Abstract
International cooperation in the Arctic is largely operationalised through environmental governance in a constellation of institutions that promote scientific knowledge of the Arctic region. While the Arctic Council is placed at the centre of this network for environmental protection and resource management across the region, other institutions play critical roles in facilitating scientific knowledge production that promotes the security and development of the region and its resources across national boundaries. Evaluating the role of environmental protection in Arctic governance within models of science diplomacy, this paper argues that the assumption of environmental responsibility should act as a normative operator for Arctic environmental governance, shaping the relations between actors in this regional network and legitimising decision-making by Arctic states as they socially construct the mechanisms and regional exceptionalism of Arctic governance. However, environmental responsibility falls short of acting as a normative operator for environmental protection that also prevents the impact of climate change on the Arctic environment, excluding its function as an overarching normative operator for the international system, reducing state legitimacy for regional decision-making in extra-territorial spaces.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
For the last 35 years, international cooperation in the Arctic region has centred on protection of the environment, bringing about transboundary concerns such as environmental pollution, biodiversity loss and climate change. In many ways, this cooperation has been exceptionally successful. At its genesis, it provided a focus for cooperation beyond hard security by former enemies, and it has expanded the collection of data related to Arctic ecosystems filling in the “white spaces” of the scientific map and accelerating understanding of the relationship between the region and global climate. It has also resulted in several soft law instruments that have environmental protection at the heart of their rationale and finally, it is a dawn in bringing international recognition to the importance of indigenous peoples as critical actors in this decision-making and knowledge production.
This cooperation is unique in its pivot around the environment, rather than economy, security, culture or more simply, geographical circumstance, in its organising rationale, a feature which has served as a key factor of region-building in the Arctic. This region-building around the environment is based on “choice[s] made on specific historical and political grounds” (Keskitalo 2007, p. 188) and over the years “there have been advancements along the continuum from intergovernmental cooperation towards regional integration” (Sørensen 2013, p. 172). This regional integration comes from a variety of actors working towards common goals in Arctic fora, from the diplomatic level appointments from the Arctic states, indigenous groups and NGOs to organisational administrators who represent the state in working groups and committees. The result of this cooperation is an enormous machine producing scientific knowledge and applying this knowledge to initiatives that protect the Arctic environment.
While this cooperation is contextualised in the protection of the Arctic environment and climate change, it remains to be understood if the environment and the assumption of environmental responsibility in the region act as a normative operator for Arctic environmental governance or whether this can simply be framed as an arena of science diplomacy. As such, the research behind this paper asks how pervasive is the environment as a normative operator in Arctic governance and what is the effectiveness of this normative operator in shaping decision-making on the Arctic environment, including the environment in its relationship with the global climate. The core objective of this paper is to evaluate whether “environment” is a normative operator for Arctic governance that legitimises Arctic state decision-making over the region.
2 The science diplomacy model and IR theory
The use of the environment as a common arena for cooperation can be seen as an ontological space for cooperation between actors through science diplomacy with Arctic governance and its associated fora as the arena for interaction. The models of cooperation within science diplomacy are a useful heuristic tool for evaluating how particular actors (i.e. states or organisations) achieve their goals in international affairs at the intersection of science and diplomacy. As a form of soft power, a strength of science diplomacy lies in its ability to “mitigate political differences” (Copeland 2016, 629), often at times when relations between states are otherwise strained.
As a domain of international relations, science diplomacy has emerged over the last decades as a subtopic of study within diplomatic studies, focussing on the deployment of science as a tool of foreign relations via three distinct objectives, including science in diplomacy where science informs foreign policy, diplomacy for science where diplomatic measures are used to advance scientific objectives and finally, science for diplomacy where science acts as the diplomatic bridge between countries (The Royal Society 2010). Science diplomacy is seen as “the use of scientific collaborations among nations” to address common problems faced by humanity while building “constructive international partnerships” (Fedoroff 2009, 9).
While models of science diplomacy provide the methodological framework for evaluating the effects of cooperation around the environment in the Arctic, this research is theoretically contextualised within social constructivist perspectives of international relations. This approach emphasises the importance of rules in framing understandings of the behaviour between states in the international system and with interests and identity shaping these rule-building norms of states as the primary agents in the system. Rules, or norms, exist as both social and legal codes as intersubjective understandings that are a “statement that tells people what we should do” (Onuf 1998, p. 59). The international system, and more specifically, the system of Arctic governance is constructed through a changeable set of rules and institutions that determine both the normative operators and the normative behaviour of states within this construct where agents coproduce knowledge about normative expectations through information exchange and by performing rule-governed behaviours (Wood-Donnelly 2020).
Rules, or normative operators, are critical for creating predictable patterns of behaviour and in producing stability in the relationships between agents within a system. In this action becomes meaningful “by placing an action within an intersubjectively understood context” (Kratochwil 1989, p. 24). Stability in a system creates security and produces an environment where agents can continue making additional linkages between one another, up to the point where a complex network of nodes has been established to connect the actors. Arctic governance, while starting as a simple network between agents by establishing expectations to cooperate on very specific matters, has evolved to become a “web of relations” (Hansen-Magnusson 2019). While rules are often malleable and subject to normative evolution—based on practice or codification—a sudden breaking of the rules causes insecurity and instability in the relations between agents.
While rules can be codified in regulatory mechanisms, they also can emerge in written or spoken imperatives (Kratochwil 1989), which persuade actors to adopt certain behaviours. It is the exchange of information, and repetition of ideas and practices which forms the “structure of discursive action” (Kratochwil 1989) of rulemaking and ultimately generates rules that inform behaviour. In this regard “the very act of saying something...does what that act says it does” (Onuf 1989, 236) and through this “if successful, they [assertives] do not merely describe a state of affairs, but make the addressee believe and accept that it exists” (Zehfuss 2002, 178). In this way, norms, and the reality that emerges from their expression, create socially constructed structures.
