Explaining Arctic peace: a human heritage perspective
| Author | Beverly Kay Crawford |
| Date | 01 September 2021 |
| DOI | 10.1177/00471178211036782 |
| Published date | 01 September 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178211036782
International Relations
2021, Vol. 35(3) 469 –488
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00471178211036782
journals.sagepub.com/home/ire
Explaining Arctic peace: a
human heritage perspective
Beverly Kay Crawford
University of California, Berkeley, USA
Abstract
The Arctic is on fire. Warmed by the world’s soaring greenhouse gases, its ice cap is melting,
and it is heating twice as fast as the rest of the planet, deepening the earth’s climate crisis. As its
ice thaws, buried resources, trade routes, and new tourist opportunities are suddenly accessible.
The borders of the earth’s two largest nuclear rivals, the US and Russia are less than 3 miles
apart in the Arctic region and their hostility is growing. Seeking new trade routes and investment
opportunities and rapidly rising above its rank as the earth’s third most powerful country, China,
has declared itself a ‘near Arctic state’ and is exercising a voice in Arctic affairs. Russia and
Arctic NATO members have expanded their military presence in the far North. Despite potential
tensions and rapidly melting ice, there is no effective overarching governing regime in the region
that can mitigate the climate crisis or manage conflicts were they to arise. Nonetheless, the
Arctic remains free of interstate violence. The explanation for the absence of violent conflict
cannot be found in traditional International Relations (IR) Theories. Looking below the radar of
IR theory and expanding the Human Heritage approach, I show that the region contains a web
of overlapping local, regional, national, and pan-Arctic institutions and agreements, built on both
traditional and Western knowledge and often steered by indigenous knowledge holders in Arctic
governance. This informal web of governing regimes manages Arctic resources to protect human
heritage and guard human security. In doing so, it creates a cooperative environment which
guides dispute settlement among Arctic states. It is the power of these networks, their normative
commitments, and the knowledge that informs them that help to explain the absence of violent
interstate conflict in the region.
Keywords
Arctic, global commons, indigenous peoples, Russia, TEK, US
Corresponding author:
Beverly Kay Crawford, University of California, Berkeley, 210 Barrows Hall, Berkeley, CA 94703, USA.
Email: bev@berkeley.edu
1036782IRE0010.1177/00471178211036782International RelationsCrawford
research-article2021
Article
470 International Relations 35(3)
Introduction
The Arctic is on fire. Warmed by the world’s soaring greenhouse gas emissions, its ice
cap is melting, and it is heating twice as fast as the rest of the planet. As its ice thaws,
buried resources, trade routes and new tourist opportunities are suddenly accessible.
Seeking new trade routes and investment opportunities, China has declared itself a ‘near
Arctic state’ and seeks to exercise a voice in regional affairs. Some coastal Arctic states
even seek territorial extensions into the Arctic Sea. Russia pushed its territorial boundary
almost to the North Pole, a designated global commons area, off limits to all countries.
Quarrels among Arctic states involve fishing rights, disputes over the continental shelf,
and jurisdiction over the seabed in the Central Arctic Ocean. Arctic countries have
expanded their military presence. While the region holds global commons resources nec-
essary for the existence of all life on earth, there is no effective overarching governing
regime that can mitigate the climate crisis or manage conflicts were they to arise.
Nonetheless, despite current hostility between the West and Russia, tension between the
West and China, and intermittent land, sea, and resource disputes, the Arctic remains free
of interstate violence. Some pundits have suggested that this is ‘exceptional’,1 in the
sense that in other world areas, these changes and disputes might lead to violent conflict.
What accounts for the absence of dangerous interstate violence and regional cooperation
in the absence of an overarching Arctic governing regime?
The search for answers to this question is theoretically significant, empirically impor-
tant, and policy relevant. The borders of the earth’s two largest nuclear rivals, the US and
Russia are less than 3 miles apart. China, rapidly rising above its rank as the earth’s third
most powerful country, declares itself to be a ‘near-Arctic state’ with international rights
to traverse Arctic waters. But its coveted trade routes lie within the territorial control of
sovereign nations who protest China’s intrusion. Although this may be a recipe for con-
flict, as yet no conflict has emerged. Moreover, traditional IR theories fail to provide an
explanation for regional cooperation in numerous issue areas and the continued absence
of violence. While some scholars and practitioners have made the empirical connection
between the challenges of melting ice, economic competition, and territorial and resource
disputes,2 few have puzzled over the continued absence of Arctic violence. With notable
exceptions,3 even fewer have offered viable governance solutions for the region. None
have noted how current Arctic arrangements preserve human heritage and natural
resources and provide mechanisms to tamp down related conflicts among Arctic actors.
Long shrouded behind an ‘icy curtain’, the Arctic has no history of requiring or seek-
ing regional integration under a common regime. Nonetheless, I will argue here that
while eschewing overarching governance, the Arctic is ruled by networks of overlapping
local regimes and states engaged in environmental co-management, economic develop-
ment, scientific and security cooperation, and more. These networks alone cannot stop
ice from melting. But they play an outsized role in protecting the environment and shap-
ing the nature of cooperation and peaceful settlement of disputes throughout the region.
I look to these governance networks and their membership to develop a perspective that
contributes to an understanding of the absence of violence. This study therefore has cru-
cial relevance, not only for policies to confront environmental threats and preserve
‘human heritage’, but also for national and regional peace and stability.
To continue reading
Request your trial