130
Arctic Yearbook 2013
Regionalism and Globalisation
Söderbaum‘s regionalisation framework and Väyrynen‘s physical-functional framework, there is no
single scenario for the birth of a region, nor is there a set degree of regionness a region must
achieve to be considered one.
Placing the Arctic
Addressed from these perspectives, the Arctic falls under a number of categories. First and
foremost, it is a natural, geographic region based on proximity to the Arctic Ocean. There are
various definitions applied to describe the extent of Arctic borders, ranging from physical and
ecological to social and political aspects.
4
The most widely recognised limitation, however, is the
Arctic Circle – an imaginary line, circling the globe at 66° 33' north and marking the beginning of
the area where on one or more days in a year the sun does not set in summer and does not rise in
winter. This common experience – and the resulting climatological and ecological peculiarities –
function as a basic condition for the creation of regional identity. In fact, in public eyes the Arctic is
often considered to be ecologically monogenic, although in reality the ecosystems vary greatly
depending on the particular area in question.
5
Nevertheless, the physical definition of the Arctic, as
presented by Väyrynen, is perhaps the strongest definition of all that can be assigned to this area.
As Väyrynen (2003) postulates, physical regions are usually constituted by a cluster of nation-states
(27). This is true for the Arctic as well, although with certain exceptions. The Arctic Five – a group
of littoral Arctic States (namely, Russia, the US, Canada, Norway, and Denmark), and the Arctic
Eight – the permanent member states of the Arctic Council (Arctic Five as well as Sweden, Finland,
and Iceland) represent the usual composition of forums on matters regarding the region. Although
only parts (sometimes very small parts) of these countries have actual connection to the Arctic or
are located within the Arctic Circle, it is still the nation-states that are considered the main actors in
the international arena. So far there exists no common identity along all national Arctic areas, and
there exists no regional institution that could function as an alternative to the nation-state in the area
of governance.
This is not to say that Arctic should be solely understood as a physical region under Väyrynen's
regionality framework. As the effects of climate change and the nature of ecological challenges are
rather similar across the Arctic Ocean, it can well fall under the category of a functional region
based on common environment. Moreover, although it has already been said that there exists no
single identity that would unite all Arctic areas together, the indigenous peoples‘ movement must
nevertheless be acknowledged. The Arctic Council is the best example of local civil society
participation in an international forum: the status of Permanent Participant can be obtained by any
Arctic organisation of Indigenous Peoples, the majority of which represents ―a single Indigenous
people resident in more than one Arctic State; or more than one Arctic Indigenous people resident
in a single Arctic State‖ (Arctic Council, 2011a).
6
Although the process in this case is more political
than economic, environmental, or cultural, it is still the mixture of subnational and transnational
activity that amounts to Väyrynen‘s definition of a functional region.
Analysed with the criteria developed by Hettne and Söderbaum (2002), however, the Arctic appears
to be a fairly blended mixture of different regionalisation levels. The characteristic traits inherent in