In this line of theoretical reasoning, the combined intentions, statements and practices of agents in Arctic governance based upon the protection of the environment should result in the creation of a normative operator around environmental protection, which could place Arctic environmental cooperation within diplomacy for science, with the scientific objective being the protection of the Arctic environment. Given that the Arctic Council and its associated actors cooperate around governance in spaces that are frequently beyond the sovereign jurisdiction of states, it is imperative that authority is created through legitimacy and the assumption of responsibility and stewardship in the extra-territorial spaces of the Arctic, and the assumption of responsibility creates an opportunity for extra-territorial decision-making. If responsibility for the environment is a normative operator or a rule for Arctic governance, then all (or at least most) organisational energy and objectives of Arctic governance actors should work towards the protection of the Arctic environment.
3 The environment in Arctic governance discourse
Just before the onset of the political cooperation that united around Arctic governance, Young identified that the “Age of the Arctic” had come, in part because of technological advancement related to hard security, but critically, related to environmental security for the rapidly increasing industrial infrastructure (1985). In the period between Gorbachev’s Murmansk Speech and the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS), Osherenko and Young (1989) were promoting the idea of an international regime that could tackle the environmental problems found in the region, already noting concerns about the impact of climate change on the Arctic environment. In this promotion of an international regime for cooperation around environmental issues, Young frequently recalled Bloomfield’s (1981) suggestion for the Arctic as an opportune laboratory for governance, especially for cooperation in matters of science (1992). This section demonstrates how the environment is situated within the ongoing discourse of Arctic governance, providing the indicators for which solutions could have emerged within normative practices in Arctic governance.
With the environment as a significant focus of many institutions active in Arctic governance, discourse on environmental governance in the region also frequently appears in studies of Arctic governance, more broadly. While it can be difficult to separate these discourses—which likely deserve separate attention but for lack of space will be converged in this article, several themes emerge in the intersection of literature on the environment and governance in the Arctic. These include climate change, pollution, resources and the role of indigenous peoples in Arctic environmental governmental governance. Commonly identified drivers of these themes include climate change as the main factor, but also increased human activity such as resource extraction, shipping and tourism. This next section identifies scholarship within common themes although space prevents mention of every scholar within every topic, and or even mention of all the works of scholars notable in the field such as Young, Kouvirova or Stokke. As such, this literature review can only provide a taster into the great constellation of scholars who have been building the discourse of Arctic governance for the last three decades.
A significant feature in the literature of Arctic governance focuses on the pivot institution of the region, the Arctic Council, while only formally acting as a forum for cooperation it has grown into a governance body orchestrating agreements for issues in the region. This literature discusses the temporal development of governance through the council (Koivurova et al. 2008, Koivurova and Molenaar 2010, Loukacheva 2014, Stephens and VanderZwaag 2014, English 2016, Knecht 2016, Nilsson et al. 2016, Wilson 2016, Lackenbauer et al. 2017), discussions of reform (Molenaar 2008; Conley and Melino 2016; Herrmann and Martin 2016; Smieszek 2019) and the future of the council (Axworthy et al. 2012; Pedersen 2012; Dodds 2013; Nord 2019). Others still discuss the broadening of the concept of security (Ingimundarson 2014, Durfee and Johnstone 2019a, Durfee and Johnstone 2019b, Steinveg 2021) and the overall effectiveness of governance (Kankaanpää and Young 2012; Spence 2017; Barry et al. 2020; Rottem 2021).
The literature on climate change is notable in the exacerbated impact on the Arctic environment (Jeffers 2010), the erasure of the cryosphere (Stephens and VanderZwaag 2014), challenges to biodiversity (Trouwborst 2009) and the critical need for adaptation (Humrich and Wolf 2012). While early mentions of climate change in the Arctic were connected to the global conversation on atmospheric pollution as part of the modern environmental movement that led to several international agreements, by the early 1990s, the conversation on climate change exhibited strong concerns by natural scientists about the relationship between climate and environmental change (i.e. Chapin 1992; Wadhams et al. 1996). This scientific discourse becomes the background for scientific collaboration in the Arctic through science diplomacy and governance fora that surged at the end of the 20th century, with mentions of climate change consistently supporting both rationale for extra-territorial regulatory protections in the high North and, in contraction to the effects of climate change, increasing accessibility for some economic activities, such as shipping or hydrocarbon extraction.
Pollution control features frequently within discussions of Arctic environmental governance as a classical issue of international cooperation in the region (Stokke and Hønneland 2007). This includes a focus on the Arctic Council’s several action plans to remove pollution from the Arctic and the creation of the working group Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) established in the early days of Arctic international scientific cooperation. The literature in this area features discussion on the historical development of scientific cooperation, linking it to broader global trends in environmental cooperation related to particular existing sources of pollution and whether it affected land, air or sea (Archer and Scrivener 2019; Soroos 1993; Young 2005; Nilsson et al. 2016). Another strand of the conversation includes law and governance from marine traffic (Huebert 2001; Pietri et al. 2008; Koivurova and Molenaar 2010; Stokke 2013; Kaufmann 2017).
The literature on resource governance falls within several broad categories. There are, of course, familiar references to resources as being a driver of interests and cooperation in the Arctic region. However, more interesting discussions of resources and governance are those works specifically related to law and governance of living resources (Trouwborst 2009; Stokke 2016; Wegge 2016; Min 2017) or non-living resources, including minerals and energy (Pettersson 2009; Arruda 2015; Claes and Moe 2018; McCauley et al. 2022). Finally, we find a range of discourse that focuses on non-Arctic state interests in Arctic resources, such as China and other Asian states (Chaturvedi 2013; Stokke 2014; Peng and Wegge 2014; Lajeunesse and Whitney Lackenbauer 2016; Li 2019) or from the EU (Jokela 2015; Stepien et al. 2016; Liu 2017).
