Search results

In the Arctic, the thaw of East-West relations in the 1990s led to deeper regional and sub-regional cooperation, and a strengthening of the stability of the region through the establishment of standards. This led in turn to the formation of a patchwork of standards that overlap and intersect: the proliferation of soft law standards was then the only way to put the states and other stakeholders around the table, in a region that has not yet been cleared of past tensions.Few observers would have predicted that a body which so many limitations would have reached such results in terms of norm-making, considering that the Arctic Council (AC) is only 20 years old. The AC has often been viewed as politically ineffective, with lots of talk but little action on issues relating to its mandates of environmental protection and sustainable development. The AC is very far from being a perfect forum but despite or thanks to its "soft" structure, it offers a large place for local voices, which ensures its legitimacy, and it can better adapt over time by facilitating compromise.This paper explores the central role of the AC in Arctic norm setting, stressing the specificities of the Council among the wide range of Arctic-norm producers, and demonstrating how its successes are linked to its soft law structure, as a major factor of legitimacy and socialization, and finally of normative power in the Arctic. It is the flexibility of the AC that contributes to its strength. Thus, despite the absence of any 'hard' power, the AC is the major norm setting instrument in the Arctic.

In the Arctic, the thaw of East-West relations in the 1990s led to deeper regional and sub-regional cooperation, and a strengthening of the stability of the region through the establishment of standards. This led in turn to the formation of a patchwork of standards that overlap and intersect: the proliferation of soft law standards was then the only way to put the states and other stakeholders around the table, in a region that has not yet been cleared of past tensions.Few observers would have predicted that a body which so many limitations would have reached such results in terms of norm-making, considering that the Arctic Council (AC) is only 20 years old. The AC has often been viewed as politically ineffective, with lots of talk but little action on issues relating to its mandates of environmental protection and sustainable development. The AC is very far from being a perfect forum but despite or thanks to its "soft" structure, it offers a large place for local voices, which ensures its legitimacy, and it can better adapt over time by facilitating compromise.This paper explores the central role of the AC in Arctic norm setting, stressing the specificities of the Council among the wide range of Arctic-norm producers, and demonstrating how its successes are linked to its soft law structure, as a major factor of legitimacy and socialization, and finally of normative power in the Arctic. It is the flexibility of the AC that contributes to its strength. Thus, despite the absence of any 'hard' power, the AC is the major norm setting instrument in the Arctic.

International audience ; In the Arctic, the thaw of East-West relations in the 1990s led to deeper regional and sub-regional cooperation, and a strengthening of the stability of the region through the establishment of standards. This led in turn to the formation of a patchwork of standards that overlap and intersect: the proliferation of soft law standards was then the only way to put the states and other stakeholders around the table, in a region that has not yet been cleared of past tensions. Few observers would have predicted that a body which so many limitations would have reached such results in terms of norm-making, considering that the Arctic Council (AC) is only 20 years old. The AC has often been viewed as politically ineffective, with lots of talk but little action on issues relating to its mandates of environmental protection and sustainable development. The AC is very far from being a perfect forum but despite or thanks to its " soft " structure, it offers a large place for local voices, which ensures its legitimacy, and it can better adapt over time by facilitating compromise. This paper explores the central role of the AC in Arctic norm setting, stressing the specificities of the Council among the wide range of Arctic-norm producers, and demonstrating how its successes are linked to its soft law structure, as a major factor of legitimacy and socialization, and finally of normative power in the Arctic. It is the flexibility of the AC that contributes to its strength. Thus, despite the absence of any 'hard' power, the AC is the major norm setting instrument in the Arctic.

International audience ; In the Arctic, the thaw of East-West relations in the 1990s led to deeper regional and sub-regional cooperation, and a strengthening of the stability of the region through the establishment of standards. This led in turn to the formation of a patchwork of standards that overlap and intersect: the proliferation of soft law standards was then the only way to put the states and other stakeholders around the table, in a region that has not yet been cleared of past tensions. Few observers would have predicted that a body which so many limitations would have reached such results in terms of norm-making, considering that the Arctic Council (AC) is only 20 years old. The AC has often been viewed as politically ineffective, with lots of talk but little action on issues relating to its mandates of environmental protection and sustainable development. The AC is very far from being a perfect forum but despite or thanks to its " soft " structure, it offers a large place for local voices, which ensures its legitimacy, and it can better adapt over time by facilitating compromise. This paper explores the central role of the AC in Arctic norm setting, stressing the specificities of the Council among the wide range of Arctic-norm producers, and demonstrating how its successes are linked to its soft law structure, as a major factor of legitimacy and socialization, and finally of normative power in the Arctic. It is the flexibility of the AC that contributes to its strength. Thus, despite the absence of any 'hard' power, the AC is the major norm setting instrument in the Arctic.

Although it is part of a that has been ongoing since 2014, the invasion of Ukraine by Russia that began on 24 February 2022 provides a historical marker. The invasion and the war crimes and crimes against humanity that continue to be committed by Russian forces in Ukraine have already impacted international relations more dramatically than any other event since the end of the Cold War. 24 February 2022 marks the end of the post-Cold War era and will likely be seen as a historical date on par with the fall of the Berlin Wall on 9 November 1989. In this short text, it will be shown how reactions by other states to Russia's illegal war against Ukraine is impacting international cooperation and human rights.

The Arctic Council's (AC) openness to the outside world has become an increasingly important issue in the current debate on its shape and place in the Arctic governance structure. The growing interest of states such as China and entities like the European Union in obtaining Observer status on the Council, and the search for an enhanced role by existing Observers, has triggered an emotional debate between the Arctic states, Observers and Permanent Participants. Admission of new non-Arctic actors as Observers and strengthening the role of the status might have broader consequences for the Council's design, functioning and general direction in which international relations in the Arctic would unfold. This article attempts to develop a new concept of the place and form of the Arctic Council from the perspective of a redefined non-Arctic participation. It seeks the most appropriate way of involvement of non-regional players into the Arctic Council's activities that would be congruent with all parties' interests and would not encroach upon the unique character of the Council. To achieve this goal, a three-step approach is employed. First, earlier concepts about the improvement of the Arctic Council are briefly reviewed and summarised. Second, the stances and policies of the Arctic states on the reform of the AC are explored. Third, the current political context in reference to the Observer debate is described. The new concept is introduced within the framework set by conclusions emerging from these three backgrounds.