Search results

"The Arctic Council, created in 1996, has facilitated over twenty years of successful democracy and regional cooperation between Russia and the seven other Arctic states--the United States, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, and Finland. What has allowed this unity to continue despite political turmoil between these nations? In Diplomacy and the Arctic Council Danita Catherine Burke argues that the Arctic Council is a club--a group of states that mutually benefit from voluntary collaboration and that use the forum as a vessel to help define and guide the parameters of their cooperation. How the club members identify and address challenges reflects power relations among them, which vary depending on the topic under discussion or debate. Providing insight into the daily practices of the Arctic Council and the relative status of its member states, Burke seeks to understand why major international events, such as the 2014 Russian-Ukrainian conflict over the Crimea region, do not deter the Arctic countries from cooperating. The author posits that the Arctic Council's club structure and its strategy of practising and projecting unity have allowed it to weather the storm of international conflicts involving its core membership. Through interviews with representatives from the Arctic states and Indigenous peoples, Diplomacy and the Arctic Council offers a unique look into the diplomatic practices of the Council after more than two decades of operation."--

Created in 1996, the Arctic Council has now been in operation long enough to justify a systematic effort to assess its effectiveness. To explore this topic, we created a questionnaire and circulated it to a large number of individuals who have participated in the work of the council in one capacity or another or who have followed the work of the council closely. This article analyses the quantitative and the qualitative input of those who responded to the questionnaire. The main conclusions are that: the council has achieved considerable success in identifying emerging issues, framing them for consideration in policy venues and raising their visibility on the policy agenda and changes now occurring in the Arctic will require significant adjustments to maintain the effectiveness of the council during the foreseeable future.Keywords: Arctic Council; governance; Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme; Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna; Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment; Sustainable Development Working Group(Published: 26 October 2012)Citation: Polar Research 2012, 31, 17176, http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/polar.v31i0.17176

The article notes that in the period of preparation for the chairmanship of the Arctic Council (2021–2023), in order to further develop the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation, new strategic documents, a package of benefits and preferences for business development were prepared and approved, measures were taken for the sustainable development of indigenous peoples, and to increase the role of science in Arctic research. The author draws attention to some unsolved problems of socio-economic development of the Arctic region (outflow of the population, especially young people; shortcomings of the organization of the shift method of work and centralized coordination and control of state orders and supplies to the population of hard-to-reach Arctic regions; violation of environmental requirements). It is emphasized that Russia assumes the post of chairman of the Arctic Council at a difficult time: the coronavirus pandemic, political tensions in relations with the West, including on issues of management and security of the Arctic, economic sanctions from the Arctic states, which creates certain difficulties in the activities in the Arctic direction. The author concludes that the developed program, the plan of main events, the activity of ministries and departments in the next 2 years will allow us to successfully cope with the chairmanship, show our foreign colleagues all the best that is available in the Russian Far North, and contribute to the strengthening of the Arctic Council.

One widely recognized achievement of the Arctic Council and its various working groups has been the production of collectively generated assessments on Arctic problems. Assessment reports such as the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) provide an important baseline of shared knowledge for making collective circumpolar policy recommendations. But how does the knowledge produced through Arctic Council working groups figure into the policymaking of the Arctic states? This is an important question for understanding Arctic politics and the relationship between national decisionmaking and international relations more generally. Much of what the Arctic Council produces is in the form of recommendations, declarations of intent, and commitments to "best practices" in areas of shared interest and activity. While in recent years the Council has produced three binding agreements covering specific functional areas—search and rescue (2011), oil pollution preparedness and response (2013),and science cooperation (2017)—much ongoing Arctic collaborative work falls outside of these areas. This policy brief explores how science/policy outputs of and discussions at the Arctic Council fit into the Arctic political discourse of the USA, with an emphasis on key actors within the executive branch: the White House, the Department of the Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency. ; The Arctic Council and US domestic policymaking ; publishedVersion

The 20th anniversary of the Arctic Council (AC) in 2016 provided an excellent opportunity for evaluating the council's performance over its two decades in operation. Along the AC's appraisals, various commentators – both from within and without the council's circles – put forward proposals to reform the AC in order to, arguably, strengthen it and enhance its effectiveness vis-à-vis new challenges facing the Arctic. Interestingly, most of those accounts have only tenuous, if any, connection with the general literature on international environmental regimes and their effectiveness. As a result, they do not draw from the insights flowing from this literature and, in reverse, they miss an opportunity to contribute to the broader body of knowledge about international environmental institutions. The lack of systematic inquiry also hampers our ability to accumulate knowledge about the performance of the AC itself. To address that matter, this article draws up a basic framework through which future assessments of the AC's effectiveness could be grounded in the general literature on international regimes. The study treats the AC as an institution or regime as these terms are used in the broader literature on international relations. It adopts the political definition of institutional effectiveness and is based on literature reviews related to international regimes and the AC as well as, whenever relevant, on the subject of Arctic governance at large. Overall, the article underlines the critical importance of systematic inquiry and transparency in producing insights regarding the AC's effectiveness – as of any other institution – to allow for accumulation of our comprehension of what makes the AC work.

The discontinuation of cooperation with Russia in the Arctic Council in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine may severely impact Arctic climate science. Since its creation, the Arctic Council has been a symbol of diplomacy and values of scientific integrity. However, with all institutional research collaborations with Russia on hold and few windows open for researcher-to-researcher dialogue, the Arctic Council faces its most significant challenge to date. This article discusses possibilities for the maintenance and implementation of Arctic science with its Russian contributions and examines how conditions changed after February 24, 2022. The analysis is based on interviews with Russian researchers working on Arctic issues and participants in Arctic Council projects conducted after March 2022. The article maps out scientific practices in the Arctic Council and Russian Arctic science across three dimensions: knowledge translation, depoliticized scientific independence, and maintenance of researcher networks.

This is a time of great debate about the future of Northern Studies in Canada. Most of those engaged in the debate believe that we need a new, rejuvenated vision for Northern Studies. One major change has already occurred: the establishment of the Arctic Council in 1996 gave new impetus to cooperation among the eight circumpolar nations involved. This cooperation has already changed the way in which we perceive and manage Northern Studies in Canada. I would suggest that membership in the Council is leading us inexorably towards another change in Northern Studies: formal recognition that modern Northern Studies are Polar Studies. One of the strong commonalties in science and technology among the Arctic Council nations is an interest in Antarctica - specifically in comparison to the roles of other Arctic Council nations. It concludes with recommendations on Canada and the Antarctic Treaty and on the way we should view Northern Studies in Canada. The paper is based on a recent report on a visit to the Ross Sea (New Zealand) sector of Antarctica (Adams, 2000). That report includes the text of the Antarctic Treaty and other related documentation.