| Summary: | This paper is an attempt to answer the question “could there be conflict – in particular, armed conflict – in the Arctic over disputed territory and claims of sovereignty?” In recent years, as climate change has thawed the ice in the northern regions, the prospect of new shipping lanes through once ice-locked corridors, as well as the prospect of access to new oil, gas, and mineral reserves, has led some scholars to believe that conflict could erupt as nations scramble to carve up one of Earth’s remaining ‘frontiers.’ While other scholars have debated the merits of these observations, few have undertaken a rigorous methodological approach that seeks to gauge the likelihood of conflict. This paper is thus an attempt to forge ground in making predictive analysis regarding this question. Using both historical qualitative analysis and statistical methods, I reach two conclusions: first, despite some scholars’ forbidding portrayals of the ineluctable coming strife over the Arctic, my research demonstrates that the likelihood of conflict is rather low. Cooperation, not conflict, is the most likely trend for Arctic diplomacy within the foreseeable future. And second, contrary to popular perceptions in the West, it is Canada, not Russia, who has demonstrated the highest relative likelihood of promoting conflict in the future among the nation-states evaluated.
|
|---|