Sovereignty as an economical and geographic phenomenon (employing trends in the development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation)

• Published in: Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Earth Sciences
• Main Author: Pilyasov, A. N.
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: Russian
• Published: St Petersburg State University 2017
• Subjects: Sovereignty; trends in the development of the Arctic zone; economic-geography approach; support zone of the Arctic; Arctic
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu07.2017.305; http://hdl.handle.net/11701/8989

A departure from the legal interpretation of the sovereignty of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation allows one to draw the tools and information resources of other Sciences into studying this concept. The author believes that economic geography can make a significant contribution. An economicgeographical approach to the problem of national sovereignty in the Arctic puts it in the context of space (the sovereignty of which is questioned), which is atomized on a micro-level of municipalities (districts and cities) and rural and urban settlements. The protection of their sovereignty is connected with the implementation of investment projects, livelihood of local communities, preservation of the traditional economy and way of life, territories of traditional residence and natural use of indigenous peoples, ongoing research (stationary and expedition) activities in the territory. The author suggests an understanding of sovereignty as a process, which has a different value (which changes) in specific periods of time. This approach is illustrated by two periods in the development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation: 2010–2013 and 2014–2017. The first period can be called a time of “exogenous” developments, when the question of the sovereignty of the Arctic territories and waters of Russia approved in the coordinates of the active international cooperation with other Arctic countries on all possible negotiating forums. The second period saw a radical change in the entire instrumentation of Arctic sovereignty in favor of domestic investment focus on large mining and infrastructure projects, land and transition zone “land-sea” and defense mobilization in the Arctic Islands and coastal areas. Refs 17. Tables 3.