About the Publication
12/12/2024
Keeping the Arctic Council alive
Summary
A new study of state (de)legitimation of the Arctic Council provides insights and recommendations on how to sustain the effectiveness of international environmental cooperation. In this Mistra Geopolitics policy brief, Nicholas Olczak from Stockholm University gives key insights and draw conclusions from a recent scientific study, published by Cambridge University Press.
The recent study, examines the legitimation and delegitimation of the Arctic Council. It points to policies that global governance organizations can take to ensure their ongoing effectiveness, including producing more targeted self-legitimation, working to build trust between members, and increasing connection between different international organizations (IOs).
Power relations between states – geopolitical turmoil
The Russian invasion of Ukraine in the spring of 2022 presented a sizeable geopolitical shock to the workings of the Arctic Council, one of the main institutions established to provide environmental governance over the Arctic. Responding to the invasion, which was carried out by an Arctic Council member state, the other members of the organization – Canada, Finland, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the US – chose to temporarily suspend its operations. At the time, Russia was the chair of the Council, and it continued its program with participation from other countries.
Since then, and particularly after Norway took over the Arctic Council chair in May 2023, there have been considerable efforts to resume at least some of the work of the organization. However, the suspension of the Arctic Council has brought to the surface numerous pressing, almost existential, questions about its future. How can the Arctic Council manage to continue to operate effectively in a region increasingly beset by geopolitical tensions, with or without the Russian involvement?
Key messages
- The United States and China engage in both extensive legitimation and delegitimation of the Arctic Council at specific times.
- Their de-legitimation of the Arctic Council was driven by growing security tensions and breakdown of trust.
- The Arctic Council can take several measures to protect itself from challenges to its legitimacy from this kind of state delegitimation.
Recommendations
Nicholas Olczak from Stockholm University gives recommendation from the study, arguing that organizations should:
- Engage in targeted self-legitimation which aims to address those situations when states frequently produce delegitimation.
- Work to build trust between different member states/participants in organizations (particularly those with tense relations, such as the US and China).
- Work to enhance connections between different environmental IOs and processes, to produce positive spillover effects of the kind found in this study. It was found that when there are positive developments within broader climate change governance, this leads states to produce more legitimation of the Arctic Council.
Authors of this publication
