169
Arctic Yearbook 2013
Arctic Regionalism in Theory & Practice
First,
the Arctic‘s often implicitly assumed and widely accepted political geography in the shape of a
‗donut‘ (Berkman, 2009: 514) – meaning High Seas under no state authority encircled by Arctic
states‘ sovereign sectors (see Figure 1 above) – is a too narrow view on the region. Due to its
physical geography as a semi-enclosed sea the Arctic is a globally embedded space and
cannot be
detached from
socio-ecological forces that may originate elsewhere in the world maritime and
climate system. How global implications for the Arctic are dealt with in scope (and hence, which
level is best suited for effective and sustainable environmental governance), is subject to scientific
assessment, monitoring and policy adaptation on a case-by-case basis.
Because of the different
geographical coverage that various Arctic Council Working Groups and the 2004
Arctic Human
Development Report
(AHDR) put their individual focus on - based either on shorelines or ecological
indicators - it would be appropriate to speak of a set of Arctic regions (cf. Keskitalo, 2004: 30-33).
As illustrated in Figure 2 below,
Arctic regionalism is territorially erratic and potential boundaries are
set (and change) along principally functional landmarks and towards problem-oriented governance.
Fuzzy external borders, on the other hand, do not necessarily impede further regionalisation as
defined above, which is far more dependent on regional and global forces altering the content, level
and scope of the relevant policy issue to be dealt with.
New regionalism research indeed acknowledges the geographical indeterminacy of many regionalist
projects and that ―the regional frontier may very well cut through a particular state‘s territory,
positioning some parts of the state within the emerging region and others outside‖ (Hettne and
Söderbaum, 2000: 462). Also, such a volatile conceptualisation provides sufficient leeway to identify
pan-Arctic regionalisation in a space that is primarily a ―region of peripheries‖ of each Arctic state
(Young, 2005: 9). Because most of the issues dealt with here have the ocean territory as a source in
common and are closely related
1
,
any
analytical differentiation
of Arctic
region
s
would be somewhat factitious
and of no added value to the study of
what holds the circumpolar North
together.
Legend: AMAP – Arctic Monitoring and
Assessment Programme; CAFF – Conservation
of Arctic Flora and Fauna; EPPR – Emergency
Prevention, Preparedness and Response; AHDR
– Arctic Human Development Report
Figure 2: Arctic Boundaries as defined by Arctic Council Working Groups and the AHDR
Source: UArctic. Retrieved 3.5.13 from,
http://www.uarctic.org/AtlasMapLayer.aspx?m=642&amid =5955
.