CPSA/ISA-Canada section on International Relations

C08(c) - Whither Arctic Exceptionalism? Exploring Arctic Futures

Date: Jun 3 | Time: 08:45am to 10:15am | Location:

Chair/Président/Présidente : Leah Sarson (Dalhousie University)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Wilfrid Greaves (University of Victoria)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Andrew Chater (Brescia University College)

Session Abstract: The Arctic has been one of the world’s most stable and peaceful regions in the Post-Cold War era. Despite degrading relations elsewhere, the region has been able to develop, maintain and expand its institutionalized governance landscape focused on addressing common interests while ensuring tensions remain low, further engendering the concept of ‘Arctic Exceptionalism’. This development has occurred in concert with an increased role for Indigenous peoples in regional governance. As the region, however, becomes increasingly impacted by and connected with larger global networks and processes, will it retain this exceptionalism? This inquiry aims to move beyond binary, statist or micro assessments as well as debates of whether the region will remain peaceful, towards a critical examination of the tenets commonly associated with Arctic Exceptionalism and how they explain (or not) the emergence and ongoing evolution of Arctic regional politics. In this vein, this panel will investigate and scrutinize the concept of Arctic exceptionalism, including its applicability within contemporary regional and global trends. This inquiry will serve as part of a larger exploration of the degree and ways in which connections – materially as well as ideationally – with other regions and the growing presence and involvement of non-Arctic actors locally influence the possible trajectories of Arctic regional order. Such efforts are intended to create space for new theorization and examination of Arctic regionalism, governance and order, in both case study and comparative contexts with other regions.

Extraordinary Exceptionalism?: Ryan Dean (University of Calgary), Whitney Lackenbauer (Trent University)
Abstract: The notion of “Arctic exceptionalism” was initially advanced in the 1990s to promote building a peaceable regime across the circumpolar north that would draw the new Russia into the liberal democratic order. Since then, various formulations of the concept have been developed and mobilized, suggesting that either different norms and rules should be followed there, or that the region is exempt from “normal” drivers of international affairs. This paper will critically examine and parse various Canadian articulations of Arctic exceptionalism since the end of the Cold War, particularly in terms of government, Indigenous peoples, and academic discourses on sovereignty and security. Canadian critics of exceptionalism have argued that utopian regional dynamics do not override the strategic competition animating global politics and that this thinking provides a false sense of security and sovereignty. However, these critics advance the argument that the country must undertake extraordinary responses to protect sovereignty and provide security in the Arctic because the region is exceptionally vulnerable, implying that regional threat assessments cannot reply upon “normal” global drivers associated with stability and cooperation. Ironically, while Arctic exceptionalism was originally used to advance the cause of peace across the region, our analysis explains how and why it is mainly used in Canadian academic discourse to support narratives that portend conflict and thus call for extraordinary action to defend the North as a region apart.

The Contribution of Indigenous Peoples to Arctic Exceptionalism : David Roddick (Independent Researcher)
Abstract: The emergence of the Arctic Council’s as a contemporary multilateral institution coincides with an historical, post-Cold war era characterized by ‘Arctic exceptionalism’. The organization of the Arctic Council, its inclusion of Arctic indigenous peoples as consultative members, and the exclusion of military security from its mandate, all contributed to the idea of an era of “Arctic exceptionalism’. Arguably, the tenants commonly associated with Arctic exceptionalism today owe as much to the Arctic Council’s unique, evolved form of regional governance as to those canons ordinarily used to judge the effectiveness of international institutions. Despite this, some commentators doubt the Arctic Council is equipped to effectively respond to new, emergent geo-political challenges. Also, they lament its inability to reform itself and/or embrace new approaches to meet perceived security or existential threats arising from a new, evolving Arctic regional order. Embracing these observations, this study inquires into the relationship between Arctic Indigenous peoples and the Arctic Council itself, focusing upon the participation of its Canadian-based indigenous membership. It examines their historical contribution to the legacy of Arctic exceptionalism. It also considers how these Arctic Council Permanent Participant members, whose own agendas are also increasingly connected to and driven by larger global networks and processes, are responding to and organizing themselves to address these new challenges. It discusses how their actions or inaction, as the case may be, is also shaping the trajectory of an new, emerging Arctic regional order.

The Arctic Regional Hierarchy: Considerations for Non-Arctic States : Liz Bowman (University of Alaska Fairbanks)
Abstract: The Arctic as a political region is traditionally defined by the eight Arctic states: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States. In recent years, non-Arctic states have become increasingly involved in the economic and political affairs of the region. In an effort to dismiss Arctic exceptionalism in a time where the world is increasingly interconnected, this paper applies the principles of power transition theory to the Arctic with an acknowledgement of active non-Arctic states to create a new hierarchy of the Arctic. Traditional indicators of power transition theory are utilized to build the Arctic regional hierarchy including GDP, military spending, PPP, and population. As a follow on, consideration is given to states who participate heavily in the development of the Arctic, such as the Asian block of China, South Korea, and Japan. These non-Arctic actors are considered in the presentation of a revised model of a globalized Arctic hierarchy.

The ‘Third Front’ to the Forefront? A Revised Classical Geopolitical Analysis of the Emerging Great Power Politics in and for the Arctic : Adam MacDonald (Dalhousie University)
Abstract: The lack of military confrontation and contests over resources and territory combined with a thickening institutionalized landscape facilitating cooperation on a growing host of functional issues appears to have insulated the Arctic against detrimental effects of tensions emanating elsewhere: a unique state of affairs commonly referred to as ‘Arctic Exceptionalism’. Whether this geopolitical stable trajectory will continue, however, is uncertain with the region becoming ever connected into global networks under strain from the re-emergence of strategic competition as a central feature in international life. This is particular salient within the relationships between China, Russia and the United States, who are all increasingly active and interested in the region, and whether their competition to assert (and deny each other) influence and position at an international level will manifest into a struggle over attempts to tether the Arctic into their respective larger grand strategic plans. In exploring these matters, this paper employs a revised Classical Geopolitical framework, specifically combining Spykman’s Rimland thesis with geo-economical accounts, to understand the place and role of the ‘third front’ – the Arctic - in the grand strategies of these three powers and outline possible impacts on the current regional order. Overall, given current geopolitical realities within the region and cross-cutting extra-regional grand strategic orientations of these powers, an intense rivalry over Arctic is not expected. This does not entail the maintenance of Arctic Exceptionalism, however, as a more fractured future – sub-regionalization of the Arctic into more locally continental networks of power- is a distinct possibility.