A final theme within the literature on Arctic governance and the environment considers the inclusion and participation of Arctic indigenous peoples within governance processes. This includes a discussion on the uniqueness of a governance constellation that includes this group of actors with higher priority than non-Arctic state actors (Shadian 2006; Humrich 2017; Wood-Donnelly and Ohlsson 2023), the role of indigenous actors in governance (Heinämäki 2009, Arruda and Krutkowski 2017), rights of indigenous peoples (Bratspies 2015, Durfee and Johnstone 2019a) and climate change or sustainable management of resources (Martello 2008; Shadian 2013; Nuttall 2021).
4 The environment as a normative operator in Arctic governance
Governance of the Arctic emerged in a moment of global normative transformation in the international system. In the period that birthed international Arctic governance, beginning in the last decades of the 20th century, the normative operators for the Arctic were undergoing a rapid transition. Some of these normative operators were based on subjective ideational understandings between actors in the international system, while others were the result of customary transactions. Longstanding normative operators such as the imperial rules for territorial acquisition that divided Arctic territory between states evolved as changing understandings of the physical geography limited territorial expansion and separated the Arctic into national and international spaces. As the international spaces of the Arctic emerge, governance of the region materialised to project state authority over the territory and resources of this region in response to three major shifts within normative operators framing the construction of governance for the region.
The normative operator affirming the divide between national and international spaces of the Arctic emerged in the law of the sea. Since the legal debates on maritime sovereignty emerged from Grotius and Seldon hundreds of years earlier, the freedom of the seas was regarded as a dominant normative operator in the international system. Respect for this customary rule of international law even had the effect of stagnating state claims to the North Pole in the realisation that the pole was located in the middle of the ocean, even when that sea physically manifests itself as traversable ice. While the freedom of the seas continues as a normative operator for maritime spaces, new corollary normative operators have emerged for ordering the maritime spaces of the world, including those in the Arctic.
The first major shift in normative operators for the Arctic occurred when new conceptions of territory and associated rights developed, facilitated by advancing technological capabilities which made it possible to expand commercial exploitation of maritime resources. This capacity resulted in the emergence of territorial categories of the continental shelf and of the exclusive economic zone where exploitation rights were allocated to the littoral state. While these were initially restricted to 200 nm, in the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS 1982), the potential limits of continental shelf expanded to 350 nm, subject to strict parameters. In UNCLOS 1982, the Arctic states also are given legal support for jurisdiction and projection of authority over maritime spaces beyond the boundaries of the territorial sea in Article 234, which introduces environmental protection as a normative operator within international law for the maritime Arctic, although limited specifically to ice-covered waters.
A second major shift for normative operators ordering the behaviour of states in the Arctic is found in the dissolution of the Cold War. As a socially constructed reality, the hallmarks of the Cold War as a normative operator were materialised in the arms race that produced increasingly sophisticated commercial and military technologies and suspicions of either side’s intentions when contextualised within ideological tenets. This combined insecurity and technological advancement converged in the militarization of the Arctic region, perceived both as a route of attack and as a theatre for conflict given that along the geodesic, the Arctic route was the shortest distance from Moscow to Washington. As this normative operator dissolved, it created the opportunity to reframe the Arctic as a region of cooperation, not around traditional forms of security but rather through concerns underpinning human security and environmental protection.
The final major shift in normative operators is the movement towards recognising indigenous rights and self-determination in national and international areas, sometimes in tangent with decolonisation. Although the grassroots of this movement was seeded in earlier periods, this normative operator gained more prominence with the working group on indigenous rights with the UN’s Economic and Social Council, eventually culminating in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007. Accession to this morally binding declaration has been slow, uneven and sometimes entirely ignored, across and within the domestic frameworks of the Arctic states. However, there has been a normative shift in the spaces of Arctic international governance, where Arctic indigenous groups are included as permanent participants of the Arctic Council—after first participating as observers in the preparations for the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (Arctic Council 1991). While this shift for indigenous participation as a normative operator is imperfect in its current form, it yet represents advancement within the international system and international governance (Wood-Donnelly and Ohlsson 2023).
5 Models of science diplomacy within Arctic cooperation
In the same period, a new focus for international governance was emerging, centred on environmental concerns and the protection of the environment from anthropogenic harms, such as pollutants and biodiversity loss. Embedded in a long history of multiple waves of the environmental movement, such as those that saw the creation of the UN Environmental Programme in 1972, governance of the Arctic emerged in an era immediately following the discovery of a human-caused hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic and the resulting agreements such as the Vienna Convention 1985 and a plethora of bi-lateral and multi-national environmental agreements. Within the text of these documents emerges a legal and moral obligation for environmental protection, such as seen in the Montreal Protocol for parties “to take appropriate measures to protect human health and the environment against adverse effects resulting or likely to result from human activities” (UN 1989). The influences of a now transnational environmental movement and legal developments were successful in introducing environmental stewardship as a norm of the international system (Falkner and Buzan 2019).
Situated in this timeline, the 1987 Murmansk Speech is widely considered the catalyst for Arctic international governance (Åtland 2008, Koivurova 2012, English 2016, Gjørv and Hodgson 2019, Wiseman 2020) when Gorbachev referred to the Arctic as a “weather kitchen” that affected parts of the global climate, although this comment was framed against the “freezing breath” of the US Arctic strategy (Gorbachev 1987). However, in this same speech, Gorbachev opened the door to international environmental cooperation between the Arctic states by setting this within a list of priorities, saying “we attach special importance to the cooperation of the northern countries in environmental protection. The urgency of this is obvious” (1987). He further suggests a jointly prepared, comprehensive and integrated “plan for protecting the natural environment of the North” including “the nature of the tundra, forest tundra and the north forest areas” (Gorbachev 1987). Moreover, Gorbachev situated a move towards environmental protection as a normative operator by stating “The Northern European countries could set up an example to others by reaching an agreement on establishing a system to monitor the state of the natural environment and radiation safety in the region” (1987). This launched the potential for science to act as a tool for solving the major problems of the Arctic environment—by starting with science as a bridge—builder between nations.
