Main Theoretical Approaches in the Arctic Policy Studies

Автор: Nabok S.D.

Журнал: Arctic and North @arctic-and-north

Рубрика: Political processes and institutions

Статья в выпуске: 47, 2022 года.

Бесплатный доступ

The article identifies and analyzes the main theoretical approaches used in the studies of international relations and politics in the Arctic. Contemporary studies of the Arctic use elements of several main approaches in the field of international relations: realism, liberalism, social constructivism and global governance, as well as some others. The theoretical alternative between realism and liberalism manifests itself primary in the issues of Arctic security. Liberalism and the concept of global governance play an important role in explaining the multilevel and multi-actor nature of political processes and governance in the region. Social constructivism contributes to the understanding and functioning of Arctic political narratives. However, in most cases, they exist in the form of implicit assumptions rather than as systematically developed and substantiated models. The theoretical differences are mainly related to the definition of units and levels of analysis, particularly the role of states and other types of actors, and the nature of the relationship between them. Despite the fact that realistic approaches considering Arctic politics as inevitable competition of states in the logic of “zero-sum games” remain quite common, the general tendency is to search for more complex theoretical models that recognize the diversity of actors involved in Arctic processes, as well as the possibility of cooperative relations.

Еще

Arctic, international relations, world politics, theory, realism, liberalism, social constructivism, global governance, regime complex, new regionalism, paradiplomacy

