168
Arctic Yearbook 2013
Knecht
trade networks and a strengthened civil society, and further into a
regional community
as the result of
―convergence and compatibility of ideas, organisations and processes‖ (ibid: 466). Intra-regional
relations are driven by mutual trust and the sense for a regional collective identity. While national
boundaries within the region are transcended, the common external border demarcate the region
from other entities and the wider outside world. Finally (and rather theoretically), the region may
become a
region-state
as akin to a nation-state. This fifth level of regionness ―constitutes a voluntary
evolution of a group of formerly sovereign national communities into a new form of political entity
where sovereignty is pooled for the best of all‖ (ibid: 467).
No Land in Sight? Arctic Ocean Regionalism in Theoretical Perspective
Traditionally, regionalism research has focused on land-space regions. While the Arctic shares a
number of commonalities with the above-explored paradigm, its physical geography makes the
region a somewhat idiosyncratic case in regional studies. Any analysis of northern circumpolar
affairs has to account for the fact that the Arctic consists in essence of a semi-enclosed ocean. While
this does not per se disqualify the Far North from the study of regionalism, it has a number of
substantial implications for why, how, and with what consequences the circumpolar North evolves
as a distinct political entity that
deviates from classic regionalist approaches. In the following
paragraphs, these factors – fuzzy boundaries, a limited political agenda, contested state sovereignty,
and, as a consequence thereof, a tendency towards exclusive regionalism as well as the social
(re)production of marine regionalism – will be analysed one by one.
Figure 1: Political Map of the Arctic Region
Source: Hugo Ahlenius, UNEP/GRID-Arendal, 2008; Retrieved 3.5.13 from,
http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/detail/arctic-map-political_1547