Suchergebnisse

Over the past thirty years, regional governance has been built in the Arctic thanks to the interaction of different levels of political action corresponding to various actors: states, civil society, indigenous organizations, federal and local governments, NGOs, private companies. The Arctic is now involved in various mechanisms that tend towards integration, defined as the process by which the regularity and intensity of interactions between societies increases. We are here analyzing how political governance has constructed the Arctic as a political region. Post-Cold War top-down political cooperation has led to visible regional institutional integration in the Arctic. This institutional integration stems from the state's desire to protect the environment as a pretext for political cooperation, but also from informal transnational networks, scientific and indigenous. It then appears that in a context of increased politicization of the region due to the consequences of climate change, the construction of the Arctic region becomes for the Arctic States a means of excluding certain actors, gradually pushed out of decision-making bodies. In return, the latter widen the limits of the region through new forms of political governance (informal forums, club diplomacy), clearly showing that the region is a political and social reality, always changing and challenged in space and time. ; En l'espace de trente ans, la construction de la gouvernance politique régionale s'est faite en Arctique grâce à l'interaction de différentes échelles d'action politique correspondant à divers acteurs : États, société civile, organisations autochtones, gouvernements fédéraux et locaux, ONG, entreprises. L'Arctique est à présent impliquée dans divers mécanismes qui tendent vers une intégration, définie comme processus par lequel la régularité et l'intensité des interactions entre les sociétés s'accroissent. Il s'agit donc ici d'analyser la manière dont la gouvernance politique à toutes les échelles a construit l'espace arctique comme une ...

Over the past thirty years, regional governance has been built in the Arctic thanks to the interaction of different levels of political action corresponding to various actors: states, civil society, indigenous organizations, federal and local governments, NGOs, private companies. The Arctic is now involved in various mechanisms that tend towards integration, defined as the process by which the regularity and intensity of interactions between societies increases. We are here analyzing how political governance has constructed the Arctic as a political region. Post-Cold War top-down political cooperation has led to visible regional institutional integration in the Arctic. This institutional integration stems from the state's desire to protect the environment as a pretext for political cooperation, but also from informal transnational networks, scientific and indigenous. It then appears that in a context of increased politicization of the region due to the consequences of climate change, the construction of the Arctic region becomes for the Arctic States a means of excluding certain actors, gradually pushed out of decision-making bodies. In return, the latter widen the limits of the region through new forms of political governance (informal forums, club diplomacy), clearly showing that the region is a political and social reality, always changing and challenged in space and time. ; En l'espace de trente ans, la construction de la gouvernance politique régionale s'est faite en Arctique grâce à l'interaction de différentes échelles d'action politique correspondant à divers acteurs : États, société civile, organisations autochtones, gouvernements fédéraux et locaux, ONG, entreprises. L'Arctique est à présent impliquée dans divers mécanismes qui tendent vers une intégration, définie comme processus par lequel la régularité et l'intensité des interactions entre les sociétés s'accroissent. Il s'agit donc ici d'analyser la manière dont la gouvernance politique à toutes les échelles a construit l'espace arctique comme une région. La coopération politique impulsée « par le haut » dans l'après-Guerre froide a conduit à l'intégration régionale institutionnelle visible en Arctique. Cette intégration institutionnelle est issue de la volonté étatique de protection de l'environnement comme prétexte à la coopération politique, mais également de réseaux transnationaux informels, en particulier scientifiques et autochtones. Il apparaît alors que dans un contexte de politisation accrue de la région due en particulier aux conséquences du changement climatique, la construction de la région arctiques devient pour les États arctiques un moyen d'exclure certains acteurs, progressivement poussés hors des instances décisionnelles. En retour, ces derniers élargissent les limites de la région à travers de nouvelles formes de gouvernance politique (forums informels, diplomatie de club), montrant bien que la région est une réalité politique et sociale toujours mouvante dans l'espace comme dans le temps, revendiquée, et contestée.

