132
Arctic Yearbook 2013
Regionalism and Globalisation
―Formal‖ (
de jure
) region, defined by
the membership in a regional
organisation
Arctic Council as the best institution to fulfil this role,
uniting the Arctic Eight and non-state entities representing
indigenous inhabitants
Nation-states transform to semi-
independent parts of larger regional
political societies
- (A stage that is yet to come)
Regional
community
Region develops identity and civil
society, gains legitimacy and structure
of decision-making, and itself
becomes an actor
The process is under way; although the national identity is
strong, there also exists the indigenous identity. The
regional civil society's role becomes more visible, with
increased inclusion in regional arrangements.
Conflicts can no longer be solved by
violent means; regional mechanisms
ensure stability and welfare
The relations of mutual dependence and equal
vulnerability acts as a prevention factor and facilitate even
further expansion of cooperation
Micro-regions thrive within the
macro-region; regional interaction is
voluntary and multidimensional
Societal and cultural links grow stronger, while visa
regimes become desolate; for micro-regions to prosper
better infrastructure is to be introduced
Region-
state
Hypothetical level of regionness: a
voluntarily combined multinational
and multicultural community with
decentralised multi-level governance
structure
- (Potentially, the future of the Arctic region)
Table 2: Assessing the level of Arctic “regionness”, according to Hettne and Söderbaum (2002)
The second level of regionness, called the
regional complex
, marks the nation-state as the main actor
on the international arena, while the national identity supersedes the previously vital cultural and
local ties. This is also the starting point for interdependent relationships: the linkage between
neighbouring nation-states‘ behaviour, their well-being and the overall stability of the system
becomes apparent. States‘ interests, however, remain realism-driven, whereas economic relations of
the regional complex are characterised by exploitation of the weak and competition among the
powerful. All three criteria – although with certain exceptions – can indeed be applied to the Arctic,
especially from the historic perspective.
The emergence of nation-states has brought along the creation of formal borders in areas where
initially there were no obstacles to populations‘ seasonal movement. Such examples can be found in
Sapmi area – the traditional habitat of Sami people, composed of northern parts of Norway,
Sweden and Finland, as well as a part of Russia's Kola Peninsula. Once a common ground for the
indigenous minority, this cultural region has experienced several re-defining moments, following the
historic changes in political map of Fenno-Scandinavia. In contrast, the Arctic peoples of Northern
America and Russia have always had large undivided territories to their use, with their habitat areas
undisturbed by imaginary borders. Nevertheless, both Eurasian and American indigenous peoples
living in the Arctic have one challenge in common: namely, their visibility and representation on
regional, national, and international levels.