Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Arctic Council in Transition

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Leadership for the North

Part of the book series: Springer Polar Sciences ((SPPS))

Abstract

Over the course of its twenty-year lifetime the Arctic Council (AC) has undergone a transition from a low-profile regional institution known to only but a few, to an acclaimed primary forum for circumpolar and global cooperation on issues pertaining to the Arctic. Established as a body void of most features of traditional international organization, the Council has managed to find for itself a niche among other international institutions and gradually enhanced both its structures and position, despite no change in its legal foundation and mandate. How did this process unfold? More importantly, from this contribution’s perspective, what was the role of the Arctic Council Chairmanship in this evolution? The chapter aims to address both of these questions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Arctic Economic Council https://arcticeconomiccouncil.com/, accessed on 26 June 2018.

  2. 2.

    IASC was, in fact, the first circumpolar collaboration institution, established in 1990, a year before signing the AEPS (Rogne et al. 2015; Smieszek 2017).

  3. 3.

    In result of this discord, it was decided at the Ministerial Meeting in Iqaluit in 1998 that the Sustainable Development Program would comprise of a series of specific projects (Bloom 1999), a practice that has largely prevailed until today. Only in 2017 the Sustainable Development Working Group of the Arctic Council had its first Strategic Framework developed and approved.

  4. 4.

    This was the original wording of the Ottawa Declaration. Today the usage is the Kingdom of Denmark, which denotes the fact that the Kingdom comprises in addition to Denmark, two autonomous, constituent countries, Greenland and the Faroe Islands.

  5. 5.

    Senior Arctic Officials (SAOs – formerly, under the AEPS, Senior Arctic Affairs Officials, SAAOs) are the high-ranking officials (usually at the ambassador level) who are designated by each Arctic state and meet at least twice a year. Their main task is to oversee the work of Arctic Council’s Working Groups and its other subsidiary bodies in order to ensure implementation of the mandates issued by Arctic Ministers at the biennial Arctic Council’s Ministerial Meetings.

  6. 6.

    Originally, fourteen Observers were present at the signing ceremony of the declaration in Ottawa in 1996. Today there are thirty-nine, including states like China, India and Japan, and organizations such as the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), the National Geographic Society and WWF. In addition, the group encompasses also the European Union (EU), which is recognized as the de facto Observer of the Arctic Council.

  7. 7.

    Even though, technically speaking, only eight Arctic states are considered to determine whether consensus on any given matter has been reached, the status and moral authority of Permanent Participants grants them participation in most of the discussions on a footing equal to Members of the Council. As such, Permanent Participatns have been also occasionally able to influence the course of taken resolutions (Fenge and Funston 2015).

  8. 8.

    Strictly speaking, even if the Ottawa Declaration provided for inclusion of the AEPS and its Working Groups, the formal transition of these programs to the Arctic Council and the termination of the AEPS, occurred only at the AEPS Ministerial Meeting held in Alta, Norway in June, 1997 (Fenge and Funston 2015). Also, whereas the delivery of the product itself took place only in 1997, the majority of work on it was conducted under the AEPS and not under the Arctic Council.

  9. 9.

    For more detailed account regarding the ACIA see (Nilsson 2007, 2012).

  10. 10.

    In May 2018 Denmark, together with Greenland, invited representatives of all eight Arctic states and the Council’s Permanent Participants to Ilulissat, Greenland to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the declaration from 2008.

  11. 11.

    The proposal to review the AC’s structures, provide for regular evaluation of the Council and consider ways of improving its efficiency and effectiveness was included in Norway’s program for its Chairmanship (2006–2008, effectively 2009) as well as in the joint program that Norway, Denmark, and Sweden announced in 2007 for their consecutive Arctic Council’s Chairmanships 2006–2012 (Norway’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2006; “Norwegian, Danish, Swedish common objectives for their Arctic Council chairmanships 2006–2012”).

  12. 12.

    Following their adoption, an applicant for an Observer status is now to, among others, recognize Arctic states’ sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction in the Arctic; respect the values, interests, culture and traditions of Arctic indigenous peoples, and demonstrate a concrete interest and ability to support the work of the Arctic Council (Arctic Council 2013a).

  13. 13.

    They include 13 non-Arctic states, 13 intergovernmental and inter-parliamentary organizations, and 13 non-governmental organizations (Arctic Council Observers, http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about-us/arctic-council/observers, accessed on 25 June, 2018), with the European Union recognized in practice as a de facto Observer and participating in meetings of the Arctic Council and its subsidiary bodies as any other admitted actor.

  14. 14.

    Agreement on Cooperation on Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue in the Arctic (signed in Nuuk on 12 May 2011, entered into force 19 January 2013) 50 ILM 1119 (2011) (SAR Agreement); Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution, Preparedness and Response in the Arctic (signed in Kiruna on 15 May 2013) < www.arctic-council.org/eppr > accessed 15 Jan 2017 (Oil Spills Agreement).

  15. 15.

    The scientific cooperation agreement entered into force in May 2018.

  16. 16.

    At the same time, a number of scholars pointed to potential shortfalls stemming from the increasing focus on the Council’s regulatory functions and decision-making powers; inadequacies of such solutions in relation to major challenges facing the Arctic; and finally, noting the limited extent of the adopted agreements (Kao et al. 2012; Rottem 2015; Spence 2017; Young 2016).

  17. 17.

    The first two Task Forces (TF) were the Task Force on Short-Lived Climate Forcers and the Task Force on Search and Rescue, both installed in 2009. They were followed with Task Force on Arctic Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response (2011); TF for Institutional Issues (2011); TF to Facilitate the Circumpolar Business Forum (2013); TF on Black Carbon and Methane (2013); Scientific Cooperation Task Force (2013); TF on Telecommunications Infrastructure in the Arctic (TFTIA) (2015); TF on Arctic Marine Cooperation (TFAMC) (2015), and TF on Improved Connectivity in the Arctic (TFICA) (2017). The Arctic Council Rules of Procedure stipulate that the Council may establish working groups, task forces or other subsidiary bodies to carry out programs and projects under the guidance and direction of Senior Arctic Officials, with their composition and mandates agreed by the Arctic states in a Ministerial Meeting (Arctic Council 2013a).

  18. 18.

    Two other bodies include the Arctic Offshore Regulators Forum formed in November 2015 and the Arctic Coast Guard Forum founded in October 2015. While all of those bodies operate in principle separately from the Arctic Council, their composition largely corresponds to this of the Council and their Chairmanship goes in hand with the rotation cycle of the Arctic Council.

  19. 19.

    The Ministerial Meeting in Fairbanks, Alaska in 2017 was the first one in the Council’s history, where all Member States were represented by their Ministers of Foreign Affairs or, in case of the United States, by the Secretary of State. Arguably, this fact – the rank of ministers and officials attending the Arctic Council’s meetings – speaks itself to the growing importance and attention paid the Arctic Council, particularly in the United States. Hillary Clinton was the first sitting Secretary of State to attend the Council’s Ministerial Meeting in Nuuk, Greenland in 2011.

  20. 20.

    Or the Host Country, as stipulated by the first Arctic Council Rules of Procedure from 1998 (Arctic Council 1998).

  21. 21.

    As listed in Norwegian, Danish and Swedish common objectives for their Arctic Council chairmanships 2006–2012, “the Ministerial Meetings could be moved to the spring to take advantage of the more favorable weather conditions in the Arctic during the season” (“Norwegian, Danish, Swedish Common Objectives for their Arctic Council chairmanships 2006–2012” 2007), which resulted in postponing of the Ministerial Meeting ending the Norwegian chairmanship from fall 2008 to spring 2009.

  22. 22.

    While doing so, it is also important to take note of a fact that after the end of the Cold War and before the media-hyped events of 2007–2009, the Arctic was of much smaller general interest – both internationally and within Arctic states.

  23. 23.

    In its result, Washington D.C. surrendered much of it Chairmanship role to the State of Alaska.

  24. 24.

    Moreover, the United States and the role and position it took in the process of ACIA is worth noting for how domestic politics and changes within it can find its reflection in the work of the Arctic Council. In case of the ACIA, it was well visible in its two stages. First, when actions pursued within the Council to launch the assessment corresponded with climate policies of the Clinton administration. Second, when the delivery of the final ACIA report and formulation of its policy recommendations became subject of contentious negotiations in 2003, in the first years of the George W. Bush presidency (Nilsson 2007; Stone 2015), much less susceptive to concerns over climate change and its implications.

  25. 25.

    Interestingly, the country’s program for its Chairmanship term reflects how Finland viewed the continuity between the AEPS to the Arctic Council, when it wrote in 2000 that cooperation among eight Arctic states at that moment “has continued for so long – almost ten years” (Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland 2000), providing the additional rationale for a study and possible restructuring of the Council.

  26. 26.

    For the development from the fourth International Polar Year to the launch of the negotiations on the agreement on enhancing international scientific cooperation in the Arctic see (Smieszek 2017).

  27. 27.

    To clarify, each of those countries still presented their individual programs at the outset of their respective Chairmanships but they agreed to move all their efforts forward collectively.

  28. 28.

    At the same time, basing on its outcomes and deliverables, the Canadian Chairmanship can be considered productive and effective, as illustrated, among others, with the launch of the Arctic Economic Council in September 2014 and the development of the Framework on Action on Enhanced Black Carbon and Methane Emissions Reductions.

  29. 29.

    The comparison between the first and second United States Chairmanship of the Council serves as a useful illustration of both the evolution of the Council itself and of place and continuously growing importance of the Arctic within Arctic states and internationally (Smieszek and Koivurova in: Lackenbauer et al. 2017).

References

  • ACIA. (2004). Impacts of a warming Arctic: Arctic climate impact assessment. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ACIA. (2005). Arctic climate impact assessment. Cambridge University Press. 

    Google Scholar 

  • AMAP. (1998). AMAP assessment report: Arctic pollution issues. Oslo, Norway: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP).

    Google Scholar 

  • Arctic Council. (1998). Arctic Council Rules of Procedure (as adopted by the Arctic Council at the first Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting, Iqaluit, Canada, 17–18 September 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  • Arctic Council. (2006). Salekhard declaration on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the Arctic Council. Fifth AC ministerial meeting, 26th of October, Salekhard, Russia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arctic Council. (2011). Nuuk declaration on the occasion of the seventh ministerial meeting of the Arctic Council, 12 May 2011, Nuuk, Greenland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arctic Council. (2012). Communication strategy for the Arctic Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arctic Council. (2013a). Arctic Council Rules of Procedure. Revised by the Arctic Council at the eight Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting, Kiruna, Sweden, May 15, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arctic Council. (2013b). Kiruna Declaration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arctic Council. (2013c). Vision for the Arctic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arctic Governance Project (Ed.). (2010). Arctic governance in an era of transformative change: Critical questions, governance principles, ways forward.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, E. (1999). Establishment of the Arctic Council. American Journal of International Law, 93(3), 712–722. 

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgerson, S. G. (2008). Arctic meltdown. The economic and security implications of global warming. Foreign Affairs, 87(2), 63–77. 

    Google Scholar 

  • Declaration on the Establishment of the Arctic Council. (1996). Ottawa, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, M. -A., Eichbaum, B., Shestakov, A., Sommerkorn, M., & Tesar, C. (2016). Arctic Council upgrade : WWF Arctic programme policy note. Arctic Yearbook 2016, 103–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • English, J. (2013). Ice and water. Politics, peoples, and the Arctic Council. Toronto: Penguin Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament. (2008). Resolution of 9 October 2008 on Arctic governance. Brussels: European Parliament.

    Google Scholar 

  • Exner-Pirot, Heather. (2016). Canada’s Arctic Council Chairmanship (2013–2015): A post-mortem. Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 22(1), 84–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenge, T. (2013). The Arctic Council: Past, present, and future prospects with Canada in the chair from 2013 to 2015. The Northern Review, 37(Fall 2013), 7–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenge, T., & Funston, B. (2015). The practice and promise of the Arctic Council. Independent report commissioned by Greenpeace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graczyk, P. (2011). Observers in the Arctic Council - evolution and prospects. Yearbook of Polar Law, (Vol. 3, pp. 575–633).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graczyk, P., & Koivurova, T. (2013). A new era in the Arctic Council’s external relations? Broader consequences of the Nuuk observer rules for Arctic governance. Polar Record, 50, 1–12. 

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graff, J. (2007, September 19). Fight for the top of the world. Time.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haavisto, P. (2001). Review of the Arctic Council structure consultant’s study prepared for the third ministerial meeting of the Arctic Council, Inari, Finland, 9–10 October 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haavisto, P. (2002). SAOs report to ministers on the review of the Arctic Council structure. Annex 1 to the SAO report to the ministers. ministerial meeting of the Arctic Council, Inari, Finland, 9–10 October 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilulissat Declaration. (2008). Arctic Ocean conference, Ilulissat, Greenland, 27–29 May 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kankaanpää, P., & Young, O. R. (2012). The effectiveness of the Arctic Council. Polar Research, 31, 1–14. 

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kao, S. M., Pearre, N. S., & Firestone, J. (2012). Adoption of the arctic search and rescue agreement: A shift of the arctic regime toward a hard law basis? Marine Policy, 36(3), 832–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keskitalo, E. C. H. (2004). Negotiating the Arctic. The construction of an international region. New York/London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Keskitalo, C. (2007). International region-building: Development of the Arctic as an international region. Cooperation and Conflict, 42(2), 187–205. 

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koivurova, T. (2009). Limits and possibilities of the Arctic Council in a rapidly changing scene of Arctic governance. Polar Record, 46(02), 146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koivurova, T., & Heinämäki, L. (2006). The participation of indigenous peoples in international norm-making in the Arctic. Polar Record, 42(221), 101–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lackenbauer, W. P., Nicol, H., & Greaves, W. (Eds.). (2017). The Arctic Council and circumpolar governance. One Arctic. Ottawa/Waterloo: Canadian Arctic Resources Committee, Centre on Foreign Policy and Federalism. 

