctic. The article presents an overview of fundamental research and articles by foreign authors that addresses the problem of realizing the geopolitical potential of the Arctic.Tasks. Development of the principles of geopolitical forecasting based on mathematical modeling of the geopolitical potential of the state and systematization of developments on the spatial development of the Russian Arctic as part of Greater Eurasia.Methods. Mathematical modeling of geopolitical processes, medium-term forecasting of the spatial development of the Russian Arctic in the face of challenges from foreign states claiming its natural resources and territorial waters.Results. It confirms the need to include scientific developments in the methodological apparatus of geopolitical research to identify qualitative and quantitative definitions of the geopolitical potential of the state, which contributes to ensuring the national security of Russia and improving its spatial development.Conclusions. The transition to the sixth technological mode is not limited to a radical transformation of the country’s production complex, but also implies the need to create a unified infrastructure architecture for the Greater Eurasia (“smart” Eurasia), into which the Russian Arctic organically fits.

Appraising the Modus of Conservation and Sustainable Use of Arctic Marine Biodiversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction under the Umbrella of the BBNJ Treaty

Abstract Arctic Ocean (AO) is opening the door for commercial activities due to the opening of previously inaccessible areas which has attracted the concern of the protection of the Arctic marine biodiversity through the effective implementation of legally binding instruments that will be influential to the implementation of scientific cooperation between Arctic and Non-Arctic States. Moreover, diplomatic issues among the Arctic States along with the gaps in the laws and regulations regarding Arctic Ocean governance have raised the concern to come up with an effective legal regime for the conservation and sustainable use of Arctic marine biodiversity. Though there are some applicable legal instruments in existence, the rapid changes in the AO and increased human activities have called for a stronger one. Now the question is whether that regime shall be within national or regional framework and how the upcoming internationally legally binding instrument for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ Treaty) can be an influential and effective instrument to promote the conservation and sustainable use of Arctic marine biodiversity which are beyond national jurisdiction. Therefore, the paper highlights the existing issues concerning Arctic marine biodiversity of the areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) and analyses these concerns regarding how the conservation and sustainable use of Arctic marine biodiversity can be promoted under the BBNJ treaty.

A Brief Analysis on Non-Arctic Nations Participating in Arctic Governance

Non-Arctic States are appealed to those changes of Arctic regions in recent years, while opportunities that these countries 
 can participate in Arctic governance are provided due to the “expansion” of the Arctic Council.There are many commonplaces in 
 the affairs of the participation of non-Arctic countries, including strengthening Arctic scientific research, intensifying diplomatic 
 relations with Arctic nations, and broadening channels for Arctic participation, etc. Presently, as it is regarded as significant contents 
 of China’s participation of global governance, China has played an important role in Arctic governance. While keeping a watchful 
 on Arctic trends of other non-arctic states, China should acquire experience from them, learn from their strength, continuously 
 improve participation strategy, and deepen the participation process, in order to make contributions to realizing good governance 
 at the North Pole and benefit all mankind.

Influence of the Arctic Council upon the formation of a single legal space in the Arctic Region

The Arctic Council was established in accordance with the 1996 Ottawa Declaration as a “high level intergovernmental forum” for ensuring cooperation in the Arctic. It concentrates on the promotion of sustainable development and environmental protection in the Arctic. The scientific research conducted in the early 2000s under the auspices of the Arctic Council provided a more holistic representation of the problems of the Arctic and methods for their solution. Currently, the Arctic Council is the so-called coordinating center for the development of the Arctic legal order, being a place for negotiations, outlining the positions of the countries on specific issues, and establishing possible solutions to the problems. With the assistance of the Arctic Council, the Arctic sates have concluded certain treaties. Besides the eight Arctic states, which have authority for decision-making in the Council along with the right to discuss its policy and manage the six executive committees, the observing countries out of the non-Arctic states have been included to the Councils, although with restrictions in their powers thereof. The Arctic Council is recognized by the international community as the leading and responsible organizer of legal order in the Arctic Ocean that represents the interests of both Arctic and non-Arctic states. The involvement of non-Arctic states in the Arctic Council may improve the effectiveness of its activity in the sphere of sustainable development and environmental protection, as well as ensure their commitment to the results achieved within the Council and assert position of the Council as the most logical and appropriate place for the formation of international coordination in the Arctic.

The geopolitical challenges to engage stakeholders into arctic climate change adaptation - military action and the challenges for an arctic citizenship

Climate change adaptation in the Arctic is a powerful notion based on a challenging and impermanent reality of continuous complex interactions between the natural and social structures. The geophysical and geopolitical aspects of the Arctic system and the global context are naturally interlinked, and the human aspects of societal existence are even more integrated resulting in a range of collective opportunities, risks, and responsibilities as a civilization, as Arctic citizens, and as global citizens. Our analysis indicated that there are at least three key factors that stand in the way of the implementation of the Arctic climate agenda: 1) unresolved territorial and other disputes among Arctic coastal states, 2) the intensive (re)militarisation of the region (with Russia as a central player), and 3) noticeable economic dynamism, accompanied by strategic competition between key stakeholders - including non-Arctic states, such as China. The priorities for the region are still set by old-fashioned, mechanistic, political agendas, combined with unsustainable natural resources management strategies. Overall, our research indicates that the threat of climate change is not enough to mobilise the Artic nations under a sense of regional citizenship or to raise awareness on the need for a coordinated and inclusive climate change adaptation policy, based on Arctic cooperation.

Экономика и политика «холодного противостояния» в Новой Арктике

The modern Arctic is becoming the strategic space and area of competition of many powers, the arena of political confrontations between Arctic and non-Arctic states. Arctic research has moved from the sphere of science to the sphere of geopolitics and geoeconomics and is of strategic importance in the system of national security. Climatic fluctuations in the Arctic have increased the availability of hydrocarbon, biological and other resources, and improved ice conditions in the water area of the Northern Sea Route. The study analyzes the Arctic policy of Western European and North American countries in the conditions of the “New Arctic”. An overview of strategic documents on ensuring the spatial development.

‘De-Securitising the Arctic’ in Climate Change: An Indian Perspective

The rapidly transforming Arctic has led to rethink the concept of security in the region. The increasing global warming and opening up of the Arctic have brought multiple geopolitical issues before the Arctic and non-Arctic states. 1 In pursuit of their perceived geopolitical, geo-economics and strategic interests, a race to ‘securitise the Arctic’ has started amongst the major Arctic states. This process of securitisation appears to be dictated and driven not only by traditional military-strategic considerations but also by non-traditional security threat dilemmas related to energy, environment, sustainability, human security, connectivity, etc. As the old and the new Arctic challenges are being taken out of the realm of ‘normal politics’ and placed in the contested domain of ‘security politics’, the Asian states, that are directly or indirectly impacted by the changing Arctic realise that securitisation of the Arctic is leaving little space for addressing common issues of global concern. This study argues that all these emerging issues (otherwise perceived as ‘security threats’) in the Arctic, instead of being addressed in the securitisation framework, could and should be approached and addressed as compelling reasons for mutual cooperation and thus in need of de-securitisation.