The authors suggest that scholars mean very different things when they refer to the civil–military gap. To illustrate the point, the authors conceptualize the gap in terms of four distinct ideal types and show that scholars have referred to each variant as the civil–military gap at different times. Though the authors recognize that the four ideal types—cultural, demographic, policy preference, and institutional—are not always mutually exclusive, the authors suggest that they are divergent enough to warrant consideration as distinct variants and that their specification can enhance the civil–military relations literature by helping scholars identify and untangle the causes and effects of the gap.

ABSTRACT. The Ukraine crisis has led to tensions between Russia and the western states and the Arctic is one of the affected regions. Regional cooperation, institutions, and international law are essential for Arctic governance, and the crisis may thus have wide-ranging consequences for high north politics. The present article develops an interest-based model of Arctic conflict spill-over and examines its strength, based on a case-study of the first 18 months of the Ukraine crisis. Three hypotheses for Arctic conflict spill-over are developed: Arctic conflict spill-over will be less severe than spill-over in other regions, the western states will be more assertive than Russia, and the smaller Arctic states will be less assertive than the larger states. A review of the crisis confirms the bulk of these hypotheses with some exceptions, thus demonstrating that an interests-based model holds some merit, while also showing that a complete understanding of Arctic conflict spill-over necessitates a broader approach. The article concludes that conflict spillover is unlikely, but not impossible, in the Arctic.

Previous studies have argued that domestic factors, including each state's Arctic state identities, may explain why some Western states (e.g. Canada) have been more critical of Russia in the Arctic than others (e.g. Norway). The present study analyses part of the link between Arctic state identities and foreign policy by showing that these identifications affected domestic media discourses about the Arctic in Canada and Norway during the first years (2014-16) of the Crisis. Canada's territorial identification made it difficult for the newly elected Trudeau government to push for a less assertive course vis-à-vis Russia. In Norway, the strong economic discourse coloured early debates about the crisis, but after the widening of economic sanctions against Russia in the summer of 2014, territorial discourses played a more important role. The article thus illustrates that Arctic state identities shape media debates, but that the identifications themselves can change. In general, the article advocates for a comparative approach towards the analysis of Arctic state identities.

As climate change and globalization are opening the Arctic to human activities, the debate about how best to organize Arctic institutions in order to facilitate regional governance has been invigorated. One of the most controversial ideas in this debate has been the notion that a comprehensive treaty should govern the Arctic. Depending on its exact design, such a treaty could radically transform regional decision-making procedures and substantial issue areas. It has been opposed by several regional stakeholders, including most regional states. This article examines how specific factors determine the prominence of the idea of an Arctic treaty in governance debates, and whether it is likely to become a crucial feature in future discussions. It argues that there are multiple ideas concerning the content and purpose of an Arctic treaty. Some of its proponents favor radical transformation of the regional order, while others envision more moderate reforms of existing institutions. It maps how the Arctic treaty debate has developed in four phases from 1970 until today, showing that it has been driven by a combination of functional gaps in the regional institutional setup, changing public political discourses about Arctic governance, and the degree of opposition among regional stakeholders. As some of these factors persist, the Arctic treaty will most likely continue to play a role in regional governance debates. In case of a regional crisis, it can once again become a focal point for discussion.

No abstract