Arctic Yearbook 2013
Heininen, Exner-Pirot & Plouffe
27
region plays more important role in world politics. Issues that are important to this geo-strategic
dimensions of today‘s Arctic include both material indicators, such as sophisticated weapons systems
and used advanced technology for utilization of natural resources; and immaterial indicators, such as
knowledge, innovation, new methods, and innovative political and legal arrangements (e.g. AHDR,
2004; Heininen, 2010). One more indicator is that, as a response to the recent change(s) and growing
international interest, the Arctic states have recently approved their national strategies and policies
on the Arctic region, as it was discussed in the
Arctic Yearbook 2012
, (and the second round of
these national strategies has already started), interestingly, there is still a lack of a global perspective
in most of those documents.
Thus, it is no wonder why now, ten years later, from the above-mentioned three main themes of the
post-Cold War circumpolar geopolitics that a last one – a new kind of relationship between the
Arctic region and the rest of the globe – has been implemented and enhanced. While the other two
still have clear influence in the region, they have been transformed: circumpolar cooperation by local
and regional non-state actors, and sub-national governments, is increasing, and particularly
indigenous peoples with their organizations have become subjects of, and create a new kind of
‗globalized‘ regionalism which is challenging state sovereignty while pressuring states to act.
Correspondingly, the region-building by Arctic states of the 1990s has meant high stability and
institutionalized intergovernmental cooperation, but has also partly transformed itself into
national(istic) policies by
all
littoral Arctic states (not just Russia and Canada, which are often
identified as having such policies). Thus, while these two trends are still evolving, the ‗state of Arctic
geopolitics‘ today is dominated by interrelationships between the (Arctic) region and the rest of the
world, and, moreover, the fact that
that
relationship is also changing.
At the outset, it is in our view possible to argue and conclude that in the Arctic of the 2010s, there
are two perspectives – or influential forces – that are impacting the region and its development and
resource politics, as well as Arctic geopolitics and northern security, at the same time: first,
regionalism/regionalization and region-building; and second, globalization and flows of
globalization. Furthermore, they also impact and shape circumpolar (international) relations.
Following from this, it is necessary to take both of these forces, as well as their interrelationship,
into consideration and discuss their respective impacts – both alone and the related dualism – on
further developments across the Arctic to understand, and actively shape, regional and international
relations. Furthermore, this sort of dualism, keenly connected with the current culture of an open
dialogue and a strong role for research and education, might be a fruitful way to avoid potential
conflicts, and concentrate on real issues (of the Arctic), such as climate change and development.
Consequently, the theme of the 2013 Arctic Yearbook is ―
The Arctic of Regions vs. the Globalized Arctic
‖
including several substantial scientific articles and more policy-oriented commentaries with new and
interesting approaches on both of these perspectives.