Suchergebnisse

Most studies of Asian state involvement in Arctic affairs assume that shorter sea-lanes to Europe are a major driver of interest, so this article begins by examining the prominence of shipping concerns in Arctic policy statements made by major Asian states. Using a bottom-up approach, we consider the advantages of Arctic sea routes over the Suez and Panama alternatives in light of the political, bureaucratic and economic conditions surrounding shipping and shipbuilding in China, Japan and the Republic of Korea. Especially Japanese and Korean policy documents indicate soberness rather than optimism concerning Arctic sea routes, noting the remaining limitations and the need for in-depth feasibility studies. That policymakers show greater caution than analysts, links in with our second finding: in Japan and Korea, maritime-sector bureaucracies responsible for industries with Arctic experience have been closely involved in policy development, more so than in China. Thirdly, we find a clear tendency towards rising industry-level caution and restraint in all three countries, reflecting financial difficulties in several major companies as well as growing sensitivity to the economic and political risks associated with the Arctic routes. Finally, our examination of bilateral and multilateral Chinese, Japanese and Korean diplomatic activity concerning Arctic shipping exhibits a lower profile than indicated by earlier studies.

This paper examines how a transnational corporation (TNC) translates global standards and corporate policies into programs at sites of extraction. We explore this question through a comparative analysis of ExxonMobil's operations in two different politico-economic contexts: the Sakhalin-1 project in Russia and the Point Thomson project on the North Slope of Alaska, with field work on Sakhalin Island in 2013–2015 and in Alaska in 2015–2018. Theoretically, we use the Deleuzian concept of "diagram" as a lens through which to examine corporate policies, and a governance generating network (GGN) approach to analyze similarities and differences in benefit-sharing programs in both localities. We show that while global commitments and corporate principles contribute to a standardized approach to community engagement, Indigenous movements and associations, the government, and other corporate actors may play important roles in influencing how corporate policies and global standards are implemented at sites of extraction. Moreover, adaptation of community engagement, benefit-sharing, and environmental monitoring in one location may shape how the company's strategies are implemented in other sites of extraction.

This article reviews and compares Canadian and Russian approaches to Arctic fisheries management through a three-part format. First, the complex array of laws and policies applicable to Arctic fisheries is described for each country. How Canada and Russia have addressed international fishery issues is also highlighted, including their participation in the 2018 Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agreement. Second, commonalities in fisheries governance approaches are summarized, including national commitments to implement precautionary and ecosystem approaches. Finally, contrasts in Arctic fisheries management are discussed. Major differences include the greater devolution of management responsibilities by Canada to Indigenous communities through land-claim agreements and co-management arrangements and Russia's greater success in formalizing bilateral fisheries management arrangements with its neighbours.

This comparative article reveals how the general focus of Canadian and Russian threat perceptions in the Arctic have shifted from a Cold War fixation on hard defence to accommodate soft security issues over the last three decades. Both countries now pay greater attention to threats and challenges stemming from climate change, security, and safety risks associated with resource development and increasingly accessible sea routes. Although concern about military conflict arising from Arctic disputes continues to frame some media discussions in both countries, most strategic analysts and academics have moved away from this line of argument. Instead, military functions now include assertion of Canadian and Russian sovereignty over their respective internal waters, as well as protection of resources in their exclusive economic zones and on and in extended continental shelves; protection of economic interests in the North, including mineral and bio-resources; prevention of potential terrorist attacks against critical industrial and state infrastructure; and dual-use functions, such as search and rescue operations, surveillance of air and maritime spaces, support to safe navigation, and mitigation of natural and human-made catastrophes.
The authors argue that analysts should parse two forms of military modernization in the Arctic: one of capability development related to the global strategic balance, where the Arctic serves as a bastion or a thoroughfare; and a second intended to address emerging non-traditional security challenges. They contend that these modernization programs do not inherently upset the Arctic military balance and need not provoke a regional arms race.