From this point followed a rapid proliferation of cooperation around environmental protection as the pivot of Arctic international relations, with research and monitoring as a clear priority (Rothwell 1996). In the background, organisations developed to support these priorities, such as the International Arctic Science Committee (1990). In 1991, the AEPS emerged linking responsibility for the prevention of pollution in Arctic ecosystems by states in the region together with the knowledge and experience of indigenous people in nature and resource stewardship. More organisations appeared, such as the WWF’s Arctic Programme in 1992 or the Circumpolar Conservation Union in 1996 advocating for more cooperation on the Arctic environment while the need for knowledge sharing and transboundary challenges became more apparent. In 1996, the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy evolved into the Arctic Council, with eight members in the Arctic states, six indigenous groups included as permanent participants and in years following, an ever-expanding list of observers including non-Arctic states, NGOs and intergovernmental organisations.
The Arctic Council is “to promote cooperation, coordination and interaction” on “issues of sustainable development and environmental protection in the Arctic” (Arctic Council 1996). While the council is frequently considered the premier organisation in this region’s governance and has now coordinated several soft law instruments for the Arctic, it is certainly not alone in its ambition to protect the environment. The interaction and overlap of governance in this region have been described as a web of responsibility where ‘in different forms, responsibility for security and for sustainable development has become institutionalised in the Arctic region’ (Hansen-Magnusson 2019,152). As has been suggested, the Arctic Council is unable to unilaterally address all governance needs of the Arctic, but not has it attempted to do this (Exner-Pirot 2016), raising the importance of other Arctic fora as actors. Critical in evaluating normative capacity is in ascertaining whether the normative vision embedded within Arctic governance arrangements has resulted in those norms being put into action, moving beyond science as a bridge builder, to the establishment of the Arctic Council as diplomacy for science and knowledge building.
If the environment is a key normative operator for Arctic governance, then cooperation around the environment should go beyond the use of science in and for diplomacy in Arctic governance. The dominance of the Arctic Council among the primary Arctic governance fora suggests the use of a combination of legal and diplomatic approaches to address environmental issues. In practice, this approach may not be suitable for the majority of environmental problems, many of which are concerns that transgress national boundaries, such as pollution, climate change, extractive industries (mining and oil drilling) and fishing, if thinking of Arctic governance cooperation around the environment as diplomacy for science, where “the environment” could be seen as a successful introduction of a new normative operator for the international system. However, as this section will discuss, these issues are a long way from being able to be considered success stories of Arctic science diplomacy.
The widely agreed success of the Arctic Council in addressing pollution, compared with its perceived inability to develop a clear lead on climate change, provides a useful case study on the effectiveness and limitations of current Arctic governance structures. Research by Nilsson et al. (2016) notes that a main factor in this success was that at the time of the launch of the AEPS tackling pollution was already being addressed by individual states and the international community. The twin environmental disasters of the Exxon Valdez oil spill and the sinking of the Russian nuclear-powered submarine Komsomolets in spring 1989 (Humrich 2016) were timely if stark, reminders of the need for Arctic cooperation on conservation. Hence, the Arctic Council was going very much with the grain of international consensus and opinion. Also, protocols for regular communication between the scientific community, indigenous groups and policymakers already existed, and many of the same individuals who had been involved in previous pollution prevention work contributed to the AEPS.
The scientific research and AMAP established by the AEPS did represent a genuine success in understanding the causes of pollution by the Arctic Council. The first AMAP report identified that a significant amount of pollution was generated by local sources within the Arctic, as opposed to being transported into the region by hydrological and meteorological effects. This contradicted the prevailing scientific opinion at the time and focused attention on local sources of pollution resulting in the Arctic Council Action Plan to Eliminate Pollution of the Arctic (Arctic Council 2000). However, it is increasingly apparent that pollution of the Arctic Ocean remains a significant concern, which means that while soft law instruments of the Arctic Council may improve the prevention measures and response for accidents such as oil spills, it has not been effective in preventing issues such as micro-plastics.
The success of the Arctic Council in countering the effects of pollution can be summarised by observing that firstly, the Council was able to take advantage of existing diplomatic and social activities by the international community to raise awareness of the specific problems that pollution caused for the Arctic. Secondly, the Arctic Council was able to establish a scientific programme to properly identify the significant causes of pollution affecting the Arctic. Thirdly, where the scientific programme was able to identify local sources of pollution, the Arctic Council was able to use its diplomatic and legal capabilities to address the causes of pollution.
In contrast, efforts to address the effects of climate change on the region are considered to have been less successful. The original AEPS declaration stated that climate change (then referred to as global warming) and depletion of the ozone layer represented the main significant threats to the Arctic environment (Declaration of the Protection of the Arctic Environment 1991). Surprisingly, no Arctic-specific strategy was developed to address these two main threats as the AEPS argued that efforts being developed to understand the causes and effects of climate change and ozone depletion were being developed by other international programmes and organisations. An early AMAP assessment (Weatherhead 1998) referred to climate change and suggested Arctic states should address the threat through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Nilsson et al. (2016) argue that the AEPS approach of transferring responsibility for addressing climate change to international fora was undermined by the Arctic Council’s scientific research that highlighted the Arctic-specific effects of climate change and social concerns raised by indigenous groups. The findings of the resulting Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report (2005) were politically difficult for all Arctic Council member states to accept, leading to a lack of consensus on how to respond to climate change other than to revert to the original APES approach of relying on the initiatives of other international fora to lead on the formulation of a strategy to mitigate the effects of climatic change. Unlike the issue of pollution, there is no clear political consensus on how to respond to the challenges of climate change. Although the Arctic Council has been criticised by some authors for deferring to the international community to take the lead on climate change, it should be remembered that this strategy worked well for the issue of ozone depletion, the other significant environmental threat to the Arctic identified by the original AEPS.
