The Arctic as a boundary object: who negotiates Arctic governance?
The contribution proposes a novel theoretical synthesis between recent Arctic scholarship, which draws on English School concepts and ‘third wave’ constructivist norms research to analyse the ‘boundary practices’ prevailing in Arctic governance. Through the boundary concept, the article draws attent...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Oxford University Press
2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/171390/ https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/171390/1/CG_IA-Mar-2004-0257_R1%20Hansen-Magnusson%20and%20Gehrke%20full%20version%20with%20all%20refs_updated%20main%20file.docx.pdf |
| Summary: | The contribution proposes a novel theoretical synthesis between recent Arctic scholarship, which draws on English School concepts and ‘third wave’ constructivist norms research to analyse the ‘boundary practices’ prevailing in Arctic governance. Through the boundary concept, the article draws attention to a host of intergovernmental and interparliamentary institutions engaged in shaping practices linked to the ‘responsibility to freeze’, referring to efforts to mitigate the impact of climate change on the region’s inhabitants and beyond. Based on participant observation and policy and institutional document analyses generated between 2021–2023, the article argues that the web of Arctic governance might undergo a reconfiguration. Having previously withstood the pressures of geopolitical crises originating outside the region, the governance web is now overshadowed by recent geopolitical developments, potentially triggering a recalibration of the political centre away from the Arctic Council and towards other fora. This would raise new questions of responsibility, accountability, and authority – all of which may negatively affect marginalised decision-makers holding prominent roles in the current governance setup, such as Indigenous communities. Going forward, although Arctic boundary work remains collaborative, the fragmentation and associated multiple loyalties limit the extent to which geopolitical fallout can be reconciled with tackling the biggest issue affecting the planet – climate change. |
|---|