Managing a contested region: the Arctic Council and the politics of Arctic governance

The article explores the tension between institutional integration and interstate bargaining in Arctic politics by focusing on the Arctic Council and on the role of Arctic and non-Arctic stakeholders. It argues that despite the growing influence of regionalism, intergovernmentalism continues to shape Arctic governance and to work against a “final” set of regional institutions or convergence. From the perspective of the eight Arctic states, the key problem has been to reconcile the desire to elevate the international standing and legitimacy of the Arctic Council by keeping its door open to non-regional actors with a determination to maintain their own privileged position. After adopting a postponement strategy at the 2011 Nuuk Ministerial Meetings, the Arctic Eight finally broke the deadlock by granting non-Arctic states, notably China, an observer status at the 2013 Kiruna Ministerial Meeting. Yet, the conclusion is that the Arctic Council has not been transformed into a body of political authority or a policy-making instrument. The Arctic Eight have opened up space for regionalism; the Search and Rescue Agreement and Oil Spill Preparedness agreements were the result of Arctic Council initiatives. The case is made, however, that the political end products are likely to be agreements between states without institutional enforcement mechanisms.