Many of the factors that made international efforts to address ozone depletion successful also supported the Arctic Council’s success against pollution. There was scientific agreement as to the cause and effects of ozone depletion, the release of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) into the atmosphere. Consensus among policymakers on the need for action along with socially acceptable alternatives to CFCs made diplomatic and legislative initiatives to limit emissions of CFCs into the atmosphere achievable (Andersen et al. 2002). Similarly, when addressing pollution, the Arctic Council was able to utilise scientific agreement, obtained where necessary through initiating further research and data sharing; consensus among policymakers; and the availability of socially acceptable solutions.
None of these success factors is present in the case of climate change, although, scientific opinion is generally in agreement over the role of anthropologically produced carbon dioxide in increasing global temperatures (IPCC 2007). The exact nature of the effects on the earth’s climate is complicated by the range of other influences on temperature and the feedback mechanisms that result from such temperature increases, such as the role of cloud production in either mitigating or exasperating climate change. Equally, there is only limited consensus among policymakers in the international community as to how to respond to climate change. Largely, this lack of agreement is driven by the absence of widely socially acceptable solutions to climate change. Given these difficulties, it is perhaps unsurprising that the Arctic Council has been unable to make any substantial headway on developing a policy response to climate change.
The Arctic Council and Arctic governance institutions have achieved certain success in supporting international efforts to understand climate change. In particular, the working groups of the Arctic Council were able to provide regional scientific knowledge identified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (Nilsson 2009). The scientific relationship between the Arctic Council and IPCC also produces benefits for the Arctic Council, providing a process of conducting regional science that is considered legitimate by the international community (Nilsson 2009).
Overall, the Arctic Council has facilitated negotiation for treaties on pollution, accident prevention/mitigation through the SAR treaty and a moratorium on fishing, which all support environmental protection. However, in all these cases, environmental protection and research have been conducted concurrently with the economic development of the Arctic, since the foundation of the Arctic Council’s Sustainable Development Working Group (SDWG), following ministerial meetings in Nuuk in 1993. The 2000 meeting of the Arctic Council in Tromsø, which produced treatises on Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response (MOPPR) and Search and Rescue (SAR) to provide legal protection for the environment, but at the same meeting, also declared that economic cooperation was to be at the top of the Arctic Council’s agenda.
This tension between conducting both scientific activities and political cooperation to mitigate against locally occurring damage to the environment, while at the same time, increasing these risks through the economic development of the Arctic is likely to create a paradox in the coherence of Arctic governance with environmental responsibility as a normative operator. This paradox is magnified when taking into account that much of this economic development exacerbates the issues of carbon emissions, such as through hydrocarbon exploration and development, desires to increase shipping traffic which is a notorious polluter of both water and air and finally, expanded mineral extraction. If responsibility for environmental protection was a rule for Arctic governance regarding these indicators, then actions in contradiction to this rule would be politically and diplomatically unviable options.
6 Conclusions
The Arctic States and the governance institutions it has created and financially supported had a period of 30 years to establish normative capacity by introducing rules or normative operators for Arctic international relations. Starting as scientific bridge builders during a time of international tensions, Arctic governance institutions have strong foundations with an environmental focus in their rationales and regular operations, with the potential to take responsibility for the Arctic environment and a real drive for regional cooperation. Yet, there is an issue in how states use environmental governance as a normative operator in this space. As an arena of science diplomacy, Arctic governance has made considerable gains in improving cooperation between states and achieving diplomatic objectives in the region.
One of the key objectives of state actors includes legitimising control over extra-territorial spaces beyond national boundaries in the Arctic region. In this regard, considerable gains have been made for using environmental protection as a normative operative by centralising the Arctic Council as the premier institution of regional governance and the primary forum imbed the generation of soft law instruments. However, it has been less effective in realising the level of environmental protection needed to enable the protection of the Arctic environment in the way that it relates to global climate change. In this regard, the normative capacity of environmental governance to promote climate change mitigation has been diverted, or at least, obscured by material motivations—many of which are in fact, counterproductive to climate governance (McCauley et al. 2022; Wood-Donnelly and Bartels 2022).
So while worldwide environmental issues such as the impacts of climate change are of concern, climate change disproportionately affects the Arctic with the region warming four times as fast as the rest of the globe (Rantanen et al. 2022). The effectiveness of relying on existing Arctic governance fora, whose membership is limited to the Arctic states to address these concerns is questionable while the normative operators being promoted do not reach the full potential for the region as a laboratory for governance. The success of the Arctic Council in addressing both local and global sources of persistent organic pollutants suggests that widening the role of one of the advocacy, while being supported by the web of governance relations in other Arctic fora, could elevate concerns for the region to the international community, not least within centres of power for the Arctic states. This may prove the effectiveness of Arctic governance in fulfilling its remit to protect the Arctic environment and show strong normative capacity for this region and its governance fora.
Environmental protection serves as a primitive and initiating normative operator for the Arctic region, although at present, this environmental protection does not extend to climate protection and certainly does not reach the status of environmental responsibility. While Arctic environmental governance initially emerged for political expediency, such as cooperation potential and territorial advantage, the reality is that this environment has a critical connection to the global climate, making it a critical region for mitigating climate change. While Arctic governance institutions focus on environmental governance, the Arctic policies of Arctic states teeter between effective environmental responsibility and the pursuit of resource exploitation that contradicts the real protection of the environment by continuing to protect and pursue activities that result in negative feedback loops for the climate, the ultimate protector of the Arctic environment. Without climate integrity, the Arctic environment cannot, in fact, be protected. If Arctic environmental governance is to achieve its objectives of responsibility for environmental protection, it must include climate within the objectives for environmental responsibility and exercise the full potential of its normative capacity. If responsibility for Arctic environmental protection has reached the status of a normative operatory, then action towards this scientific objective would be evident both within the governance of the Arctic and in governance from within the Arctic states domestic actions for issues that affect the Arctic.
Data and materials availability
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.
