0
0
The Arctic Council faces constant challenges to its authority by influential players on the international stage. A new study by Nicholas Olczak, postdoctoral researcher at The Stockholm Center on Global Governance, Stockholm University, reveals how the United States and China have shifted between supporting and undermining the Council over a decade, depending on their current political priorities.
Sleeping whale at dawn in the Arctic of Greenland. Photo: Liubov Sharova © Mostphotos
Note: In this article, Nicholas Olczak’s responses are referred to as “NO” (e.g., NO:).
What are the key findings of your recent study?
NO: “The study made two main findings.
- First, it found that over time the US and China vary greatly in the amount they say to increase, and also to decrease, people’s beliefs about the legitimacy of the Arctic Council. While people usually expect the US to largely bolster the legitimacy of the Arctic Council, and China to challenge its legitimacy, the study found that this was not really the case.
- Second, it found that the amount that the US and China said to increase or decrease people’s beliefs was connected with political developments taking place around the world. Developments in global environmental politics made both the US and China produce greater numbers of statements that boosted the Arctic Council’s legitimacy. Meanwhile, increasing security tensions between countries made both of them produce more statements which challenged the organization’s legitimacy.”
Nicholas Olczak, postdoctoral researcher, SCGG Photo: Swedish Institute of International Affairs, UI
Why is it important to keep the Arctic Council’s work alive?
NO: “The Arctic is changing rapidly. Global climate change means the region is warming at four times the global average, leading to extensive melting of the Arctic sea ice. This melting ice is creating new economic opportunities in the region, with a northern shipping route increasingly possible, as well as extraction of resources in areas of seabed previously covered over by ice sheets. Countries from all across the world are eager to benefit from these new opportunities.
“Global climate change means the region is warming at four times the global average, leading to extensive melting of the Arctic sea ice”
At the same time, the region, which has long been an exceptional ‘zone of peace’ is increasingly involved in geopolitical tensions between different countries. Managing these extensive changes, and ensuring that they do not lead to open conflict or harmful consequences, requires forms of governance that are inclusive and widely supported by different stakeholders. The Arctic Council, established in 1996 with this role in mind, remains the primary institution for providing governance over this region. It is also an organization which, through its system of granting observer status to different countries and organizations, draws together almost all of the main stakeholders involved in the region.”
How have actions by the US and China, in legitimizing or delegitimizing the Arctic Council, influenced its ability to govern?
NO: “Research has increasingly shown that governance organizations, such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and also the Arctic Council need a high level of legitimacy in the eyes of different audiences in order to operate effectively. If the organizations lack this kind of broader social legitimacy, then people will not comply with rules made and measures taken by them.
“Governance organizations need a high level of legitimacy in the eyes of different audiences in order to operate effectively”
When an organization does not have this legitimacy, people will not support representatives from their country participating in the activities carried out by this organization. The things which the US and China say about the Arctic Council will be received by wider audiences, both domestically within the two countries and overseas in other countries, and can potentially impact on the extent to which members of these audiences believe in the legitimacy of the organization.”
Arctic region countries and North Pole political map with national borders and country names. Arctic ocean without sea ice. English labeling and scaling. Illustration. Photo: Peter Hermes Furian © Mostphotos
Why would the delegitimation of the non-member state China matter to the Council’s work?
NO: “Although China is not an Arctic Council member state, it has participated in the organization as an ad-hoc observer since 2007 and it obtained ‘permanent’ observer status in 2013. This means that its participation with the organization’s activities to govern the Arctic are quite significant. The views which the Chinese government and the country’s public hold about the Arctic Council are therefore important.
At the same time, statements that this influential country makes about the Arctic Council could also potentially affect the views of individuals in other countries. This means that if China engages in a lot of delegitimation of the Arctic Council, or makes statements which could decrease people’s belief in the appropriateness of the organization, this could have a large impact on overall.”
What role could the Arctic Council play in improving international environmental cooperation?
NO: “The Arctic is intimately connected to global climate change. It is both a region suffering the effects of climate change to a heightened degree and a place where carrying out of scientific research can help us all to better understand this phenomenon. This means that cooperation on climate change in the Arctic, through the Arctic Council, is a very important part of the bigger picture of international environmental cooperation.
“Cooperation on climate change in the Arctic, through the Arctic Council, is a very important part of the bigger picture of international environmental cooperation”
The Arctic Council has already played a major role in bringing about such cooperation. It has drawn together countries and other actors from across the world, including its eight member states, permanent participants, and observers. Getting these to engage in routine cooperation, it has achieved tangible results. These include production of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment and the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment, both influential studies. The Arctic Council has also served as the platform for the negotiation of three treaties – on search and rescue, oil pollution preparedness and response, and scientific cooperation – which have all been signed and entered into force.”
What are your key messages and recommendations for the Arctic Council’s future work?
NO: “The study’s findings point to different measures which policymakers involved in the Arctic Council, or other governance organizations, could take in order to sustain the broader legitimacy of the organization and ensure their ongoing effectiveness.
- First, they suggest that governance organizations should at certain times produce ‘self-legitimation’ where they make positive statements about their work. This could address those situations when countries produce a lot of statements which threaten to decrease people’s belief in the appropriateness of the organization.
- Second, the findings suggest that governance organizations should work to build trust between different countries that are participants in their activities, and particularly between those countries with tense relations such as the US and China. The findings of the study showed that when there is a lack of trust between these countries, they will make more statements which challenge the legitimacy of the organization, potentially damaging broader beliefs about it.
- Third, the findings indicate that governance organizations should work to enhance connections between different kinds of environmental organizations. They showed that when these connections exist there are often spillover effects where positive developments related to one organization add up to positive views of other organizations as well.”
In the policy brief accompanying the study published in the Review of International Studies (RIS), Cambridge University Press, Nicholas Olczak provides several key messages and recommendations.
Policy brief: Keeping the Arctic Council alive
Further information
What is legitimacy?
Legitimacy can be seen as the beliefs that people have that a governance organization is appropriate. It is people’s beliefs that this organization is the right actor to carry out a particular job. There has been a lot of research showing that, in order to operate effectively, governance organizations such as the Arctic Council need a high level of legitimacy in the eyes of different audiences. Different actors including the governments of countries around the world can do things that affect people’s legitimacy beliefs about these organizations, engaging in what are called practices of legitimation and delegitimation.
Geopolitical Impacts on State and Stakeholder Views on Arctic Governance
The article “Variation in states’ discursive (de)legitimation of international institutions” was part of the research project “Geopolitical Impacts on State and Stakeholder Views on Arctic Governance”, led by Lisa Dellmuth, Professor of International Relations at Stockholm University and Co-director of the Stockholm Center on Global Governance.
Learn more about the project
This publication is a deliverable of Mistra Geopolitics phase II, research theme Sustainable Oceans. Mistra Geopolitics is hosted by Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) and funded by MISTRA – the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research.
Get to know Nicholas Olczak: Key facts
Nicholas Olczak is a postdoctoral researcher at the Stockholm Center on Global Governance (SCGG), and is based at the Department of Economic History and International Relations, both at Stockholm University. He is also associated with the Asia Programme at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs (UI).
Learn more about Olczak’s research
Average Rating