User:Julianhms/sandbox

Regionalism through the Arctic Council

It is important to start by underlining the fact that this article is intended to complement the French Wikipedia page on the Arctic Council.

Regionalism is “a policy whereby states and non-state actors cooperate and coordinate strategy within a given region”.

The nature of the Arctic Council is subject to much debate, as is the term "regionalism" itself. Some argue that regionalism is the opposite of intergovernmentalism within the Council.

The Arctic constitutes an original case of regionalism studies because of its nature: a semi-enclosed ocean.

We have only been talking about regional cooperation in the region since the end of the 1980s. Indeed, the geographical situation of the region placed it in a buffer zone between the two powers of the Cold War, limiting any regional initiative. This situation changed in the 1990s with the creation of the Arctic Council.

The new challenges related to the transformations of the region would call for a collective regional action.

Definition, application and contentions

« Once implemented in a particular space, each aspect of the social construction (each use, regulation, and representation) impacts the others, effectively creating a new “nature” of that space. This “second nature” is constructed both materially and discursively, and it is maintained through regulatory institutions».

It is because borders are considered by some to be fluid and sovereignty may be contested that the region can thus be seen as malleable through discourse and politics.

The term "regionalism" is therefore subject to controversy, especially when it comes to the Arctic Council.

Definition

In order to define regionalism, many studies have shown the relevance of defining the notion of region in the first place. Joseph S. Nye defines a region as "a limited number of states linked together by a geographical relationship and by a degree of mutual interdependence". For some, the Arctic would be at odds with at least one of these criteria. The very notion of region is debated.

Regionalism can be defined as "the formation of interstate groupings on the basis of regions".  However, many researchers consider that this definition is not so obvious. "The only truism in regionalism research is that there is still no commonly accepted conceptualization of what is or makes a political region."

Some scholars argue that there may be different degrees of regionality in the region. Franklyn Griffiths has developed a "model" to codify this degree. He establishes three categories: a "minimal region marked in principle by unilateral action", a "coordinating region with bilateral and multilateral agreements", and an "integrating region where states delegate their sovereignty to a regional organization".

The distinction between regionalism and regionalization can also be highlighted. Indeed, for Hettne and Söderbaum, regionalization is "the process whereby a geographical area is transformed from a passive object to an active subject capable of articulating the transnational interests of the emerging region".

Regionalism within the Arctic Council

Following the definition of regionalism, many argue that it is applicable to the Arctic Council. Indeed, the Council is built around environmental security interdependence. The common undertaking is sustainable development and environmental protection. The interdependence would come through the scientific nature of the Council and its "common issues" which define its field of competence.

Moreover, with the Kiruna Declaration in 2013, the Council seems to be more open to external actors. Indeed, the Council is now composed of non-state actors such as indigenous peoples, non-Arctic states, intergovernmental, inter-parliamentary and non-governmental organizations. Many perceive this as increased regional integration by the Arctic Eight, becoming more open to regionalism. This can be seen as circumpolarity and connectivity emphasizing institutionalism over intergovernmentalism.

Furthermore, with the Kiruna Declaration, marking the transition from the Swedish to the Canadian presidency of the Council, the publication of the "Vision for the Arctic" document embodies the evolution of the Council towards greater legal strength. The document states:

"We have achieved mutual understanding and trust, addressed issues of common concern, strengthened our cooperation, influenced international action, established a permanent secretariat and, under the auspices of the Council, the Arctic States have concluded legally binding agreements. We have also demonstrated the importance of science and traditional knowledge in understanding our region and in making informed decisions in the Arctic."

While some may question the Arctic Council's room for manoeuvre, institutions such as the Arctic Council Secretariat (ACS) are said to have informal and bureaucratic capacities to "create and recreate" international norms, allowing at the same time the promotion of regionalism. The ability to set the agenda can also be seen as a framing effect.

In addition, the Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting in 2011 was reportedly a turning point for the Council and the region. This meeting led to the creation of the permanent secretariat and the signing of the Agreement on Search and Rescue (SAR), considered as one of the first legally binding agreements. These two events indicate that the member states are giving more importance and legitimacy to regional collaboration.

This would indicate the transition from "decision-shaping" to "decision-making" of the Arctic Council . The Arctic becoming more regionalized, or "reimagined as a political territory in its own right".

Since the creation of the Council, climate change has been seen as one of the major issues of the region. For Heather Exner-Pirot:

Plot Arctic sea ice volume. Plot of estimated development of arctic sea ice volume between 1979 and now. Blue curve are data as determined by the numerical model PIOMAS. An error margin of +- 1.35 10³ km³ is given for october single values (minima) as orientation.

“While the end of the Cold War opened up space for regional cooperation, and concerns over environmental degradation that sparked regionalization, it was climate change that deepened interdependence and led to a consolidation of the region and its emergence as an active subject in international affairs".

Furthermore, the Nuuk Declaration states:

«Recognizing that rapidly changing circumstances, in particular the changing climate, have increased the challenges and opportunities facing the Arctic in both volume and complexity, and underscoring the importance of strengthening the Arctic Council to address this change »

The melting ice cap would also lead to a sense of common ocean territory, that could also push towards increased regionalism.