Exploring the interactions between spatiality and the governance process in the Arctic, this article advances the hypothesis that political governance has built Arctic space as an international region. The aim here is to analyze the Arctic region as a new political configuration born from post-Cold War governance processes. At first, we put in context the construction of regional governance in the Arctic in a socio-historical perspective by observing how multiple cooperation initiatives, institutionalized or not, have led to the construction of a regional governance. In a second part, we see that governance has built the region as a new political space. Governance organizes and politically builds the Arctic as a relevant space for political action, although it remains an incomplete and controversial region. ; Explorant les interactions entre la spatialité et le processus de gouvernance à l'oeuvre en Arctique, cet article avance l'hypothèse selon laquelle la gouvernance politique a construit l'espace arctique comme une région internationale. Dans un premier temps, nous analysons la manière dont de multiples initiatives de coopération à toutes les échelles participent à la construction de la région en convergeant pour renforcer la dimension régionale. Dans une deuxième partie, nous nous appuyons sur la littérature constructiviste pour souligner les interactions entre le système de gouvernance et la consolidation d'une échelle régionale arctique. La gouvernance organise et construit politiquement l'échelle Arctique comme espace pertinent pour l'action politique, bien qu'elle demeure un espace politique incomplet et controversé en raison même de sa nature construite.

Exploring the interactions between spatiality and the governance process in the Arctic, this article advances the hypothesis that political governance has built Arctic space as an international region. The aim here is to analyze the Arctic region as a new political configuration born from post-Cold War governance processes. At first, we put in context the construction of regional governance in the Arctic in a socio-historical perspective by observing how multiple cooperation initiatives, institutionalized or not, have led to the construction of a regional governance. In a second part, we see that governance has built the region as a new political space. Governance organizes and politically builds the Arctic as a relevant space for political action, although it remains an incomplete and controversial region. ; Explorant les interactions entre la spatialité et le processus de gouvernance à l'oeuvre en Arctique, cet article avance l'hypothèse selon laquelle la gouvernance politique a construit l'espace arctique comme une région internationale. Dans un premier temps, nous analysons la manière dont de multiples initiatives de coopération à toutes les échelles participent à la construction de la région en convergeant pour renforcer la dimension régionale. Dans une deuxième partie, nous nous appuyons sur la littérature constructiviste pour souligner les interactions entre le système de gouvernance et la consolidation d'une échelle régionale arctique. La gouvernance organise et construit politiquement l'échelle Arctique comme espace pertinent pour l'action politique, bien qu'elle demeure un espace politique incomplet et controversé en raison même de sa nature construite.

International audience ; Explorant les interactions entre la spatialité et le processus de gouvernance à l'oeuvre en Arc-tique, cet article avance l'hypothèse selon laquelle la gouvernance politique a construit l'espace arctique comme une région internationale. Dans un premier temps, nous analysons la manière dont de multiples initiatives de coopération à toutes les échelles participent à la construction de la région en convergeant pour renforcer la dimension régionale. Dans une deuxième partie, nous nous appuyons sur la littérature constructiviste pour souligner les interactions entre le système de gouvernance et la consolidation d'une échelle régionale arctique. La gouvernance organise et construit politiquement l'échelle Arctique comme espace pertinent pour l'action politique, bien qu'elle demeure un espace politique incomplet et controversé en raison même de sa nature construite. Abstract Exploring the interactions between spatiality and the governance process in the Arctic, this article advances the hypothesis that political governance has built Arctic space as an international region. The aim here is to analyze the Arctic region as a new political configuration born from post-Cold War governance processes. At first, we put in context the construction of regional governance in the Arctic in a socio-historical perspective by observing how multiple cooperation initiatives, institutionalized or not, have led to the construction of a regional governance. In a second part, we see that governance has built the region as a new political space. Governance organizes and politically builds the Arctic as a relevant space for political action, although it remains an incomplete and controversial region.

