Agenda-shaping in the Arctic Council: Projecting national agendas in a consensus-based regime
Traditionally, literature on formal leadership has neglected the role of the chairmanship held by states in interstate fora, with several arguing that such an administrative position is of no importance to the country that holds it. However, Jonas Tallberg (2003a, 2006, 2010) argues that the chairma...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Master Thesis |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2015
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10852/45355 http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-49552 |
| Summary: | Traditionally, literature on formal leadership has neglected the role of the chairmanship held by states in interstate fora, with several arguing that such an administrative position is of no importance to the country that holds it. However, Jonas Tallberg (2003a, 2006, 2010) argues that the chairmanship possesses an arsenal of means, which can be used to secure a state´s national interests. The agenda-shaping powers of the chair enable a state to set the agenda, structure the agenda according to its own national interests, while also excluding items that do not coincide with state goals. Tallberg´s framework has not, to my knowledge, been applied to a non-decision-making and consensus-based institution such as the Arctic Council. In this thesis, I seek to investigate the power resources available to the chair of the Arctic Council, and ask: How, and to what degree did Norway and Canada project their Arctic national agendas through holding the chairmanship position of the Arctic Council? I use Tallberg´s conceptual framework on two separate qualitative case studies of the Norwegian and Canadian chairmanship period in the Arctic Council (respectively from 2006 to 2009 and 2013 to 2015). Based on qualitative interviews, and literature studies, I find that Tallberg´s theoretical framework also has explanatory power in studies of fora where the chairmanship is not equipped with decision-making power, and that the chairs in the Arctic Council have room to maneuver, due to their ability to develop new practices, set the agenda, and structure it according to their national interests. Both Norway and Canada explicitly used the position to project their national interests; however, this process manifested itself in different manners. While Canada showed less constraint in using the position for domestic gain, Norway acted in a more discrete manner, but still managed to secure deals of long-term value, which they would not have reached without the chairmanship position. Furthermore, the analytical insight and tools used in this thesis could prove useful for the study of other chairmanship periods in the Arctic Council. |
|---|