References
Andersen SO, Madhava Sarma K, Sinclair L (2002) Protecting the ozone layer: the United Nations history. Earthscan Publications, London ; Sterling, VA
Archer C, Scrivener D (2019) International co-operation in the Arctic environment. In: Nuttall M, Callaghan TV (eds) The Arctic, 1st edn. Routledge, pp 601–619. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429340475-21
Arctic Council (1991) Arctic environmental protection strategy. Arctic Council. http://library.arcticportal.org/1542/1/artic_environment.pdf
Arctic Council (1996) Ottowa Declaration. Arctic Council https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/85
Arctic Council (2000) Arctic Council Plan to Eliminate Pollution of the Arctic (ACAP). Arctic Council https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/bitstream/handle/11374/429/ACSAO-US03_6_ACAP.pdf?sequence%3D1&isAllowed%3Dy
Arruda GM (2015) Arctic governance regime: the last frontier for hydrocarbons exploitation. Int J Law Manage 57(5):498–521. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-09-2014-0054
Arruda GM, Krutkowski S (2017a) Social impacts of climate change and resource development in the Arctic: implications for Arctic governance. J Enterprising Communities: People Places Glob Econ 11(2):277–288. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-08-2015-0040
Arruda GM, Krutkowski S (2017b) Arctic governance, indigenous knowledge, science and technology in times of climate change: self-realization, recognition, representativeness. J Enterprising Communities: People Places Glob Econ 11(4):514–528. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-08-2015-0041
Åtland K (2008) Mikhail Gorbachev, the Murmansk initiative, and the desecuritization of interstate relations in the Arctic. Coop Confl 43(3):289–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836708092838
Axworthy TS, Koivurova T, Hasanat W (eds) (2012) The Arctic Council: its place in the future of Arctic Governance. The Gordon Foundation, Toronto
Barry T, Daviðsdóttir B, Einarsson N, Young OR (2020) The Arctic Council: an agent of change? Glob Environ Chang 63(July):102099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102099
Bloomfield LP (1981) The Arctic: last unmanaged frontier. Foreign Aff 60(1):87–105. https://doi.org/10.2307/20040991
Bratspies R (2015) Using human rights to improve Arctic governance. In: Pincus R, Ali SH (eds) Diplomacy on Ice, by James Gustave Speth. Yale University Press, pp 171–185. https://doi.org/10.12987/yale/9780300205169.003.0012
Chapin FS (ed) (1992) Arctic ecosystems in a changing climate: an ecophysiological perspective. Physiological Ecology. Academic Press, San Diego
Chaturvedi S (2013) China and India in the “receding” Arctic: rhetoric, routes and resources. Jadavpur J Int Relat 17(1):41–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973598414524126
Claes DH, Moe A (2018) Arctic offshore petroleum: resources and political fundamentals. In: Energy, Living Marine Resources and Shipping, edited by Ida Folkestad Soltvedt and Svein Vigeland, vol 2. Arctic Governance, London: Tauris
Conley HA, Melino M (2016) An Arctic redesign: recommendations to rejuvenate the Arctic Council. Center for Strategic & International Studies, Washington D.C.
Copeland D (2016) Science diplomacy. In: Kerr P, Constantinou CM, Sharp P (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy, pp 628–640
Dodds KJ (2013) Anticipating the Arctic and the Arctic Council: pre-emption, precaution and preparedness. Polar Rec 49(2):193–203. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247412000198
Durfee M, Johnstone RL (2019a) Arctic governance in a changing world. Rowman & Littlefield, New York, New York
Durfee M, Johnstone RL (2019b) Arctic governance in a changing world. In: New Millennium Books in International Studies. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham
Energy, living marine resources and shipping (2018) Arctic Governance, vol 2. Tauris, London
English J (2016) The emergence of an Arctic Council. In: Berry DA, Bowles N, Jones H (eds) Governing the North American Arctic. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London, pp 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137493910_11
Exner-Pirot H (2016) ‘Beyond the Arctic Council’: NORTH OF 60. Centre for International Governance Innovation, JSTOR http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep05237.11
Falkner R, Buzan B (2019) The emergence of environmental stewardship as a primary institution of Global International Society. Eur J Int Rel 25(1):131–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066117741948
Fedoroff NV (2009) Science diplomacy in the 21st Century. Cell 136(1):9–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2008.12.030
Gjørv GH, Hodgson KK (2019) ‘“Arctic exceptionalism” or “comprehensive security”? Understanding security in the Arctic’, The Arctic Yearbook https://arcticyearbook.com/images/yearbook/2019/Scholarly-Papers/11_AY2019_Hoogensen_Hodgson.pdf
Gorbachev M (1987) The speech in Murmansk at the ceremonial meeting of the Order of Lenin and the Gold Star Medal to the city of Murmansk. Novosti Press Agency Publication House
Hansen-Magnusson H (2019) The web of responsibility in and for the Arctic. Camb Rev Int Aff 32(2):132–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2019.1573805
Heinämäki L (2009) Rethinking the status of indigenous peoples in international environmental decision-making: pondering the role of Arctic indigenous peoples and the challenge of climate change. In: Koivurova T, Keskitalo ECH, Bankes N (eds) Climate governance in the Arctic, vol 50. Environment & Policy, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp 207–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9542-9_9
Herrmann TM, Martin T (eds) (2016) Indigenous peoples’ governance of land and protected territories in the Arctic. Springer International Publishing, London
Huebert R (2001) Article 234 and Marine Pollution Jurisdiction in the Arctic. In: Oude Elferink AG, Rothwell DR (eds) The Law of the Sea and Polar Maritime Delimitation and Jurisdiction, Brill | Nijhoff, pp 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004482029_023
Humrich C (2016) The Arctic Council at twenty: cooperation between governments in the Global Arctic. In: Conde E, Sánchez SI (eds) Global challenges in the Arctic region: sovereignty, environment and geopolitical balance, 0th edn. NY : Routledge, 2016.: Routledge, New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315584768
Humrich C (2017) Coping with institutional challenges for Arctic environmental governance. In: Keil K, Knecht S (eds) Governing arctic change. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London, pp 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-50884-3_5
