This title was first published in 2000: The book analyses the development of arctic environmental cooperation since the late 1980s until the establishment of the Arctic Council in 1996. The study is based on the discourse analysis of statement, documents and interviews by the different actors in the cooperation. In this book, the problem of the environment is seen as a problem of order: it is a problem of ordering relations among related actors, of ordering priorities of action and of ordering relations between different institutional arrangements locally, regionally and internally. Three discourses were found in the cooperation: discourses of sovereignty, knowledge and development. In the discourse of sovereignty, the development of relations between state and indigenous peoples in terms of international environmental cooperation is central. In the discourse of knowledge, the different forms of knowledge and the role of different producers of knowledge in cooperation has been discussed. The discourse of development focuses on the idea of sustainable development and its applications in defining the future of the Circumpolar North and the activities of the Arctic Council. The arctic cooperation can be understood as a regional effort to make an order of sustainability into practice.

The basic objective of this report is to place the debate about the future of the Northern Sea Route into the larger picture of Arctic politics and the emerging agenda of the Arctic as a developing region in international society. National security and international environmental cooperation, are the objects of study employed, both separately and in various conceptual combinations, to realize this purpose. To help me in this, I was privileged to draw on the profound expertise of my highly esteemed co-authors, Professor Franklyn Griffiths at the University of Toronto and Senior Researchers at IMEMO in Moscow: Raphael Vartanov, Alexei Roginko and Alexander Kolossov. To their cooperative spirit, friendship and solid contributions to this report, ( am deeply indebted. The report is the result of multiple contributions, both in terms of substance and funding, extending far beyond the inputs of the team of authors. The professional input and thorough work 'behind the scene' done by Liv Astrid Sverdrup, Researcher at FNI at an early stage of the project, has been invaluable. Senior Consultant Kjell Moe at the Norwegian Polar Institute also provided valuable comments and improvements to the biological parts of the Introductory chapter, whilst Senior Consultant Ann Skarstad at FNI, worked wonders with the language for those of us not having English as our mother tongue. Claes Lykke Ragner, Deputy head of the (NSROP secretariat, and Dr.

A new exploration of the impacts of Arctic regimes in such vital areas as pollution, biodiversity, indigenous affairs, health and climate change. The post-Cold War era has seen an upsurge in interest in Arctic affairs. With new international regimes targeting Arctic issues at both the global and regional levels, the Northern areas seem set to play an increasingly prominent role in the domestic and foreign policies of the Arctic states and actors – not least Russia, the USA and the EU. This volume clearly distinguishes between three key kinds of impact: effectiveness, defined as mitigation or removal of specific problems addressed by a regime political mobilization, highlighting changes in the pattern of involvement and influence in decision making on Arctic affairs region building, understood as contributions by Arctic institutions to denser interactive or discursive connectedness among the inhabitants of the region. Empirically, the main focus is on three institutions: the Arctic Council, the Barents Euro-Arctic Region and the Council of the Baltic Sea States. International Cooperation and Arctic Governance is essential reading for all students with an interest in Arctic affairs and their impact on global society.

Arctic-wide intergovernmental cooperation protecting the Arctic environment formally began with the establishment of the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS), which later transformed into the Arctic Council. However, the founding documents of cooperation in both were soft-law in nature rather than internationally concluded treaties. The main objective of the Arctic Council is to promote 'environmental protection' and 'sustainable development' in the Arctic. Neither the AEPS nor the Arctic Council included the issue of climate change in their working agenda or as a primary concern during their establishment. However, the AEPS was concerned with the 'global climate' during its formation, although it decided not to address the issue since other international forums had already started to work on it. Nevertheless, climate change seriously affects both of the main objectives of the Council: environmental protection and sustainable development in the Arctic. In the course of time, climate change has become an important issue within Arctic-wide cooperation. The Council provides significant information to policy-makers and other actors by conducting a number of projects to limit climate change in the Arctic or address the consequences caused by climate change to its ecosystems and inhabitants. Even with its institutional weaknesses due to the lack of proper mechanisms, the Council functions through its various working groups and their programs. Two decades after the beginning of cooperation, it is timely to conduct an extensive evaluation of its success mainly in the field of climate change.