INTRODUCTION
“If you stand alone you can’t survive in the Arctic. Nature makes people and states to help each other.” -Vladimir Putin.[1]
The polar regions of the earth consist of the Arctic, a collection of ice season on one side, and the Antarctic, a terrestrial place on the other, and the idea of treating both these poles similarly in legal terms has been around for about now more than 60 years, with one reason for this being the presence of ice in both of these regions. The Treaty of Spitzbergen in 1920 laid the groundwork for Arctic governance by introducing a form of territorial sovereignty that deviated from traditional norms. Similarly, the Antarctic Treaty of 1959, while not entirely discarding state sovereignty, established the first de facto internationalized space[2]. In the Arctic, conventional sovereign control predominantly prevails, but at the regional level, the Arctic Council which was established in 1996, has a distinctive feature: it includes six Indigenous groups as ‘Permanent Participants’ whose inclusion aims to ensure their active involvement, allowing for full consultation in decision-making processes. According to Klaus Dodds, the Antarctic is a place “for experimentation in human governance,” and the Arctic is a good place to apply the same definition as well.
GOVERNANCE IN THE ARTIC
The future of the Arctic area depends on effective governance, not only for the people who live there but also for the lands and resources that are becoming more and more important to the entire world. Rising temperatures and increasing sea levels have given rise to countries seeking more stakes as it opens up new sea and shipping routes, focuses on the environment, and more ways for countries to use valuable resources of this region. The Arctic region continues to see innovation, which is the long-term trend in governance. The Arctic is at the forefront of the global search for answers to accommodate the vertical and horizontal features of an increasingly complex multilevel governance structure, as political systems and geopolitics continue to change.
Federalism plays an instrumental role in shaping governance structures within the Arctic regions. In a federal system of governance, authority is distributed among different tiers of government, encompassing a central or national government alongside diverse regional governing bodies. One disadvantage of this federal system as applied to the Arctic regions, particularly with territories like Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut in Canada, is the dependency on the federal government for significant funding and support. The differences in status between territories and provinces within the federal system can create disparities in the level of support, resources, and opportunities available to the Arctic regions. This can lead to inequalities in terms of economic development, infrastructure, and social services compared to more established provinces, impacting the overall growth and well-being of these northern territories. [3]
Consensual democracy is a common term used to describe the government form used by the Nordic countries of Northern Europe, which include Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark (including Greenland), and Iceland. This system, which serves as the basis for democratic behaviors that are voluntary, depends on a significant level of political, economic, and ideological coherence within any nation or society. The consensual democracy model allows for cooperation and collaboration among various stakeholders, fostering dialogue and partnership in decision-making. In the Arctic context, where diverse interests, including those of Indigenous communities like the Sámi people, are at play, consensual democracy can facilitate inclusive governance by allowing different voices to be heard. However, consensual democracy within unitary systems does have limitations. While it may grant a degree of autonomy to regions and communities, these powers can be overridden or reasserted by the national government.[4]
In the post-Soviet era, the Arctic and Northern regions of Russia experienced a shift in autonomy. Initially granted significant independence, these areas challenged federal authority, leading to the “parade of sovereignties.” However, during the Putin era, governance was centralized through federal districts, dispersing authority away from the North. This eroded their autonomy, forcing compliance with directives from distant district capitals. There were efforts to merge autonomous areas with larger, southern regions that aimed to consolidate control over the resource-rich Arctic expanse. This centralization significantly reduced the Arctic’s self-governance, impeding its influence on decisions vital to its development. Despite intending to simplify governance, these measures have marginalized the Northern territories, hindering their socio-economic progress within the broader context of Russia’s federal system.[5]
GEOPOLITICS WITHIN ANTARCTICA
The Antarctic continent remained undiscovered until the early 19th century when explorers from various nations first encountered its shores, marking the revelation of the Antarctic Peninsula, known by different names among different countries. Formal territorial claims commenced in 1908 when Britain staked its claim, followed by New Zealand, France, Australia, Norway, Chile, and Argentina in subsequent years.[6]
In the realm of international law governing territorial claims, the Antarctic presents a unique challenge, where among customary bases for claiming territory, only the premise of discovery combined with effective occupation holds any validity in the Antarctic context, shaping the intricate legal landscape surrounding territorial assertions in the region. The 1959 Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) emphasized the use of science to facilitate peaceful and cooperative exploration, notably reinforcing the intent that Antarctica shall continue to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes. The treaty temporarily silenced territorial claims and marked a shift in the balance of power around the South Pole, reflecting changing dynamics and the evolution of global interests in Antarctica. However, today contemporary geopolitical dynamics reveal a contrasting reality. Nations such as Argentina and the UK maintain a military presence in the Antarctic mainland, raising concerns about non-disclosure or potential military-related activities under the guise of civilian missions. [7]Additionally, the pristine Antarctic skies, ideal for scientific research and satellite tracking, have become a point of contention due to their potential for covert surveillance and control of offensive weapons systems, hinting at imperial interests overriding the spirit of the treaty. This shift highlights a worrisome trend where countries leverage scientific exploration to advance military objectives, challenging the peace-promoting ethos of the international treaty and undermining efforts to uphold peace and environmental protection in the Antarctic region.
CONCLUSION
At the onset of the essay, Putin’s emphasis on unity and collaboration in challenging Arctic environments contrasts starkly with his governance strategy for the region. While advocating for cooperation, his policies leaned toward centralized authority, which potentially curtailed the independence of Arctic regions. Thus, this contradiction serves as a critical point for reflection on the intricacies of governance in challenging environments such as of these polar regions. It prompts considerations on the alignment between rhetoric and action, emphasizing the delicate balance required between centralized control and regional autonomy in fostering the collaboration and mutual assistance essential for navigating the complexities of the Arctic and Antarctic region effectively.
Author(s) Name: Rhea Agnihotri (OP Jindal Global University)
Reference(s):
[1]‘Stakeholders in the Arctic and Their Diplomatic Arrangements’ (Ebrary2015) <https://ebrary.net/268752/political_science/stakeholders_arctic_their_diplomatic_arrangements> accessed 5 January 2024
[2]Larsen J and Fondahl G, ‘Arctic Human Development Report Regional Processes and Global Linkages’ <https://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:788965/FULLTEXT03.pdf> accessed 5 January 2024
[3]Larsen J and Fondahl G, ‘Arctic Human Development Report Regional Processes and Global Linkages’ <https://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:788965/FULLTEXT03.pdf>
[4]Larsen J and Fondahl G, ‘Arctic Human Development Report Regional Processes and Global Linkages’ <https://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:788965/FULLTEXT03.pdf>
[5]‘Sovereignty Is the Key to Russia’s Arctic Policy – Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO)’ (@PRIOresearchJuly 2013) <https://www.prio.org/publications/7054> accessed 5 January 2024
[6]‘The Geopolitics of the Antarctic: The Land Is Free for Scientific Work but Its Wealth of Minerals Has Excited Imperialist Claims on JSTOR’ (Jstor.org2024)<https://www.jstor.org/stable/3486143?read-now=1&seq=7#page_scan_tab_contents> accessed 5 January 2024
[7]Teller M, ‘Why Do so Many Nations Want a Piece of Antarctica?’ (BBC News19 June 2014) <https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27910375> accessed 5 January 2024