Короткий адрес: https://sciup.org/148324401

IDR: 148324401   |   DOI: 10.37482/issn2221-2698.2022.47.142

Список литературы Main Theoretical Approaches in the Arctic Policy Studies

  • Chernoff F. Theory and Metatheory in International Relations: Concepts and Contending Accounts. New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2007, 223 p.
  • De La Bruyère E., Picarsic N. All Over the Map: The Chinese Communist Party’s Subnational Interests in the United States. Washington, FDD Press, 2021, 32 p.
  • Tarry S. ‘Deepening’ and ‘Widening’: an Analysis of Security Definitions in the 1990s. Journal of Mili-tary and Security Studies, 1999, vol. 2, no. 1, 13 p.
  • Padrtova B. Concepts of Security Reflected in Theories Traditionalists vs. Non Traditionalists. In: Routledge Handbook of Arctic Security. Ed. by G.H. Gjørv, M. Lanteigne, H. Sam Aggrey. London; New York, Routledge, 2020, pp. 29 42.
  • Hough P. International Politics of the Arctic. Coming in from the Cold. London, Routledge, 2013, 194 p. DOI:10.4324/9780203496640
  • Huebert R. A New Cold War in the Arctic? The Old One Never Ended! In: Redefining Arctic Security: Arctic Yearbook 2019. Akureyri, Arctic Portal, 2019, pp. 75 78.
  • Goltsov A.G. Mezhdunarodnyy poryadok v Arktike: geopoliticheskoe izmerenie [International Order in the Arctic: Geopolitical Dimension]. Mirovaya politika [World Politics], 2017, no. 4, pp. 44 55. DOI: 10.25136/2409 8671.2017.4.18211
  • Konevskikh O.V. Protivostoyanie Rossii i SShA v arkticheskom regione [Russia US Confrontation in the Arctic]. Aktual'nye problemy sovremennykh mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy [Actual Problems of Modern International Relations], 2016, no. 7, pp. 61 66.
  • Li X., Peng B. The Rise of China in the Emergence of a New Arctic Order. In: The Global Arctic Hand-book. Cham, Springer, 2019, pp. 197 213. DOI:10.1007/978 3 319 91995 9_12
  • Kopra S. China, Great Power Responsibility and Arctic Security. In: Climate Change and Arctic Securi-ty: Searching for a Paradigm Shift. Ed. by L. Heininen, H. Exner Pirot. Cham, Palrgave Pivot, 2020, pp. 33 52. DOI: 10.1007/978 3 030 20230 9_3
  • Pincus R. Three Way Power Dynamics in the Arctic. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 2020, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 40 63.
  • Konyshev V., Sergunin A. Arktika na perekrest'e geopoliticheskikh interesov [Arctic at Crossroad of Geopolitical Interests]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya [World Economy and International Relations], 2010, no. 9, pp. 43 53.
  • Weber J., ed. Handbook on Geopolitics and Security in the Arctic: The High North between Coopera-tion and Confrontation. Cham, Springer, 2020, 378 p. DOI:10.1007/978 3 030 45005 2
  • Heininen L., Exner Pirot H., Barnes J., eds. Arctic Yearbook 2019: Redefining Arctic Security. Akureyri, Arctic Portal, 2019, 504 p.
  • Gjørv G.H., Lanteigne M., Sam Aggrey H., eds. Routledge Handbook of Arctic Security. London; New York, Routledge, 2020, 462 p.
  • Behringer R.M. Middle Power Leadership on the Human Security Agenda. Cooperation and Conflict, 2005, vol. 40, pp. 305 342. DOI: 10.1177/0010836705055068
  • Carr A. Is Australia a Middle Power? A Systemic Impact Approach. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 2014, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 70 84. DOI:10.1080/10357718.2013.840264
  • Dolata Kreutzkamp P. Canada’s Arctic Policy: Transcending the Middle Power Model? In: Canada’s Foreign and Security Policy: Soft and Hard Strategies of a Middle Power. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 251 275.
  • Kim E., Stenport A. South Korea’s Arctic Policy: Political Motivations for 21st Century Global En-gagements. The Polar Journal, 2021, vol. 11, iss. 1, pp. 11 29. DOI:10.1080/2154896X.2021.1917088 20. Østhagen A. Norway’s Arctic Policy: Still High North, Low Tension? The Polar Journal, 2021, vol. 11, iss. 1, pp. 75 94. DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2021.1911043
  • Rosamond A.B. The Kingdom of Denmark and the Arctic. In: Handbook of the Politics of the Arctic. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2015, pp. 501 516. DOI: 10.4337/9780857934741.00036
  • Watson I. Middle Power Alliances and the Arctic: Assessing Korea UK Pragmatic Idealism. Korea Ob-server, 2014, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 275 320.
  • Buzan B., Waever O. Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge, Cam-bridge University Press, 2003, 564 p.
  • Kuznetsov A.S. Theory and Practice of Paradyplomacy: Subnational Governments in International Af-fairs. London; New York, Routledge, 2015, 184 p.
  • Ackren M. Diplomacy and Paradiplomacy in the North Atlantic and the Arctic a Comparative Ap-proach. In: The Global Arctic Handbook. Cham, Springer, 2019, pp. 235 249. DOI: 10.1007/9783319 91995 9_14
  • Sergunin A. Subnational Tier of Arctic Governance. In: The Global Arctic Handbook. Cham, Springer, 2019, pp. 269 287. DOI: 10.1007/978 3 319 91995 9_16
  • Rosenau J.N. Governance in the Twenty First Century. Global Governance, 1995, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 13 43.
  • Zürn M.A Theory of Global Governance: Authority, Legitimacy, and Contestation. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2018, 313 p.
  • Bertelsen R.G. The Arctic as a Laboratory of Global Governance: the Case of Knowledge Based Co-operation and Science Diplomacy. In: The Global Arctic Handbook. Cham, Springer, 2019, pp. 251 267. DOI: 10.1007/978 3 319 91995 9_15
  • Wehrmann D. Transnational Cooperation in Times of Rapid Global Changes. The Arctic Council as a Success Case for? In: Arctic Yearbook 2020. Akureyri, Arctic Portal, 2020, pp. 425 442. DOI: 10.23661/dp12.2020
  • Chater A. Change and Continuity among the Priorities of the Arctic Council’s Permanent Participants. In: Leadership for the North: The Influence and Impact of Arctic Council Chairs. Cham, Springer, 2019, pp. 149 166. DOI: 10.1007/978 3 030 03107 7_9
  • Jiang Y. China’s Role in Arctic Affairs in the Context of Global Governance. Strategic Analysis, 2014, vol. 38, iss. 6, pp. 913 916. DOI: 10.1080/09700161.2014.952938
  • Young O.R. Building an International Regime Complex for the Arctic: Current Status and Next Steps. The Polar Journal, 2012, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 391 407. DOI:10.1080/2154896X.2012.735047
  • Young O.R. Is it Time for a Reset in Arctic Governance? Sustainability, 2019, vol. 11 (16), 4497. DOI: 10.3390/su11164497
  • Shadian J.M. Navigating Political Borders Old and New: the Territoriality of Indigenous Inuit Govern-ance. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 2018, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 273 288. DOI: 10.1080/08865655.2017.1300781
  • Pincus R., Ali S.H. Have You Been to ‘The Arctic’? Frame Theory and the Role of Media Coverage in Shaping Arctic Discourse. Polar Geography, 2016, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 83 97. DOI: 10.1080/1088937X.2016.1184722
  • Auerswald D.P. Arctic Narratives and Geopolitical Competition. In: Handbook on Geopolitics and Se-curity in the Arctic: The High North between Cooperation and Confrontation. Cham, Springer, 2020, pp. 251 271. DOI: 10.1007/978 3 030 45005 2_15
  • Cole S., Izmalkov S., Sjöberg E. Games in the Arctic: Applying Game Theory Insights to Arctic Chal-lenges. Polar Research, 2014, vol. 33, no. 1. 23357, 13 p. DOI: 10.3402/polar.v33.23357
  • Hawkins D.G., Lake D.A., Nielson D.L., Tierney M.J., eds. Delegation and Agency in International Or-ganizations. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2006, 407 p. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511491368
Еще
Статья научная