The Arctic region has been the focus of considerable attention in recent years, often concerned with maritime claims and an alleged race for the region's resources. Against this narrative, the article focuses on the practices of Canada and the Russian Federation with respect to their maritime jurisdictional claims and the delimitation of maritime boundaries with their Arctic neighbours. The article provides an overview of the Arctic region and the international law of the sea with an emphasis on the baselines and maritime claims of the Arctic coastal states. Discussion then turns to the maritime boundary agreements that have been concluded in the Arctic region before overlapping claims to areas of continental shelf underlying the central part of the Arctic Ocean are appraised. The article concludes that Canada and the Russian Federation have enjoyed considerable success in resolving overlapping maritime claims and their pragmatic and innovative approaches coupled with existing regional cooperation bode well for finding peaceful solutions to Arctic Ocean governance challenges in the future.

How should we go about collaborating with children and adolescents? Young Participation: Creativity and Conflict in Planning explores how youth participation work in practical terms, in the context of urban development processes at the municipal level in Norway.

From their unique perspectives, several social scientists, artists, an architect, and a young contributor discuss experiences and dilemmas of including children, teens, and young adults as contributing stakeholders on various projects. The reader will find concrete examples of participation processes and tools developed in cooperation with young people, architects, and public employees.

The chapters reveal how good intentions regarding inclusion can obscure power hierarchies, friction, and conflicts of interest. Yet they also demonstrate that the potential for creativity and innovation are great when young people are invited to contribute their input in planning and developing everything from youth community centers and school grounds to parks and other outdoor spaces in local neighborhoods.

This anthology will provide inspiration to researchers, students, municipal employees, urban planners, and others working collaboratively in urban and community development. Among the topics covered are participation as co-research, social entrepreneurship and participation as part of school curricula and in socio-cultural place analyses, the power of the hand in creative practices, co-location as a trend, digital and hybrid participation processes, and power plays in planning. By introducing a new model for 'thick participation', the anthology attempts to ensure that young citizens are not just seen and heard but are also given the opportunity to become lasting resources within their local communities.

The book's editors, senior researcher Aina Landsverk Hagen and research professor Bengt Andersen, are both based at the Work Research Institute (AFI), Oslo Metropolitan University. - Hvordan gjør vi medvirkning med barn og unge? Ung medvirkning: Kreativitet og konflikt i planlegging tar for seg hvordan medvirkning med barn og unge utspiller seg i praksis, i steds- og byutviklingsprosesser i norske kommuner.

Fra sine ulike ståsteder diskuterer samfunnsforskere, kunstnere, en arkitekt og en ung medvirker erfaringer og dilemmaer med å inkludere barn, ungdom og unge voksne som medvirkere. Leseren får konkrete eksempler fra medvirkningsprosesser og presentasjon av verktøy som er utviklet i samarbeid med ungdom, arkitekter og offentlig ansatte.

Bidragene viser hvordan gode intensjoner om inkludering kan skjule makthierarkier, konflikter og interessemotsetninger. Samtidig peker boken på hvordan muligheten for kreativitet og nytenking er stor når unge inviteres inn til å medvirke i planleggingen av alt fra ungdomshus og skolegårder til parker og uteområder i nabolaget.

Antologien gir inspirasjon til forskere, studenter, kommunalt ansatte, planleggere og andre praktikere som jobber med medvirkning i by- og stedsutvikling. Blant temaene som tas opp er medvirkning som medforsking, sosialt entreprenørskap og medvirkning i skolefag og i sosiokulturelle stedsanalyser, håndens kraft i kreative praksiser, samlokalisering som trend, digital og hybrid medvirkning og medvirkningens maktspill. Ved å introdusere en ny modell for «tykk medvirkning», søker antologien å sikre at unge innbyggere ikke bare blir hørt og sett, men også får mulighet til å være vedvarende ressurser i sine nærmiljøer.

Bokens redaktører, Aina Landsverk Hagen og Bengt Andersen, er begge seniorforskere ved Arbeidsforskningsinstituttet, OsloMet – storbyuniversitetet.

Forfatterne av antologien har også utviklet en digital ressurs for alle som er interessert i ungdomsmedvirkning: https://unghus.oslomet.no