Humrich C, Wolf K (2012) From Meltdown to Showdown. In: Challenges and Options for Governance in the Arctic, vol 113. Frankfurt: Peace Research Institute Frankfurt. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1864.0242
Ingimundarson V (2014) Managing a contested region: the Arctic Council and the politics of Arctic governance. Polar J 4(1):183–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2014.913918
International Arctic Science Committee (1990) Brief Report from IASC Founding Meeting (IASC Meeting No.1). Environment Canada
IPCC (2007) Climate change 2008: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, Geneva
Jeffers J (2010) Climate change and the Arctic: adapting to changes in fisheries stocks and governance regimes. Ecol Law Quart 37:917 https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/eclawq37&div=29&id=&page=
Jokela J (2015) ‘Arctic governance’. Arctic Security Matters. European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS). JSTOR https://doi.org/www.jstor.org/stable/resrep07064.7
Kankaanpää P, Young OR (2012) The effectiveness of the Arctic Council. Polar Res 31(1):17176. https://doi.org/10.3402/polar.v31i0.17176
Kaufmann SG (2017) Stewardship sovereignty, sustainable development and the protection of the Arctic marine environment: injecting environmental values in international sovereignty law. In: Conde E, Sánchez SI (eds) Global challenges in the Arctic region: sovereignty, environment and geopolitical balance. First published. London New York, Routledge
Keskitalo C (2007) International region-building: development of the Arctic as an international region. Coop Confl 42(2):187–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836707076689
Knecht S (2016) The Arctic Council: governance within the Far North. Glob Affairs 2(3):367–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/23340460.2016.1190483
Koivurova T, Molenaar EJ (2010) International governance and regulation of the marine Arctic: overview and gap analysis. Edited by null. Vol. null. Null.
Koivurova T, Molenaar EJ, VanderZwaag DL (2008) Canada, the EU, and Arctic ocean governance: a tangled and shifting seascape and future directions symposium: Arctic Law in an era of climate change. J Transnational Law Policy 2(2009):247–288 https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/jtrnlwp18&i=253
Koivurova T (2012) ‘The Arctic Council: a testing ground for new international environmental governance’. The Brown Journal of World Affairs, Fall 2012. 1326331744. Social Science Premium Collection. http://ezproxy.its.uu.se/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazines/arctic-council-testing-ground-new-international/docview/1326331744/se-2?accountid=14715.
Kratochwil FV (1989) Rules, norms and decisions: on the conditions of practical and legal reasoning in international relations and domestic affairs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Lackenbauer PW, Nicol HN, Greaves W (eds) (2017) One Arctic: the Arctic Council and circumpolar governance. Canadian Arctic Resources Committee, Ottawa
Lajeunesse A, Whitney Lackenbauer P (2016) Chinese mining interests and the Arctic. In: Berry DA, Bowles N, Jones H (eds) Governing the North American Arctic. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London, pp 74–99. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137493910_4
Li X (2019) Arctic governance and China’s first Arctic policy: an UNCLOS perspective. Yearbook Polar Law Online 10(1):357–385. https://doi.org/10.1163/22116427_010010016
Liu N (2017) The European Union’s potential contribution to the governance of high sea fisheries in the central Arctic Ocean. In: Liu N, Kirk EA, Henriksen T (eds) The European Union and the Arctic, Brill | Nijhoff, pp 274–295. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004349179_011
Loukacheva N (2014) Developments in the Arctic Council. Yearbook Polar Law Online 6(1):340–348. https://doi.org/10.1163/1876-8814_012
Martello ML (2008) Arctic indigenous peoples as representations and representatives of climate change. Soc Stud Sci 38(3):351–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312707083665
McCauley D, Pettigrew KA, Bennett MM, Todd I, Wood-Donnelly C (2022) Which states will lead a just transition for the Arctic? A deeper analysis of global data on Arctic states and formal observer states. Glob Environ Chang 73:102480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102480
Min P (2017) Fisheries issue in the central Arctic Ocean and its future governance. Polar J 7(2):410–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2017.1396000
Molenaar EJ (2008) Arctic marine shipping: overview of the international legal framework, gaps, and options symposium: Arctic law in an era of climate change. J Transnational Law Policy 2(2009):289–326 https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/jtrnlwp18&i=295
Nilsson AE (2009) A changing Arctic climate: science and policy in the Arctic climate impact assessment. In: Koivurova T, Keskitalo ECH, Bankes N (eds) Climate Governance in the Arctic, vol 50. Environment & policy, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9542-9_4
Nilsson AE, Meek CL, Helene Amundsen F, Chapin S, Hovelsrud GK, Kofinas G, McLennan D, Koivurova T, Prior T, Sommerkorn M (2016) ‘Organizational learning in regional governance’: Stockholm Environment Institute. JSTOR https://doi.org/www.jstor.org/stable/resrep02832
Nord DC (2019) Providing leadership for the North. In: Leadership for the North, hu. Springer, pp 3–10
Nuttall M (2021) Arctic ecology, indigenous peoples and environmental governance. In: Thomas DN (ed) Arctic ecology, 1st edn. Wiley, pp 409–422. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118846582.ch15
Onuf NG (1989) World of our making: rules and rule in social theory and international relations. Routledge
Onuf NG (1998) Constructivism: a user’s manual. In: Kubálková V, Onuf NG, Kowert P (eds) International relations in a constructed world. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, N.Y
Osherenko G, Young OR (1989) The age of the Arctic: hot conflicts and cold realities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Pedersen T (2012) Debates over the role of the Arctic Council. Ocean Dev Int Law 43(2):146–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2012.672289
Peng J, Wegge N (2014) China and the law of the sea: implications for Arctic governance. Polar J 4(2):287–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2014.954887
Pettersson M (2009) ‘Mitigation possibilities in the energy sector – an Arctic perspective’. In Climate governance in the Arctic, Timo Koivurova, E. Carina H. Keskitalo, and Nigel Bankes, 50:303–326. Environment & policy. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9542-9_12.
