Abstract:
The Arctic today has changed dramatically since the 1990s. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, during the past decade, the surface area of the Arctic Sea ice has reached its lowest levels since 1850. Not only has climate change caused the Arctic ice to melt at unprecedented rates, but it has also heated geopolitical tensions within the region.
Due to its global impact, the preservation of the Arctic has become a critical international governance issue. The Arctic ice melt has led to irreversible natural consequences, and it also has the potential to become a major crisis with ramifications for international security. While the environmental dynamics underway in the region risk undermining the world’s strategy to curb climate change, they have also opened up opportunities for a new phase of exploitation of fossil fuels, yet research into this topic remains limited. Such opposing dynamics (environmental preservation in the interest of the international community vs. exploitation of natural resources for national interests) offer an interesting context to study potential shifts in the chosen states’ policy narratives. In order to achieve that and respond to the knowledge gap, this research quantitatively analyses and compares the key policy documents issued by all relevant states before and after 2015, which is the year when the current climate change commitments were made and the new UN strategies (Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development) were established. Ultimately, the purpose of this study is to identify shifts in policy narratives that trend toward support of either the liberal approach (international collaboration) or the realist alternative (national interest).
This research uses the theoretical framework of liberalism and realism to guide a quantitative content analysis of the key policy documents. In turn, the overarching goal of the current study is to determine which of these two theoretical approaches best represents the countries’ discursive position on the Arctic. This may cast additional light on what governance dynamics may prevail in the region in the future. Essentially, this study concludes that liberalism remains the dominant narrative within the Arctic region. However, after 2015, the general trend, in every country’s policy document (except for Iceland) is a decrease in relevance for liberal policies and an increase in realist positions.
