299
Arctic Yearbook 2013
What Does the Arctic Teach Us?
So, what makes the Arctic different? I have already mentioned above the magnitude of the available
resources in the Arctic (Gautier & Pierce, 2008; Kontorovitch, et.al., 2010), as well as the related
paradoxical nature of Arctic drilling: if, indeed, the Arctic‘s fossil fuels are exploited, the impact on
climate change will not only be significant; it will open further opportunities for Arctic drilling. But
the Arctic is also interesting because of the particular role of nation-states: most of the Arctic‘s
territories are actually divided up among nation-states with very few areas still being disputed (e.g.,
between the United States and Canada in the Beaufort Sea, whereas the conflict between Russia and
Norway in the Barents Sea has recently been settled). Furthermore, the areas that are outside the
exclusive 200 nautical miles zone (the EEZ) are not said to be particularly resource-rich (Gautier &
Pierce, 2008). This means that nation-states, acting in the general interest, would actually have it in
their hands to resist Arctic drilling. In this respect, one must also mention the particular nation-state
history in the Arctic, shaped as it is by the Cold War (1950 to 1990), and which has led to a
substantial militarization of the Arctic (Fritz, 2013). Particular mention must be made here to the
United States and Russia, but also of Norway and Canada, as actually little demilitarization has
occurred since the end of the Cold War. Moreover, the territorial and military aspects of nation-
states appear particularly clearly and purely in the case of the Arctic, as the Arctic territory is sparsely
populated, and as settlements are used, at least in the case of Russia as a means to affirm territorial
claims vis-à-vis indigenous peoples.
In short, it is fair to say that there are mainly two major types of actors in the Arctic: historically
those were nation-states, but increasingly, especially with the need for technical expertise, TNCs
(and SOEs for that matter) also make their appearance. This omnipresence of nation-states with the
recent involvement of TNCs, and of course the massive nature of the phenomenon, is what makes
the Arctic unique and particularly interesting. More precisely, I am particularly interested in the
relationship between the nation-states and the TNCs focused around the question of exploiting
natural resources. Indeed, neither states, nor TNCs can exploit these resources on their own and
therefore need each other: how therefore does their relationship play out? Will the nation-states act
in the public interest and try to stem Arctic resources exploitation? Or will TNCs have it their way
against the nation-states? Or will both work hand in hand? These are the main questions I will
discuss in this chapter, as they are relevant far beyond the Arctic and of crucial importance for the
future of the Earth‘s global habitability.
Nation-States
Political science, international relations and political economy generally consider nation-states as
being antithetical to business: while nation-states pursue the general interest, business acts in their
own, private interests. If business behavior is contrary to the general interest, it will be regulated by
the state. While nation-states can go to war over their conflicting strategic interests, business, so goes
the theory, does not. So, what are the strategic interests of the nation-states in the case of the Arctic?
In this section, I will first characterize nation-states in general and then apply this characterization to
the Arctic. I will make a distinction between the periods before and after globalization or more
appropriately in the case of the Arctic, before and after the Cold War. My approach to nation-states
is somewhat unorthodox, as I do consider states as self-interested organizations operating under