Hostname: page-component-669899f699-vbsjw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-27T04:09:39.980Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can the Arctic Council and the Northern Forum find common ground?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

Oran R. Young
Oran R. Young
Affiliation:
Institute of Arctic Studies, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, USA Email: oran.young@dartmouth.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (the forerunner of the Arctic Council) and the Northern Forum are both products of the sea change in Arctic politics occurring in the wake of the end of the Cold War. Both are soft law arrangements and both are lightly institutionalized. Yet these similarities have not provided a basis for collaboration between the Arctic Council (AC) and the Northern Forum (NF). For the most part, the two bodies have behaved like ships passing in the night. This article seeks to explain this lack of collaboration and to evaluate future prospects in this realm. The lack of collaboration is attributable in part to a number of sources of tension or fault lines, including issues relating to core-periphery relations, the concerns of indigenous peoples, divergent constituencies, the Russian connection, and bureaucratic politics and the complexities of political leadership. In part, it stems from ambiguities about the status of the AC and the NF combined with restrictions on the roles these bodies can play. There is little prospect of combining the two bodies into a more comprehensive Arctic regime. But there are opportunities to devise a realistic division of labor and to develop useful coordination mechanisms. The AC, for example, is the appropriate vehicle for efforts to strengthen the voice of the Arctic regarding global issues; the NF is well-suited to dealing with matters of community viability. Ultimately, the two bodies might consider creating a joint working group on sustainable development or organizing occasional joint meetings of the AC's Senior Arctic Officials and the NF's Executive Committee.

Type
Articles
Information
Polar Record , Volume 38 , Issue 207 , October 2002 , pp. 289 - 296
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alvarez, A. 2001. Ice capades. The New York Review of Books 48 (13): 14–17.Google Scholar
AMAP. 1997. Arctic pollution issues: a state of the Arctic environment report. Oslo: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme.Google Scholar
Arctic Council Panel. 1991. To establish an International Arctic Council. Framework report prepared by the Arctic Council Panel, chaired by Franklyn Griffiths and Rosemarie Kuptana. Ottawa: Canadian Arctic Resources Committee.Google Scholar
Beck, P.J. 1986. The international politics of Antarctica. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Berger, T.R. 1988. Northern frontier, northern homeland: the report of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry. Revised and abridged. Vancouver: Douglas and Mclntyre.Google Scholar
CAFF. 1996. Circumpolar Protected Areas Network (CPAN)-strategy and action plan. Trondheim: Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna Working Group (CAFF Habitat Conservation Report 6).Google Scholar
CAFF. 2001. Arctic flora and fauna: status and conservation. Helsinki: Edita.Google Scholar
Griffiths, F. 1988. Introduction: the Arctic as an international political region. In: Mottola, K. (editor). The Arctic challenge. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 1–14.Google Scholar
Joyner, C.C. 1998. Governing the frozen commons: the Antarctic regime and environmental protection. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Office of Technology Assessment. 1995. Nuclear wastes in the Arctic: an analysis of Arctic and other regional impacts from Soviet nuclear contamination. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Osherenko, G., and Young, O.R.. 1989. The age of the Arctic: hot conflicts and cold realities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Scrivener, D. 1999. Arctic environmental cooperation in transition. Polar Record 35 (192): 51–58.Google Scholar
Stokke, O.S., and Tunander, O.(editors). 1994. The Barents region: cooperation in Arctic Europe. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Stokke, O.S., and Vidas, D. (editors). 1996. Governing the Antarctic: the effectiveness and legitimacy of the Antarctic Treaty System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ulfstein, G. 1995. The Svalbard Treaty: from terra nullius to Norwegian sovereignty. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
Young, O.R. 1985–1986. The age of the Arctic. Foreign Policy 61: 160–179.Google Scholar
Young, O.R. 1998. Creating regimes: Arctic accords and international governance. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Pressz.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, O.R. 1999. Governance in world affairs. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar