Keeping the Arctic ‘Cold’: The Rise of Plurilateral Diplomacy?
| Published date | 01 November 2013 |
| Author | Corneliu Bjola |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12075 |
| Date | 01 November 2013 |
Keeping the Arctic ‘Cold’: The Rise of
Plurilateral Diplomacy?
Corneliu Bjola
University of Oxford
Abstract
At a time when the Arctic region faces significant climatic transformations, a triple governance gap threatens to fuel
major diplomatic tensions among regional actors over natural resources, navigation rights and fishery management.
This article argues that a plurilateral diplomatic approach could help close these gaps by establishing an effective ‘web
of contracts’involving institutional networks defined around the Arctic Council as the central node of Arctic gover-
nance and NATO, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP) / the Global Environment Facility (GEF) as supporting agencies. In so doing, the article makes a twofold contri-
bution to the literature on global governance. It explains how governance gaps could be closed in a manner that does
not require extensive institutional frameworks or rigid legal mandates, and it highlights the role of institutional net-
works in sustaining regional and global governance.
Policy Implications
•As multilateralism and bilateralism are being increasingly outpaced by the complexity and urgency of the 21
st
-cen-
tury governance challenges, plurilateral diplomacy proves a better method of closing global governance gaps due
to its flexibility, effectiveness and capacity for quick reaction.
•Plurilateral arrangements are particularly useful when there is little political interest in forging multilateral agree-
ments and when the governance gaps can be closed by drawing on the complementary competences of existing
institutions with strong logistics, experience and know-how in the field.
•The worsening diplomatic frictions in the Arctic regarding the control of natural resources, navigation rights and
fishery management could be addressed by developing plurilateral connections between the Arctic Council, on the
one side, and NATO, the IMO and UNDP/GEF on the other.
Against the backdrop of steady environmental transfor-
mation, the situation in the Arctic is attracting increased
diplomatic attention as issues of access, control, property
rights and resource use are set to challenge the gover-
nance of the global commons in the Arctic. The scramble
for resources has already increased anxiety in the region:
NATO sources are getting worried about the potential for
armed conflict between the Alliance and Russia (Jones
and Watts, 2011); Canada and Russia have been testing
each other’s resolve to defend their territorial claims in
the Arctic (CBCNews, 2010); the US has been anxiously
watching the Chinese diplomatic efforts to secure toe-
holds in the region (Rosenthal, 2012); meanwhile, the
international race for resources in the frozen wastes of
the Arctic has brought down the first national govern-
ment of Greenland (Macalister, 2013).
The empirical evidence showing that something seri-
ous is taking place climatically in the Arctic is becoming
harder to refute scientifically and to ignore politically.
According to the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), ‘satellite data since 1978
show that annual average Arctic sea ice extent has
shrunk by 2.7 [2.1 to 3.3] per cent per decade, with lar-
ger decreases in summer of 7.4 [5.0 to 9.8] per cent per
decade’(IPCC, 2007, p. 30). In line with the past decade’s
trend, the Arctic sea ice fell below 4 million km
2
(1.54
million square miles) on 4 September 2012, the smallest
value since the start of satellite observations in 1972 (Rin-
con, 2012). The results suggest that the Arctic region
may soon enter a new climatic era, if it has not already
done so. Climate modelling indicates that the melting of
the Arctic ice sheet is only a matter of when, not if. In
fact, the Arctic could be ice-free as early as the end of
this decade (Leitzell, 2011). While climate change in the
Arctic is increasingly perceived to have important conse-
quences for regional and international stability, the scope
and magnitude of these consequences remain a point of
dispute. For some, the economic and security implica-
Global Policy (2013) 4:4 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12075 ©2013 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Global Policy Volume 4 . Issue 4 . November 2013 347
Research Article
To continue reading
Request your trial