Arctic Policy Considerations for Scottish Independence
The ongoing effects of climate change on the Arctic environment raises the geopolitical importance of the Arctic and nearby regions, such as the broader High North. With deteriorating relations between Russia and much of the international community, changes to international borders in these regions...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Text |
| Language: | unknown |
| Published: |
University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons
2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/oclj/vol29/iss2/12 https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/context/oclj/article/1441/viewcontent/vol29_oclj_415.pdf |
| Summary: | The ongoing effects of climate change on the Arctic environment raises the geopolitical importance of the Arctic and nearby regions, such as the broader High North. With deteriorating relations between Russia and much of the international community, changes to international borders in these regions would undoubtedly be a concern for those with Arctic interests. Consequently, due to Scotland’s location in the world, the legal analysis surrounding any Scottish claim to external self-determination under international law would include Arctic considerations. Following a review of the Artic policy priorities of the U.K. and Scottish governments, and each government's involvement in developing those policies, this Comment provides a broad discussion of the Arctic’s role in the analysis. On one side of the analysis, this Comment concludes that differences in Arctic policy priorities between Scotland and the U.K. adds some weight, albeit insufficient on its own, to support Scottish claims. On the other side, this Comment concludes that differences in military and security policy represent the potential disruption of the status quo, causing key nations like the U.S. and other NATO countries to view Scottish independence as a possible threat to the maintenance of international security. Given Scotland’s geostrategic importance to NATO in deterring and responding to Russian aggression, this alleged security threat could be sufficient to outweigh any factual considerations supporting a Scottish external self-determination claim under international law assuming the region will remain unstable. Therefore, in the event Scotland unilaterally secedes from the U.K., this Comment recommends that Scottish claims should diminish these security concerns and emphasize how the differences in Arctic policies between Scotland and the U.K. prevents Scotland from pursuing its political, economic, cultural and social development. |
|---|