    Google Scholar 

  • Minamata Convention on Mercury (adopted 10 October 2013 at Kumamoto) <www.mercuryconvention.org> accessed 16 December 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland. (2000). Program for the Finnish Chair of the Arctic Council 2000-2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland. (2017). Exploring Common Solutions - Finland’s Chairmanship Program for the Arctic Council 2017–2019, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, A. E. (2007). A changing Arctic climate. Science and policy in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Linköping: Linköping University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, A. E. (2012). Knowing the Arctic: The Arctic Council as a cognitive forerunner. In T. S. Axworthy, T. Koivurova, & W. Hasanat (Eds.), The Arctic Council: Its place in the future of Arctic governance, 190–224. Munk-Gordon Arctic Security Program.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nord, D. C. (2013). Creating a framework for consensus building and governance: An appraisal of the Swedish Arctic Council chairmanship and the Kiruna ministerial meeting. In L. Heininen (Ed.), Arctic Yearbook 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nord, D. C. (2016a). The Arctic Council. Governance within the Far North. London and New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nord, D. C. (2016b). The changing Arctic. Creating a framework for consensus building and governance within the Arctic Council. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norway’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2006). The Norwegian Chairmanship of the Arctic Council 2006–2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norwegian, Danish, Swedish common objectives for their Arctic Council chairmanships 2006–2012 November 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • NSIDC. (2007, October 1). Arctic Sea ice shatters all previous record lows.

    Google Scholar 

  • NSIDC. (2009, October 6). Arctic sea ice extent remains low; 2009 sees third-lowest mark.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, T. (2012). Debates over the role of the Arctic Council. Ocean Development & International Law, 43(2), 146–156. 

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogne, O., Rachold, V., Hacquebord, L., & Corell, R. (2015). IASC after 25 Years. Special issue of the IASC Bulletin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rottem, S. V. (2015). A note on the Arctic Council agreements. Ocean Development & International Law, 46(1), 50–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rottem, S. V. (2016). The Arctic Council: Vision, structure and participation. Fridtjof Nansen Institute Report 4/2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scrivener, D. (1999). Arctic environmental cooperation in transition. Polar Record, 35(192), 51–58. 

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smieszek, M. (2017). 25 years of the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC). Arctic Yearbook 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smieszek, M. (2017). The agreement on enhancing international Arctic scientific cooperation: From paper to practice. Arctic Yearbook 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smieszek, M., & Kankaanpää, P. (2015). Role of the Arctic Council chairmanship. Arctic Yearbook 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, J. (2017). Is a melting Arctic making the Arctic Council too cool? Exploring the limits of the effectiveness of a boundary organization. Review of Policy Research, 34, 790–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stockholm Convention on POP (2001). UNTS 119 (Stockholm Convention).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D. P. (2015). The changing Arctic environment. The Arctic messenger. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Supreme Audit Institutions of Denmark, Norway, The Russian Federation, S. and the U. S. of A. (2015). The Arctic Council: perspectives on a changing Arctic, the Council’s work, and key challenges. A joint memorandum of a multilateral audit on the Arctic states’ national authorities’ work with the Arctic Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tallberg, J. (2010). The power of the chair: Formal leadership in international cooperation. International Studies Quarterly, 54(1), 241–265. 

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Kingdom of Denmark. (2009). Chairmanship of the Arctic Council 2009–2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Geological Survey, U. (2008). Circum-Arcticresource appraisal: estimates of undiscovered oil and gas north of the Arctic circle, Vol. 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • WWF Arctic Programme. (2017). WWF Arctic Council conservation scorecard. Ottawa, ON.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, O. R. (1991). Political leadership and regime formation: On the development of institutions in international society. International Organization, 45(03), 281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, O. R. (1998). Creating regimes: Arctic accords and international governance. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, O. R. (2009). The Arctic in play: Governance in a time of rapid change. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 24, 423–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, O. R. (2016). Governing the Arctic ocean. Marine Policy, 72, 271–277. 

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arctic Centre, University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland

    Malgorzata (Gosia) Smieszek

Authors
  1. Malgorzata (Gosia) Smieszek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Malgorzata (Gosia) Smieszek .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, UmeĂĄ University, UmeĂĄ, Sweden

    Douglas C. Nord

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Smieszek, M.(. (2019). The Arctic Council in Transition. In: Nord, D. (eds) Leadership for the North. Springer Polar Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03107-7_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation