167
Arctic Yearbook 2013
Arctic Regionalism in Theory & Practice
territory Arctic regionalism is much more reactive and output-oriented towards a restricted set of
collective-action problems compared to land-space regions ―rooted in historical civilizations‖
(Hettne, 2003: 41).
Regionalism
is hereinafter understood as a political project dedicated to a ―policy whereby states and
non-state actors cooperate and coordinate strategy within a given region‖ and towards shared
objectives (Fawcett, 2004: 433). While it is likely that actors combine interests, strategies, rules and
procedures in common institutions, it is necessary ―to avoid the obsession with formal regional
organisations‖ (Hettne and Söderbaum, 2000: 471). This is a remnant of EU integration research
long seen as the ‗gold standard‘ in comparative regionalism which any other kind of regional project
had to follow. Alternatively, regionalism can be thought of as a broader spectrum from
intergovernmental cooperation to supranational
integration (Börzel, 2013). The latter differs from
the former in that integration brings about new organisational structures above state-level and with
independent agency as a result of delegated tasks and capacities by their constituents. From this
perspective
, regional organisations which member states
empower by surrendering parts of their
political authority are just
one, albeit a very strong indicator among a variety of potential outcomes
of denser interstate relations.
Regionalisation
, as distinct from regionalism, is defined as a process by which societal actors through
their interdependencies, either by default or by design, form and reinforce some kind of regional
cohesion, market harmonisation or ‗common bond‘. If regionalism was to be thought of as ranging
from cooperation to integration, the degree of regionalisation is most adequately placed on a
continuum ―from relative heterogeneity and lack of cooperation towards increased cooperation,
integration, convergence, coherence and identity in a variety of fields such as culture, security,
economic development and politics‖ (Schulz et al., 2001: 5).
Although methodologically regionalism
and regionalisation should not be conflated, it is neither possible nor analytically desirable to keep
them apart as their distinction is porous and processes and effects may interrelate. Some even argue
that regionalisation ―is not enough in itself to create a region‖ if it is not part of a state-led regional
programme (Fawn, 2009: 13). What is more, treating both concepts as two sides of the same coin
backs the Arctic case very well. The Arctic Council as the most relevant institution in the
circumpolar North is an organisation sui generis in that the body is not purely intergovernmental,
but also authorises a number of non-state members, particularly indigenous groups. Focusing on
either Arctic regionalisation or regionalism processes would thus be discriminatory to participating
actors and relevant processes in this cross-level setting.
In order to analyse the degree to which a geographical area qualifies as a political region, Hettne and
Söderbaum (2000: 462-468) merged regionalism and regionalisation into one analytical framework
and differentiate five levels of
regionness
as relevant landmarks. To them, a pre-condition for any
region is a contiguous
regional space
. Increased social interactions and transnational trade on that
territory would turn the regional space into a
regional complex
. The level of regionness still remains low
here, because actors pursue first and foremost selfish strategies, have little impetus to cooperate with
others and adjust their behaviour to global rather than regional forces (ibid: 464). As
interdependence and societal contacts intensify, the region emerges into a
regional society
of solidified