Payday Loans
top
geopoliticsnorth_logo

Publications

Publications overview
menu_bottom
Programme publications
menu_bottom
Articles and papers
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
Books, chapters and reports
2013
2012
2011
2010 
2009
2008
 
In the media
menu_bottom
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008 
 
Other relevant publications
menu_bottom
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2000-2008

Books, chapters and reports 2010

Heather Conley and Jamie Kraut:
US strategic interests in the Arctic- an assessment of current challenges and new opportunities for cooperation, CSIS, Washington D.C., April 2010
Abstract: This report addresses the U.S. interests in the Arctic, and the development of a coordinated U.S. government  policy toward the Arctic. It addresses the potential for enhanced multilateral cooperation within an international governing structure, and outlines the security postures of the five Arctic littoral states. It provides short term and long term recommendations to the U.S. government to advance its policy vis-à-vis the Arctic.

Alexey Komarov:

Question about research of history of the Soviet-Norwegian relations in Russia and about cooperation of the Russian and Norwegian historians, in Cooperation between Russia and countries of Nordic Europe in the socio-humanitarian sphere, Murmansk, 2010

Dmitri Trenin & Pavel Baev:
The Arctic: A view from Moscow, Carnegie report September 2010
Summary: The Arctic is emerging as the world’s next hot spot for oil and gas development. The U.S. Geological survey has estimated that the Arctic seabed could contain 20 percent of the world’s oil and gas resources and Russia’s ministry of Natural resources says the Arctic territory claimed by Russia could be home to twice the volume of Saudi Arabia’s oil reserves. While accessing those reserves once seemed impossible, the melting ice cap now makes it more feasible and opens new shipping lanes for international trade. Countries around the world—particularly Russia—have noticed. As the country continues to push for strong economic growth and geopolitical advantages, the Arctic has risen to the forefront of Russia’s international agenda. Offering two views from Moscow and Oslo, respectively, Dmitri Trenin and Pavel K. Baev look at what opening the Arctic for energy exploration and development would mean for Russia. With the scarcity of undeveloped and resource-rich areas in the world, the Arctic could easily be a source of conflict. Trenin, however, suggests that the region presents a chance for Russia to cooperate with fellow Arctic countries, notably Canada, Denmark, Norway, and the United states. As its relations with these countries improve as part of Russia’s new policy of building “modernization alliances,” Moscow can focus on the economic benefits the area offers, including new shipping routes. Adopting a “code of conduct” to help resolve all issues diplomatically and legally rather than with force will allow the Arctic countries to coexist peacefully—and avoid turning the area into another conflict zone. In a separate analysis, Baev concludes that Russia sees the Arctic through a patriotic rather than an economic lens. With the global recession and lingering questions about the actual oil and gas reserves in the area—the estimates are only the best guesses available—Russia has put some of its production plans on hold. Russia’s intent to develop Arctic resources quickly has given way to seeking maximum claims for territories, but this approach could leave Moscow isolated with its Arctic partners uninterested in Russia’s power games. Fulfilling Moscow’s Arctic ambitions, then, may offer more risks than rewards. Whether Moscow adopts an approach that favors cooperation or conflict in the Arctic is not yet clear. But as countries around the globe continue to rely on a dwindling number of oil and gas reserves to serve their energy needs, the territory—parts of which remain unclaimed—will continue to be an area of intense geopolitical interest. Russia’s role in fostering either goodwill or rivalry will have implications for countries far from the Arctic’s icy waters.


Robert Huebert:
The newly emerging Arctic security environment, 2010
Abstract: The Arctic is changing and, as a result, is garnering unprecedented international interest. With warming temperatures, melting ice and greater accessibility to resources in the region, concerns for security in the region are at the forefront of the Arctic states’ attempts to maintain their foothold in the Arctic. All of the Arctic states – Canada, Russia, Denmark, Norway and the United States – have downplayed concerns about conflict sparked by a “race for resources” in the Arctic by issuing policy statements. The core of these statements is that the Arctic states will work together to maintain peaceful cooperation in the region. However, the Arctic states are seemingly contradicting the intent of their statements as evidenced by their current actions. All of the Arctic states have begun rebuilding their military forces and capabilities in order to operate in the region. Personnel are undertaking Arctic training exercises; submarines that can operate in ice are being developed or enhanced; icebreakers are being built; and so forth. The catalyst for the Arctic states’ efforts appears to be a recognition that the Arctic is critically vital to their interests and they will take the steps necessary to defend these interests. The consequence of these efforts is that notwithstanding the public statements of peace and cooperation in the Arctic issued by the Arctic states, the strategic value of the Arctic is growing. As this value grows, each state will attach a greater value to their own national interests in the region. The Arctic states may be talking cooperation, but they are preparing for conflict.

Lev Voronkov:
Geopolitical Dimensions of Transport and Logistics Development in the Barents Euro-Arctic Transport Area, 2010

Whitney Lackenbauer and Peter Kikkert (eds.):
The Canadian Forces and Arctic Sovereignty: Debating Roles, Interests, and Requirements, 1968-1974. Waterloo: Laurier Centre for Military Strategic and Disarmament Studies / WLU Press.
Abstract: The role of the Canadian Forces in asserting sovereignty is often tied to the maxim that possession is nine-tenths of the law. Surveillance capability and boots on the ground are often tightly bound to Canada’s credibility in defending its sovereignty. As talk of a polar race intensifies, and new concerns arise over the continental shelf, boundaries, pollution, melting ice, and that tiny piece of rock called Hans Island, a more robust Canadian Forces presence is perceived as essential to Canada’s using or losing its Arctic. But where is the justification to validate this accepted wisdom? How does a military presence play into demonstrating effective occupation? Does a military presence really strengthen Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic?

 


bottom
©2014-2017 Geopolitics in the High North. All rights reserved

 
Norwegian Institute for defence Studies CSIS Fritjof Nansen Institute Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik University of Tromsø Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the MFA of Russia University of Oslo Institute of general history Norwegian Defence Research Establishment Econ Pöyry
 
  The GeoPolitics in the High North research programme is now terminated, and the programme website will be preserved through 2016, but not updated.
Do you have any questions? Please contact us: info@ifs.mil.no
For more information about current IFS research on the High North, please visit our website: https://forsvaret.no/ifs/en

Made by Rebirth Media
 

bottom