Njord Wegge’s research while affiliated with UiT The Arctic University of Norway and other places

Puzzled by how geographical changes in the Arctic might cause changes in state behavior the authors of this article have been inspired to return to the roots of geopolitical reasoning. By combining insights from the intellectual roots of the geopolitical tradition with empirical data on geographical changes as well as policy changes in the Arctic today, we investigate the degree to which geopolitics, in the sense of geography influencing politics, is still a useful approach in the discipline of International Relations (IR). In limiting our primary focus to the state level, and investigating the period since the turn of the millennium, this article seeks to develop new knowledge concerning if, how, and to what extent geography matters in international politics. Our empirical investigation indicates that geographical changes in the Arctic have indeed had an effect on power relations among several states. Overall, this article shows that geography is an important factor in IR in the sense of enabling or empowering state actors. However, while it appears that physical geography is a possible factor in the cases analyzed to explain changes in identified power potentials, it does not always account for these changes on its own. Economic, political, legal, and historical factors also play a role in the observed power shifts.

This article investigates China's bilateral diplomacy in the Arctic towards the USA, Canada, Denmark/Greenland, Norway, Russia, and Iceland. In seeking to identify (1) the most important bilateral issues, (2) whether China's diplomacy towards some of Arctic states has been more successful than others, and (3) the long-term goals of China's Arctic diplomacy and presence, the article utilizes insights from theories of diplomacy in IR as well as the particular historical experiences of the PRC. It concludes with identifying how Beijing's utmost concern when it comes to foreign policy still centers on promoting economic benefits and creating a global presence conducive to economic growth. Yet, while economic factors undoubtedly preoccupy Chinese decision-making in the Arctic, Chinese representatives currently speak less about economic development than about their environmental concerns. Chinese footprints in the Arctic have been adequately established primarily in the scientific research field, while commerce and multi-lateral governance are secondary. Further, it is also apparent that China has been developing contracts with the smaller Arctic powers of Denmark and Iceland (and earlier also attempted to do so with Norway) to facilitate collaborations in both Arctic research as well as economic development. With the bigger Arctic powers, such as the USA and Russia, China appears to prioritize other, more pressing bilateral issues than those pertaining solely to the Arctic.

This article seeks to identify and analyze the most important political issues at stake with respect to the ongoing process regarding the future management of living resources in the high seas of the Arctic Ocean. Through assessing the potential for future commercial utilization of marine resources in the Arctic Ocean and analyzing the differences between the interests of engaged stakeholders in the process, the article seeks to answer whose interests and norms seem to most strongly influence the unfolding political processes and preliminary outcomes. The article concludes by identifying how the five Arctic coastal states have retained the upper hand in this process through skilled political entrepreneurship, the devotion of necessary resources and the political commitment of their respective governments.

This article gives an overview of China’s interest in and approach to the Arctic region. The following questions are raised: 1.Why is China getting involved in the Arctic, 2. How is China’s engagement in the Arctic playing out? 3, What are the most important issues that need to be solved in order for China to increase its relevance and importance as a political actor and partner in the Arctic. In applying a rationalist approach when answering the research questions, I identify how China in the last few years increasingly has been accepted as a legitimate stakeholder in the Arctic, with important stakes and activities in areas such as shipping, resource utilization and environmental science. The article concludes with pointing out some issues that remain to be solved including Chinas role in issues of global politics, the role of observers in the Arctic Council as well as pointing out how China itself needs to decide important aspects of their future role in the region.

Guided by insights from international relations theory, this article investigates China’s adherence to the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), asking how Beijing’s attitude towards UNCLOS affects China’s role in Arctic governance and beyond. Examining contested Law of the Sea matters – the dispute over the “nine-dash line” in the South China Sea, the right of innocent passage of warships and the role of international arbitration – it argues that China’s compliance with UNCLOS does matter for understanding how China is perceived as a member of the international community. Further, China’s growing interests and enhanced engagement in the Arctic depend on a strong international legal framework; Arctic governance encapsulates the norms of multilateralism and rule of law. The article concludes by asking whether Chinese experiences from observing and participating in the multilateral governance of the Arctic can serve as an example of successful multilateral cooperation and peaceful conflict solution, of relevance to China also in its nearby maritime regions.

Towards the end of the last decade, the European Union passed a regulation banning seal products from the European common market. The final legislation deviated from the European Commission's more flexible proposal on key issues, and was therefore not an obvious outcome. Why did the Commission choose to support a conditional ban on seal products in the original proposal, and then why did the European Parliament later reverse the proposal in the second round. To explain the two different outcomes, the types of arguments put forward in the negotiations are analysed and their effectiveness at the different stages of the process is assessed. By identifying four ideal-types of arguments adhering to one of four logics, namely, appropriateness, justification, arguing, or consequentiality, I illustrate how arguments made following the logic of arguing were the most effective in the Commission, while arguments pertaining to a logic of appropriateness were most important in the Parliament.

COLD FRONT. CONFLICT AHEAD IN ARCTIC WATERS. DavidFairhall. 2010. London and New York: I.B.Tauris. 220 p, illustrated, hard cover. ISBN 978-1-84885-384-3. £ 18.99. - Volume 48 Issue 4 - Njord Wegge

This article raises three main questions: (i) What characterizes the EEC/EU's relationship to the Arctic? (ii) What issues/areas have caused problems for the EU in becoming a more relevant actor in the Arctic? (iii) To what degree has Norway been able to exert influence on the Union's ongoing Arctic policy development? By chronologically reviewing the EEC/EU's relationship to the Arctic the article demonstrates that the intensity and interest for the Northern region has varied dramatically from great interest to near ignorance. While the Greenlandic population in 1982, due to cultural and economic disputes, left the EEC, the Union's most recent challenges with respect to becoming a relevant actor in the Arctic has concerned disagreements with some of the Arctic states. These disputes have primarily included discord on 1. The Law of the seas' role in the Arctic, 2. the EU's desire to become a permanent observer in the Arctic Council and finally, 3. The EU's ban on seal products in the Common market. The article concludes by describing how Norway has been one, if not the most, important Arctic state for the Union, and that Norway has benefitted from a cooperative approach towards the EU. The cooperative approach has indirectly given Norway an opportunity to influence the outcome of the EU's Arctic policy.