Abstract
While a long-term decrease in overall Arctic sea ice extent has been recorded by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (2014) since the late 1970s, the unprecedented levels of ice melting and thinning experienced in the region in 2007, and subsequently in 2012, have brought the Arctic once again to the forefront of international affairs. Much popular and academic attention has focused on whether the Arctic is likely to remain a zone of cooperation, or descend into conflict. However, less attention has been paid to examining the evolution and role of fora in the region, such as the Arctic Council. In this paper, it is argued that three visions are presently shaping ways of thinking about the Council: the first envisages the Council as a society for Arctic states; the second sees the Council as a steward for the Arctic; and the third imagines the Council as a fully-fledged security actor. The extent to which each vision is manifested in the practices of the Council and its members is also examined. Finally, the paper considers what the ongoing tensions within and among these three ways of conceptualising the Council means for its future prospects, and for Arctic politics more generally.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 55-74 |
| Number of pages | 20 |
| Journal | Cooperation and Conflict |
| Volume | 51 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Mar 2016 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:This conclusion is further supported by the Council’s funding arrangements. Without the power to levy contributions from its members, the Council is reliant on the largesse of volunteers to take the lead on completing the programmes of work conducted by the various working groups, expert groups and task forces the Council oversees. Thus, in the Iqaluit Declaration following the Council’s first ministerial meeting, the Arctic states simply requested that ‘[they] consider taking part in voluntary, adequate and reliable funding of all Working Group secretariats, as appropriate’, and undertook ‘to strengthen our efforts to achieve reliable funding systems for all Arctic Council activities, including seeking support from other international and regional fora and governmental and non-governmental sources’ (paragraphs 27 and 28). Sixteen years later, the Council has a Project Support Initiative (PSI) in place, to finance ‘tangible, priority projects’ (), yet a schedule of work is still being drawn up. The PSI comprises €15.9 million in pledges, deposits and allocations (). As regards the Council’s new secretariat in Tromsø, its administrative budget is capped at $USD1, 739,130, unless otherwise agreed by the Arctic states, with the host country and the other Arctic states sharing this cost. Hence, strong recognition of members’ claims to independence at the expense of faster progress and a more serious commitment of financial resources remains a hallmark of the Council.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2015, © The Author(s) 2015.
Other keywords
- Arctic Council
- Arctic governance
- international organisation
- international security
- stewardship