179
Arctic Yearbook 2013
Arctic Regionalism in Theory & Practice
through which regionalising indigenous groups and organized business interests impinge on the
work of the Council remain understudied.
This article echoes previous calls for more
comparative studies between marine-oriented
regionalisms and policy coordination and norm diffusion mechanisms within and beyond them (see
e.g. VanderZwaag and Vu, 2012; Exner-Pirot, 2013). Against all scepticism often raised in polar
research, this may also include a more coherent comparison between Arctic and Antarctic
governance arrangements. What also needs more elaboration is the way the Arctic Council may
serve as a (potential) role model for incorporating the needs and demands of indigenous actors
worldwide (Koivurova and Heinämäki, 2006), the body‘s external governance towards interested and
affected parties in southern latitudes, as well as
studies on design and effect of international
secretariats in marine regions (Sellheim, 2012). While this article suggests to grasp Arctic regionalism
as an object of study that complements rather than contradicts the complex regime interplay
currently at work in the circumpolar North, it is less clear whether and how the Arctic‘s ‗centripetal
force‘ promotes or constrains other international fora.
Acknowledgements
This article has greatly profited from comments by Roman Goldbach and Patrick Mello (Dresden
University of Technology), Heather Exner-
Pirot (University of Saskatchewan),
Helga Haftendorn
(Freie Universität Berlin) as well as two anonymous reviewers.
Notes
1.
By way of example, think of the vicious circle the Arctic ecology is trapped in if global
warming makes large oil and gas reserves accessible, whose production may have negative
side-effects such as air and water pollution causing further environmental degradation. The
burning of fossil fuels, in turn, may intensify climate warming.
2.
The European Commission‘s application for observer status is still pending.
3.
‗Save the Arctic‘ webpage:
http://www.savethearctic.org/
(accessed 12 August 2013).
4.
The six working groups are:
Arctic Contaminants Action Program
(ACAP),
Arctic Monitoring and
Assessment Programme
(AMAP),
Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna
(CAFF),
Emergency
Prevention, Preparedness and Response
(EPPR),
Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment
(PAME)
and
Sustainable Development Working Group
(SDWG). Detailed descriptions are available online:
http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about-us/working-groups
.
5.
It is beyond debate, however, that sub-state actors had and continue to have their share in
discursively and politically constructing the Arctic region. For an excellent argumentation in
this regard, see Keskitalo, 2004.
6.
Arctic Circle webpage:
http://www.arcticcircle.org/mission
(accessed 12 August 2013).