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

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 thes...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Polar Record
Main Author: Young, Oran R.
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Cambridge University Press (CUP) 2002
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0032247400017976
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0032247400017976
id crcambridgeupr:10.1017/s0032247400017976
record_format openpolar
spelling crcambridgeupr:10.1017/s0032247400017976 2024-03-03T08:40:21+00:00 Can the Arctic Council and the Northern Forum find common ground? Young, Oran R. 2002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0032247400017976 https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0032247400017976 en eng Cambridge University Press (CUP) https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms Polar Record volume 38, issue 207, page 289-296 ISSN 0032-2474 1475-3057 General Earth and Planetary Sciences Ecology Geography, Planning and Development journal-article 2002 crcambridgeupr https://doi.org/10.1017/s0032247400017976 2024-02-08T08:49:17Z 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. Article in Journal/Newspaper Arctic Council Arctic Polar Record Cambridge University Press Arctic Polar Record 38 207 289 296
institution Open Polar
collection Cambridge University Press
op_collection_id crcambridgeupr
language English
topic General Earth and Planetary Sciences
Ecology
Geography, Planning and Development
spellingShingle General Earth and Planetary Sciences
Ecology
Geography, Planning and Development
Young, Oran R.
Can the Arctic Council and the Northern Forum find common ground?
topic_facet General Earth and Planetary Sciences
Ecology
Geography, Planning and Development
description 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.
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Young, Oran R.
author_facet Young, Oran R.
author_sort Young, Oran R.
title Can the Arctic Council and the Northern Forum find common ground?
title_short Can the Arctic Council and the Northern Forum find common ground?
title_full Can the Arctic Council and the Northern Forum find common ground?
title_fullStr Can the Arctic Council and the Northern Forum find common ground?
title_full_unstemmed Can the Arctic Council and the Northern Forum find common ground?
title_sort can the arctic council and the northern forum find common ground?
publisher Cambridge University Press (CUP)
publishDate 2002
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0032247400017976
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0032247400017976
geographic Arctic
geographic_facet Arctic
genre Arctic Council
Arctic
Polar Record
genre_facet Arctic Council
Arctic
Polar Record
op_source Polar Record
volume 38, issue 207, page 289-296
ISSN 0032-2474 1475-3057
op_rights https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1017/s0032247400017976
container_title Polar Record
container_volume 38
container_issue 207
container_start_page 289
op_container_end_page 296
_version_ 1792496061639557120