Pietri D, Soule AB, Kershner J, Soles P, Sullivan M (2008) The Arctic shipping and environmental management agreement: a regime for marine pollution. Coast Manag 36(5):508–523. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920750802398735
Rantanen M, Alexey Y, Karpechko AL, Nordling K, Hyvärinen O, Ruosteenoja K, Vihma T, Laaksonen A (2022) The Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the globe since 1979. Commun Earth Environ 3(1):168. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00498-3
Rothwell D (1996) The polar regions and the development of international law. Cambridge University Press
Rottem SV (2021) Improving the work of the Arctic Council: challenges and recommendations. Polar Rec 57:e9. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247420000492
Rowe W, Elana. (2018) Arctic governance. Manchester University Press. https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526131645
Shadian J (2006) Remaking Arctic governance: the construction of an Arctic inuit polity. Polar Rec 42(3):249–259. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247406005316
Shadian JM (2013) Of whales and oil: inuit resource governance and the Arctic Council. Polar Rec 49(4):392–405. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247412000484
Smieszek M (2019) Do the cures match the problem? Reforming the Arctic Council. Polar Rec 55(3):121–131. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247419000263
Sørensen AT (2013) From international governance to region building in the Arctic? New Glob Stud 7(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/ngs-2013-014
Soroos MS (1993) ‘Arctic haze & transboundary air pollution: conditions governing success and failure’. In Polar politics: creating international environmental regimes, edited by Oran R. Young and Gail Osherenko, 186–222. Cornell Studies in Political Economy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Spence J (2017) Is a melting Arctic making the Arctic Council too cool? Exploring the limits to the effectiveness of a boundary organization: is a melting Arctic making the Arctic Council too cool? Rev Policy Res 34(6):790–811. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12257
Steinveg B (2021) The role of conferences within Arctic governance. Polar Geogr 44(1):37–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/1088937X.2020.1798540
Stephens T, VanderZwaag DL eds (2014) ‘The Arctic Council and the future of Arctic Ocean governance: edging forward in a sea of governance challenges’. In Polar oceans governance in an era of environmental change, 308–38. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
Stepien A, Koivurova T, Kankaanpää P (2016) The changing Arctic and the European Union. Brill | Nijhoff, Leiden, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004303188
Stokke OS (2013) Regime interplay in Arctic shipping governance: explaining regional niche selection. Int Environ Agreements: Politics, Law Econ 13(1):65–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-012-9202-1
Stokke OS (2014) Asian stakes and Arctic governance. Strateg Anal 38(6):770–783. https://doi.org/10.1080/09700161.2014.952946
Stokke OS (2016) Geopolitics, governance and Arctic fisheries politics. In: Conde E, Sánchez SI (eds) Global challenges in the Arctic region. Routledge, Abingdon, U.K
Stokke OS, Hønneland G (2007) International cooperation and Arctic governance: regime effectiveness and northern region building. 1. publ. Routledge Advances in International Relations and Global Politics 50. London: Routledge.
The Royal Society & The American Association for the Advancement of Science (2010) New frontiers in science diplomacy: navigating the changing balance of power. In: RS Policy Document 01/10. The Royal Society, London
Trouwborst A (2009) A bird’s-eye view of Arctic governance: reflecting on the role of international law in Arctic cooperation from a bird conservation perspective. Yearbook Polar Law Online 1(1):401–426. https://doi.org/10.1163/22116427-91000021
United Nations (1982) ‘United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - Part VI: continental shelf’. http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part6.htm.
United Nations Environmental Programme (1989) 1987 Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=XXVII-2-a&chapter=27&clang=_en.
Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, 26164 (1985). https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=XXVII-2&chapter=27&clang=_en
Wadhams P, Dowdeswell JA, Schofield AN (eds) (1996) The Arctic and Environmental Change. Gordon and Breach Pub, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Weatherhead EC (1998) Climate change, ozone, and ultraviolet radiation. In: Wilson SJ, Murray JL, Huntington HP (eds) AMAP assessment report: Arctic pollution issues. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, pp 717–774
Wegge N (2016) Governance and ownership of the Arctic Ocean: living resources and the continental shelf. In: Lunde L, Yang J, Stensdal I, Young OR (eds) Asian Countries and the Arctic Future. world scientific, New Jersey
Wilson P (2016) Society, steward or security actor? Three visions of the Arctic Council. Coop Confl 51(1):55–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836715591711
Wiseman MS (2020) The future of the Arctic Council. In: Coates KS, Holroyd C (eds) The palgrave handbook of arctic policy and politics. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 439–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20557-7_27
Wood-Donnelly C (2020) Performing Arctic sovereignty: policy and visual narratives. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon
Wood-Donnelly C, Bartels MP (2022) Science diplomacy in the Arctic: contributions of the USGS to policy discourse and impact on governance. Polar Rec. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247422000134
Wood-Donnelly C, Ohlsson J (eds) (2023) Arctic governance: environment, society and governance. Bristol University Press, Bristol
Young OR (1985) The age of the Arctic. Foreign Policy 61(Winter):160–179 https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1148707.pdf
Young OR (1992) Arctic politics: conflict and cooperation in the circumpolar North. University Press of New England, Hanover
Young OR (2005) Governing the Arctic: from cold war theater to mosaic of cooperation. Glob Gov 11(1):9–15 https://doi.org/www.jstor.org/stable/27800550
Zehfuss M (2002) Constructivism in international relations: the politics of reality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Funding
Open access funding provided by Nord University
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Corine Wood-Donnelly; lead author (all parts)
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable
Consent for publication
Not applicable
Competing interests
The author declares no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Wood-Donnelly, C. Evaluating normative capacity through Arctic environmental governance. Climatic Change 176, 127 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-023-03603-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-023-03603-3