Summary

Governance institutions such as the Arctic Council face ongoing (de)legitimation that impacts the broader legitimacy beliefs which enable them to govern effectively. This article by Nicholas Olczak at Stockholm University studies variation in discursive (de)legitimation of the Arctic Council by the United States and China and is published by Cambridge University Press.

This article asked how discursive (de)legitimation of the Arctic Council by two key states, the US and China, varies over time, and how this variation is related to global political developments.

Research about the US and China’s approaches to Arctic governance

The Arctic is changing rapidly due to climate change, leading to increased economic activity in the region. As the ice melts, it increases the potential for resource extraction in the region and for global states to utilise shorter polar shipping routes as an alternative to the Suez Canal. This means the Arctic and its governance institutions are attracting increased attention from states across the world, including the major Asian states.

Mapping of the US and China’s statements between 2010 and 2022 revealed that both engage in extensive (de)legitimation of the Arctic Council.

Environmental developments can be divided into environmental changes and political responses to these changes. For institutions providing environmental governance, it can be expected that changes to the environment (particularly climate change) will contribute to shaping the (de)legitimation that states direct towards them.

Key messages

• Mapping of the US and China’s statements between 2010 and 2022 revealed that both engage in extensive (de)legitimation of the Arctic Council.
• China produced 358 legitimation and 82 delegitimation statements in 309 documents.
• The US produced 507 legitimation and 62 delegitimation statements in 223 documents.
• Both states produced a combination of legitimation and delegitimation across the period, but supportive statements far outnumbered negative evaluations.

Conclusion

This article found that both states produced extensive (de)legitimation of the Arctic Council over time. They also varied considerably in the intensity of this, each displaying a distinct pattern of increases/decreases in legitimation and delegitimation. This might challenge arguments about consistent support by the US and declining support and increasing challenge from China, providing a more complex picture of the two states’ shifting engagement.

Watch video

Citation and funder

Olczak N. Variation in states’ discursive (de)legitimation of international institutions: The case of the Arctic Council. Review of International Studies. Published online 2024:1-30. doi:10.1017/S0260210524000664

Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The British International Studies Association. This article is a deliverable of the Mistra Geopolitics programme, funded by MISTRA – the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research.