International audience ; For about thirty years in the Arctic, territories proliferation at local scale has been raising the question of the political representation of indigenous populations. On a regional scale, the Arctic Council is the main organisation of cooperation which establishes a transcalar govern-ance to answer multiscalar forms of territoriality. This forum gathers at the same time the sovereign Arctic States, but also representatives of indigenous territories. Through the Arctic Council case study, this research aims at showing to what extent an organisation which claims to represent the territories in a transcalar way can include a real political representation of the local territories. We believe that political representation granted to the local territories becomes in fact a democratic alibi for States. Paradoxically, the inclusion of non-state actors in the process of governance strengthens in fact the authority of States in the region, in a very little democratic way. ; Depuis une trentaine d'années en Arctique, la prolifération des territoires à l'échelle locale pose la question de l'inclusion des populations autochtones dans les instances de représentation politique. À l'échelle régionale, le Conseil de l'Arctique est la principale organisation de coopération qui instaure une gouvernance transcalaire pour répondre à des formes de territorialité multiscalaires. Ce forum réunit ainsi à la fois les États souverains dans la région, mais également des représentants des territoires autochtones. À travers l'étude de cas du Conseil de l'Arctique, cette communication a pour but de montrer dans quelle mesure une telle organisation peut inclure une véritable représentation politique des territoires locaux. Nous verrons que la représentation politique accordée aux territoires locaux devient en fait un faire-valoir démocratique pour les États. Paradoxalement, l'inclusion d'acteurs non étatiques dans le processus de gouvernance renforce l'autorité des États dans la région, dans un exercice de pouvoir ...

International audience ; For about thirty years in the Arctic, territories proliferation at local scale has been raising the question of the political representation of indigenous populations. On a regional scale, the Arctic Council is the main organisation of cooperation which establishes a transcalar govern-ance to answer multiscalar forms of territoriality. This forum gathers at the same time the sovereign Arctic States, but also representatives of indigenous territories. Through the Arctic Council case study, this research aims at showing to what extent an organisation which claims to represent the territories in a transcalar way can include a real political representation of the local territories. We believe that political representation granted to the local territories becomes in fact a democratic alibi for States. Paradoxically, the inclusion of non-state actors in the process of governance strengthens in fact the authority of States in the region, in a very little democratic way. ; Depuis une trentaine d'années en Arctique, la prolifération des territoires à l'échelle locale pose la question de l'inclusion des populations autochtones dans les instances de représentation politique. À l'échelle régionale, le Conseil de l'Arctique est la principale organisation de coopération qui instaure une gouvernance transcalaire pour répondre à des formes de territorialité multiscalaires. Ce forum réunit ainsi à la fois les États souverains dans la région, mais également des représentants des territoires autochtones. À travers l'étude de cas du Conseil de l'Arctique, cette communication a pour but de montrer dans quelle mesure une telle organisation peut inclure une véritable représentation politique des territoires locaux. Nous verrons que la représentation politique accordée aux territoires locaux devient en fait un faire-valoir démocratique pour les États. Paradoxalement, l'inclusion d'acteurs non étatiques dans le processus de gouvernance renforce l'autorité des États dans la région, dans un exercice de pouvoir finalement bien peu démocratique.

International audience ; Explorant les interactions entre la spatialité et le processus de gouvernance à l'oeuvre en Arc-tique, cet article avance l'hypothèse selon laquelle la gouvernance politique a construit l'espace arctique comme une région internationale. Dans un premier temps, nous analysons la manière dont de multiples initiatives de coopération à toutes les échelles participent à la construction de la région en convergeant pour renforcer la dimension régionale. Dans une deuxième partie, nous nous appuyons sur la littérature constructiviste pour souligner les interactions entre le système de gouvernance et la consolidation d'une échelle régionale arctique. La gouvernance organise et construit politiquement l'échelle Arctique comme espace pertinent pour l'action politique, bien qu'elle demeure un espace politique incomplet et controversé en raison même de sa nature construite. Abstract Exploring the interactions between spatiality and the governance process in the Arctic, this article advances the hypothesis that political governance has built Arctic space as an international region. The aim here is to analyze the Arctic region as a new political configuration born from post-Cold War governance processes. At first, we put in context the construction of regional governance in the Arctic in a socio-historical perspective by observing how multiple cooperation initiatives, institutionalized or not, have led to the construction of a regional governance. In a second part, we see that governance has built the region as a new political space. Governance organizes and politically builds the Arctic as a relevant space for political action, although it remains an incomplete and controversial region.

Le Conseil de l'Arctique a été créé en 1996. Il permet aux huit États possédant des territoires au nord du cercle polaire de dialoguer et de développer des projets de coopération. Conçu comme une structure souple orientée vers les échanges scientifiques, il évolue progressivement vers une plus forte institutionnalisation et permet de désamorcer certaines tensions. Des sujets plus politiques y sont désormais abordés, et des normes juridiquement contraignantes y ont été adoptées.

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.