135
Arctic Yearbook 2013
Jegorova
system‖ (Buzan, 1983: 245). Security, in his understanding, ―cannot be achieved by either individuals
or states acting solely on their own behalf ‖ (Buzan, 1983: 253); it requires a degree of collectiveness
and multi-dimensional approach. Here Buzan (1983) also introduces his definition of a
security
complex –
―a group of states whose primary security concerns link together sufficiently closely that
their national securities cannot realistically be considered apart from one another‖ (106). He notes
that the process of security complex creation is based not only on political or strategic reasons but
can also be triggered by geographical, historical, economic, and cultural issues.
As a further exploration of this idea, Buzan (1991) offers an analytical framework that distinguishes
between five sectors of security – political, military, economic, societal, and environmental. He
maintains that each sector ―defines a focal point within the security problematique, and a way of
ordering priorities, but all are woven together in a strong web of linkages‖ (Buzan, 1991: 433).
Buzan argues that political and military sectors are losing their primary position on the international
security agenda, while societal (to a greater) and environmental (to a lesser degree) sectors are
gaining weight, and economic sector remains strong and pushes forward. Keohane and Nye (1989)
concur with this assessment: they state that under conditions of complex interdependence
9
military
security loses its central role, and add that ―the distribution of power within each issue [becomes]
more important‖ (31).
Regional Security Environment as Applied to the Arctic
After examining the concepts of regionality and security separately, it is now time to combine them
together in order to arrive at the definition of ―regional security environment‖. The following
definition can then be applied to form an understanding of the current situation in the Arctic.
According to the New Regionalism theory, a region is a product of social construction that can be
shaped and re-shaped according to the actors‘ needs. It has been established that there are two
approaches to formulating the essence of a region. Traditional (physical regions) approach
postulates that a region is comprised of nation-states with a main focus on geographic and military
issues. Another approach – constructivist (functional regions) – maintains that regional borders can
cut through nation-state borders, claiming only a piece of a country‘s territory as part of a region,
whereas the focus of identity falls on economy, environment, and culture. The process of
regionalisation never produces the same kind of a region, and although regions have five stages of
regionalisation intensity, there is no particular order in which they are formed.
As for security, it is also characterised by two dominant ideas: realist
10
security, based on military
power dominance and state-centric approach, and (neo)liberal
11
security, based on transnational
relations, interdependence and multidimensionality. Although Buzan still assumes the nation-state to
be the primary actor, his three levels (individual, national, international) and five sectors (political,
military, economic, societal, environmental) of security encompass both approaches and create a
close to ideal framework for assessing the security environment. Moreover, the concept of security
complex leaps toward a very specific definition of a region, leading to the development of the
definition for regional security environment.