Anticipating the Arctic and the Arctic Council: pre-emption, precaution and preparedness

Abstract

This paper considers the role of the Arctic Council (AC) and its relationship to the future or even futures. Factors such as sea ice thinning and melting permafrost, alongside globalisation, have been cited as consequential in transforming the Arctic region. While we might be cautious about the novelty of change per se, there is a need for further debate about how the 'future' is imagined and put into practice. Exploring different logics, including precaution, pre-emption and preparedness, consideration is offered on how the AC attempts to anticipate the future. The contentious role of observers is investigated by way of an example, and it is concluded that there is more work to be done in terms of how different futures are assembled, mobilised and put into practice.

Conditions for the Russian Federation Arctic zone innovative development

“…Clusters give an opportunity to build a system of spreading new knowledge, contribute to efficient cooperation of economic entities; set new directions in business, including science-based and high-tech ones; accelerate innovation processes which is a great competitive advantage of the region. [16][17][18]. Taking into account the defined priorities of AZRF socio-economical development, the focus is put upon clusters of the following enterprises: information and communication technology, radionics and instrument-making, oil and gas processing, geological exploration, industrial mechanic engineering, mining industry, iron and steel industry, shipbuilding, nuclear and radiation technology, environment preservation.…”

Is a Melting Arctic Making the Arctic Council Too Cool? Exploring the Limits to the Effectiveness of a Boundary Organization

“…Like the influence of the IPCC, the Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development, or the World Health Organization on a global scale, linking a policy decision or action in the circumpolar region to the Arctic Council is seen to provide that decision with immediate credibility and legitimacy. Furthermore, governance experts have taken an interest in the Council's unique and innovative governance model as something that other institutions and regions could learn from (Abele & Rodon, ; Dodds, ; Stokke, ; Young & Kankaanpaa, ). Yet very little empirical work has been undertaken to understand the governance design of the Arctic Council.…”

Maritime Operations and Emergency Preparedness in the Arctic–Competence Standards for Search and Rescue Operations Contingencies in Polar Waters

“…Regional studies have shown limitations in SAR capacities, including the SAR technology adapted to the region. This includes information and communication tools for remote areas such as Single Window (Fjortoft et al 2011), innovation in Arctic vessel and rescue equipment (Berg et al 2013;Gudmestad and Karunakaran 2012;Torheim and Gudmestad 2011) and development of Arctic infrastructure (Dodds 2013). There is a need for operational knowledge, especially on cooperation among the broad range of actors involved in major accidents, including the crew of the vessel in distress, joint rescue coordination centers (JRCC), coast guard, private preparedness organizations, Samaritan vessels, police, the ship owners and their stakeholders .…”