Search results

This policy brief focuses on the opening of the Central Arctic Ocean and the subsequent questions this poses to regional governance. This change has the potential to radically alter the nature of Arctic governance as non-Arctic states will have to play a significant role in the rules that will apply in the Arctic high seas. Talks about a regional fisheries regime will define the future of this region. The creation of a coordinating agreement would have the benefit of not challenging Arctic states too fundamentally while at the same time incorporating non-Arctic states in a meaningful way in the regional governance infrastructure.

The media have been presented as influential actors shaping how Canadians relate to their Arctic and formulating policy recommendations to federal decision-makers. However, media coverage of Canadian Arctic sovereignty (CAS) has not been studied over a long period of time, and anecdotal evidence and specific case studies constitute the bulk of our knowledge of the media's take on CAS. The following article offers a contribution to detail the nature of media perceptions and policy recommendations on Arctic issues. To do so, 647 opinion texts published in 23 different Canadian newspapers were collected to offer both quantitative and qualitative insights. Once compared with fluctuations in public opinion and governmental involvement, we conclude that the media can follow, playing a passive role reacting to (and not preceding) political messaging and current events, and lead, recommending alternative ideas and perceptions, depending on the circumstances.

Previous research on Canadian Arctic sovereignty and security has focused on governmental actions and policy recommendations. While these studies have produced some fine scholarship on those matters, Canadian public opinion on Arctic issues has been mostly assumed or analyzed on an anecdotal basis. This paper aims to correct this shortcoming by drawing the contours of public preferences on Arctic issues and assessing the impact of government activism on those preferences. An examination of 18 opinion polls conducted between 2006 and 2015 that questioned respondents directly or indirectly on circumpolar affairs concluded that Canadians do not prioritize the Arctic among other national priorities, although they rank it high as a foreign policy and defense priority. Additionally, even though increasing military presence in the Arctic seems at first glance to receive an exceptionally high level of support, a more careful examination of the data suggests that a majority of Canadians supports an approach to Arctic sovereignty that is rooted in compromises and negotiations. ; Par le passé, les études effectuées en matière de souveraineté et de sécurité dans l'Arctique canadien portaient principalement sur les actions du gouvernement et sur les recommandations de politiques. Bien que ces études aient permis d'obtenir de l'excellente information à ce sujet, l'opinion publique des Canadiens à propos des enjeux de l'Arctique a été soit largement présumée, soit analysée en fonction d'anecdotes. Ce document vise à remédier à ce manque en présentant les grandes lignes des préférences du public au sujet des enjeux propres à l'Arctique et en évaluant les incidences de l'activisme du gouvernement à l'égard de ces préférences. L'examen de 18 sondages d'opinion réalisés entre 2006 et 2015, sondages comprenant des questions directes ou indirectes à l'égard des affaires circumpolaires, a permis de conclure que les Canadiens ne classent pas l'Arctique au rang des autres priorités nationales, et ce, même s'ils considèrent l'Arctique comme un sujet important en matière de politique étrangère et de priorité de défense. En outre, même si, a priori, l'intensification de la présence militaire dans l'Arctique semble recevoir un soutien exceptionnellement grand, l'examen plus approfondi des données suggère que la majorité des Canadiens appuie une approche envers la souveraineté de l'Arctique qui est enracinée dans les compromis et les négociations.

The defence of Arctic sovereignty has gathered high levels of support from the Canadian population in the past 40 years. However, the relationship between public opinion and decision makers is more ambiguous, in particular that between decisions taken by the governing party and an effect in the general population. This is especially true for foreign policy issues. Hence, this article offers a test to assess whether standing up for Arctic sovereignty translates into concrete political gains for the governing party. We gathered federal party support levels reported in 859 opinion polls conducted from 2006 to 2014 in Canada. By focusing on sovereignty operations held by National Defence Operations NUNALIVUT and NANOOK and aggregating poll results into a "poll of polls," we found that standing up for Arctic sovereignty is politically profitable in certain circumstances.

The governments of Canada and Denmark signed a historic agreement on Hans Island on 14 June 2022. Although most of the agreement was devoted to the resolution of the Hans Island dispute, it also settled other issues. We argue that provisions on mobility and the continental shelf in the Labrador Sea give rise to interesting precedents that could have far-reaching effects for northerners. The agreement on enhanced mobility could represent a first step in a more ambitious process of facilitating Inuit mobility across Nunavut and Greenland, while the settlement on the continental shelf illustrates how states could collaborate on other continental shelf cases, including the continental shelf in the Central Arctic Ocean.