Institutionalization of Arctic Cooperation under the "Ice Silk Road" Initiative: An Analysis of Interaction

This study analyzes the institutionalization of Arctic cooperation under China’s "Ice Silk Road" initiative through the lens of China–Russia interaction. The research also accounts for economic, environmental, legal, technological and social dimensions of cooperation as well as local practices. The aim is to explain the mechanisms by which bilateral agreements are transformed into multilateral institutional formats and to identify the factors that determine their resilience amid geopolitical competition. Methodologically, the study employs a synthesis of neoliberal institutionalism, constructivism and the concept of moral realism; the empirical base comprises a comparative analysis of 22 China-involved projects (2008–2024), systematized according to four institutionalization parameters: formalization, specialization, autonomy and resilience. Results indicate the emergence of a three-tier institutional architecture: research institutes, production consortia and infrastructure alliances. China’s willingness to accept minority shares and to invest in public goods is interpreted as a strategy for acquiring moral authority to secure long-term footholds in the region. The work contributes analyzing institutional building by rising powers and offers practical conditions for reducing geopolitical risks in Arctic cooperation. The study, which analyzes the processes of institutionalization of Arctic cooperation within the framework of the Ice Silk Road initiative with a focus on the mechanisms of interaction used by the PRC, revealed empirical results, identified the typology of institutions and sustainability factors. The systematization of 22 projects by functional areas reveals the formation of a three-tier institutional architecture, where each level solves specific tasks.: First level: research institutes (Sino-Icelandic Center, Yellowhe Station, Nu-Aalesund Observatory, Xuelong-2 expeditions). The projects solve the task of forming legitimizing knowledge, epistemic communities, and reducing the perception of threats through the "low-politicized" nature of scientific cooperation. Second level: production consortia (Yamal LNG, Arctic LNG-2, Arctic Star project). The task of materializing economic interdependence, creating mechanisms for joint risk management, and generating environmental safety standards through corporate standards is being solved. Third level: infrastructure alliances (icebreaking service contracts, joint technological developments). Functions: providing physical access to Arctic routes, institutionalizing asymmetric interdependence through long-term contracts. The critical difference between the levels lies in the degree of geopolitical sensitivity: scientific institutions demonstrate the greatest resistance to fluctuations in the political environment, production consortia are more vulnerable (the suspension of Arctic LNG-2 under the influence of sanctions), infrastructure alliances are most dependent on bilateral relations.