However, one of the challenges of climate change is that it is "both regionally and globally significant", involving local, regional and national actors. Indeed, it transcends national or regional boundaries.

Intergovernmentalism

Although some refer to regionalism to describe the Council's mechanisms, others assert that it is more akin to intergovernmentalism.

For Neill Nugent, intergovernmentalism is about arrangements "whereby nation states, in situations and conditions they can control, cooperate with one another on matters of common interest". In this sense, states are not obliged to cooperate and can determine the terms of their arrangements by themselves. This notion places the emphasis on state sovereignty. It also often refers to a right of veto, which in this case may refer to the principle of consensus within the Council.

Some scholars distance themselves from a binary approach. This is notably the case of Valur Ingimundarson who conceptualizes the Council as a halfway house, somewhere between an intergovernmental forum and a regional organization.

As B. Hettne and F. Söderbaum point out, it is important "to avoid the obsession with formal regional organizations". There would be a broader understanding of regionalism extending from intergovernmental cooperation to supranational integration. Thus, it is possible that regionalism does not necessarily imply a regional institution.

State interests and sovereignty

Many scholars of the region note a tension between regionalism and intergovernmentalism; "between institutional integration and interstate bargaining". For some authors, it is more a matter of intergovernmentalism than regionalism within the Arctic Council.

The Arctic Council defines itself as an "intergovernmental forum". According to Valur Ingimundarson, the Arctic Council "has not been transformed into a body of political authority or a policy-making instrument".

The national interests of the States would need to be taken into consideration, they would appear "as a restraint on the development of a 'final' set of institutions or convergence based on similarity in structures, processes and performances." According to B. Hettne and F. Söderbaum: "The level of regionness still remains low here, because actors pursue first and foremost selfish strategies, have little impetus to cooperate with others and adjust their behaviour to global rather than regional forces."

The Ilulissat declaration would suggest for some that the Arctic Eight are fighting to maintain control over the governance. The purpose of the Ilulissat meeting was to reaffirm the commitment of the Arctic Five to UNCLOS. This was interpreted as a way to keep other Arctic actors out of sovereignty issues and boundary disputes over the Arctic Ocean.

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is the recognized international treaty on the legal framework of the maritime area. The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) can determine the size of the continental shelf, but it does not have the power to resolve inter-state disputes. After making recommendations, the Arctic Five will negotiate to establish maritime boundaries. States are encouraged to do so in a cooperative manner, but the Ilulissat Declaration does not provide any guarantees in the absence of a legally binding mechanism for enforcement.

Climate change would also be an issue of state sovereignty, emphasized in the strategic documents of each state. Climate change "is challenging the territorial imaginaries around which notions of sovereignty historically have been based". Concerning climate change, the Council would act as an intergovernmental forum capable of facilitating exchanges on the subject, pacifying geopolitical competitions between state and non-state actors.

Nature of the Council

Given the non-codified nature of the Arctic Council, intergovernmental negotiations would prevail. Despite all the measures that the Arctic Council can adopt, the implementation of recommendations would be left entirely to the states. The Council was formed by a declaration and therefore cannot legally bind member states to take action. Most of the materials produced by the Arctic Council are ministerial declarations, not conventions or treaties that would be legally binding. In this sense, the Council would be more of a forum for discussion and cooperation between the different actors, rather than a formal organization.

The example of the Barents Sea Treaty would be a clear demonstration of the nature of governance in the region. It is a treaty between Norway and Russia that allowed delimitation and cooperation in the Barents Sea, marking the end of forty years of negotiations. Although this treaty appears to comply with UNCLOS rules, it is primarily a bilateral agreement between two member states, in accordance with international law. This is indicative of the intergovernmentalism that would prevail in the region.

Furthermore, the SAR agreement also shows how intergovernmentalism is applied. This agreement emphasizes that "the parties are the eight Arctic States, which are responsible for the implementation of the agreement, and not the Council".

Members of the Arctic Council

After Kiruna Ministerial Meeting, the Arctic Council Observer Manual for Subsidiary Bodies was adopted. The latter explicitly admits that "decisions at all levels in the Arctic Council are the exclusive rights and responsibility of the eight Arctic States with the involvement of the Permanent Participants". According to the document, apart from contributing to the working groups of the Arctic Council, the role of observers is limited to observing the work of the Arctic Council. The ministerial meeting also resulted in the adoption of stricter criteria for granting observer status.

While observers may attend all Arctic Council meetings, their actual influence is limited. All decisions of the Arctic Council are taken by unanimous consensus of the Arctic Eight. The latter can themselves disagree with each other. For example, the Nordic countries have been more open to the inclusion of additional observers in the Arctic Council than have Russia, Canada, or the United States. According to Valur Ingimundarson, however, the Arctic Eight would agree on maintaining their control over procedures within the Council. Moreover, in the 2012 proposal by the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region (SGPAR) to strengthen the Arctic Council, the repeated mention of "influx of new observers" is interpreted as a "fear" of opening up excessively to non-Arctic members. They would "fear" a dilution of their historical authority. The states with the largest share of Arctic territory would place more emphasis on their national interests and control of their territory, and would be reluctant to broaden the Council. During its tenure, Canada has shown little openness to Observers, and not a single new member was accepted during the handover of its chairmanship in 2015.