The Arctic of the Regions
2011; SAGE Publishing; Volume: 66; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1177/002070201106600418
ISSN2052-465X
Autores Tópico(s)Polar Research and Ecology
ResumoThe Arctic is usually seen nowadays through a security lens, with an Arctic race in progress between the five Arctic coastal states who seek to secure their access to potential natural resources or future sea routes as they become icefree due to climate change and global warming. It seems, however, that the Arctic of the regions is mostly absent, even forgotten, in debates about the future of the Arctic.In order to address this we can start by recognizing that the Arctic can be understood from a range of different vantage points. From a physical point of view, three main definitions can be used. First, the Arctic could be defined as the area within the Arctic circle (66° north). Second, the Arctic could be defined as the area above the tree line. Third, the Arctic could be defined as the area where the average temperature for the warmest month (July) is below 100C. The Arctic can also be defined politicaUy, in the sense of the Arctic Counril, with eight states constituting the area: Russia, the United States, Canada, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. It could also be seen as the area of the coastal Arctic five: Russia, the US, Norway, Denmark, and Canada.The Arctic is far different and larger. Indigenous geography reflects another aspect of the Arctic - the human dimension. The main peoples number about four million individuals and are represented by six associations, which are also members of the Arctic Council: the Aleut, the Athabaskans, the Gwich'in, the lnuit, the Sami, and the various small-numbered Russian peoples.The Arctic of the regions is composed of a set of subnational Arctic entities. This article pursues two parallel goals: presenting a political overview of peoples with emphasis on their relations with both regions and central states, and the statuses and political relations at work between Arctic regions and their respective central states.1 A clear distinction must be made between two notions that are linked but that cover two different realities: the term region will be used for a political subnational entity, while the term indigenous will be used to depict peoples living in those areas. For a clearer analysis, subnational entities and peoples will be treated one after another both internally and internationally, but a proper overview requires us to consider peoples in their regional context. I will take three criteria into account - subnational relations, peoples, and international outcomes - to analyze Arctic regions and to show how relevant they are. How is the emergence of Arctic regions, expressing common concerns, challenging Arctic states? Taking the major geographical bounds as our point of departure, i.e., the Russian, the European, and the North-American Arctic, we will evaluate the depth of regional impact on national Arctic policies.2 We will show that diverse regional situations do not exclude a convergence between peoples' interests, although they apparently have a relatively weak regional impact on Arctic states' policies.THE RUSSIAN ARCTICRussia is the major country in the Arctic, with a coastline covering roughly half of the Arctic Ocean. It is composed of 83 federal entities. Those entities have various statuses under the Russian constitution and consequently their power varies. Ten entities are Arctic regions, from the most autonomous to the lesser ones: the republics of Sakha (Yakutia), Komi, and Karelia; the krai of Krasnoyarsk; the autonomous districts (autonomous okrugs) of Chukotka, Yamalia, Khantia-Mansia (Yugra), and Nenetsia; and the oblasts of Murmansk and Arkhangelsk. We only consider entities that have sea shores on the Arctic Ocean or that are close to sea shores.3Those entities are equal in terms of the political rights they hold in the federation in the sense that they have the same representation (two delegates) in the federation counril. …
Referência(s)