128
Arctic Yearbook 2013
Regionalism and Globalisation
previously inaccessible is forecast to become navigable waters in less than a century (UNEP, 2007:
11, 91), and almost equal to discovering an uninhabited piece of land on our planet. It is quite
understandable that in a world of scarce resources and deepening economic ties even those with no
immediate border in the Arctic would be interested in the bounties it promises. These third
countries claim the Arctic to be the heritage of the mankind (Gautam, 2011; Jakobson, 2010: 9-10)
and appeal for equal access and rights in the area, whereas one of the options would be ―freezing
jurisdictional claims in the central Arctic basin‖ and focusing on facilitating stewardship and
cooperation (Young, 2009: 81). Applying to the Arctic Council for observer status is considered to
be a direct manifestation of the Asian states‘ interest toward the Arctic.
Theorising the Arctic: Old and New Regionalism
The International Relations theory of New Regionalism emerged after the collapse of the Cold War
bipolar world system, triggered by the consequent development and expanse of globalisation and
interdependence trends (Hettne & Soderbaum, 2002; Kelly, 2007). Based on the premises of the
traditional, ―Old‖ Regionalism that prevailed during 1960-70 decades, the new theory is shaped with
a slightly different focus, which allows it to better address the changes that occurred within the
international system. As it is well summarised by Hettne (2002), there are five main differences
between the two branches: historically disparate world order as a point of departure, direction of
development initiative, direction of implementation, organisational nature, and the scope of (state
and non-state) actors‘ inclusion (34). These differences are further illustrated by Table 1 below.
Old Regionalism
New Regionalism
World order
Bipolarity
Multipolarity
Initiative
Top-down (forced)
Bottom-up (voluntary)
Orientation
Introverted (protectionist)
Extroverted (open)
Organisations
Specific objectives
Multidimensional approach
Actors
State-centric
Global system
Table 1: Old and New Regionalism (Hettne, 2002)
In their work, Hettne and Söderbaum (2002) attempt to proceed with developing a coherent theory
of New Regionalism (hereafter: regionalism). The authors argue that the core concept of this
approach – ―regionness‖, defined as ―the multidimensional result of the process of regionalisation
of a particular geographic area‖ (34) – and the very process of regionalisation is as a multi-level
entity and can be used as an alternative tool for analysing regional construction and development. To
―theorise regionness‖, the authors employ a meta-theoretical approach, using global social theory,
social constructivism, and comparative regional studies. Based on this choice of theories, the authors
proclaim that regions are ―social constructions‖ (36) and ―political and social projects, devised by
human actors‖ (38), as well as that ―[t]here are no ‗natural‘ or ‗given‘ regions, but these are created
and re-created in the process of global transformation‖ (39).