1. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY AND THE ARCTIC

2. LECTURE AIMS Summarise the different international relations theories Provide some illustrations of how they might inform our understanding of the Arctic Consider their strengths and weaknesses

3. WHAT IS IR THEORY FOR? Means of understanding and interpreting events Simplification of reality Prediction? Not really a guide to action

4. THE BASICS Liberalism Optimistic, harmony of interests, progress possible Realism Pessimistic, war, repeated behaviour inescapable

5. CLASSICAL REALISM Pessimistic view of human nature States system is anarchical War could happen at any time Security is a central concern Power a means to achieve it Balance of power key mechanism

6. NEO-REALISM Scientific theory of international relations Systemic level theory States are rational, unitary actors in anarchical system. Cannot trust each other Distribution of power is key to predicting outcomes

7. REALISM Repetitive behaviour expected Balancing Alliances Security dilemma Arms races War

8. REALISM International law is epiphenomenal Created and enforced by powerful states in their interests Morality is cheap-talk International institutions have no effect

9. LIBERALISM Cooperation is possible in international relations States are not the only important actors Regime-type is important More of a role for institutions and rules Economic interdependence can lead to peace Democratic peace – a law of IR

10. DEMOCRATIC PEACE Institutional explanation Checks and balances People risk-averse, prefer peace Normative explanation Democracies externalise internal decision-making processes and preferences

11. THE ARCTIC

12. THE ARCTIC

13. THE ARCTIC

14. THE ARCTIC

15. LIBERALISM Neo-liberalism Same assumptions as realism, different conclusions Provide rules and norms Institutions can prevent cheating Reduce transaction costs Provide forums Enable issue-linkage States take long-term view of self-interests International institutional order is sticky

16. INSTITUTIONS IN THE ARCTIC Law of the Sea - Recognized by all major Arctic powers and non-Arctic States Arctic Council - Membership of 8 Arctic States and participation from Indigenous groups

17. CONSTRUCTIVISM International politics are socially constructed Ideational variables are key Norms regulate and constitute Standards of appropriateness condition behaviour Anarchy is what states make of it Examine discourses and framing

18. CONSTRUCTIVISM Wendt's Three Cultures of Anarchy - Hobbesian - Lockean - Kantian

19. CONSTRUCTIVISM Security communities possible - States no longer contemplate war as a serious possibility Identity and difference matter - There are “in-groups” and “out-groups” Legitimacy is a key variable and states care about reputation but not for material reasons

20. ISSUES: TERRITORIAL CONFLICTS Territorial issues a leading historical cause of war War has been more likely between states if they have a territorial dispute Territorial wars are fought harder, longer and with more casualties

21. CHANGING CONSTRUCTION OF TERRITORY Territory as personal possession of monarch - Sale, exchange, compensation, conquest. Romantic period saw it linked to people Self-determination and territory as a home-land Conquest now seen as inappropriate

22. TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY Territorial aggrandizement and the forceful alteration of international boundaries now illegitimate "The society of states has largely eliminated what scholars have identified as the major source of enduring rivalries and the frequency and intensity of warfare." Mark Zacher No country is openly questioning the territorial order in the Arctic, but it is jurisdiction at sea that has been of concern

23. REALISM AT SEA The ocean is not a part of the state Geopolitical discourse frames state as object of security Realism does not have much to say about offshore jurisdiction

24. SECURITY AND THE SEA Major security concerns: Freedom of navigation and over-flight The bargain in UNCLOS Territorial Sea Ships and other offshore installations What about maritime zones and their boundaries?

25. SECURITY AND THE ARCTIC OCEAN

26. TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY AND THE SEA Ocean is not territory beyond the territorial sea Freedom of navigation and limited sovereign rights No maritime boundaries in many places Ocean and land are very different social, political and economic spaces

27. TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY AND THE SEA Basis of land norm: Instrumental – prevention of conflict Ethical – self-determination At sea: No history of territorial conflict No population

28. TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY AND THE SEA Ocean a very different social space to land Less salient politically? Steinberg – great void, force-field and territorial constructions Construction coming under stress? Psycho-legal boundaries

29. TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY AND THE SEA

30. TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY AND THE SEA States have complied with UNCLOS Maritime boundaries very stable No conquest at sea States use law to justify their boundary claims

31. TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY AND THE SEA Territorial sea based in security - Decline of the canon-shot rule Status as a buffer to primary security referent of the state Given meaning by its relationship to state What about other zones?

32. TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY AND THE SEA Ocean space as economic/instrumental Exclusive Economic Zone Joint development arrangements

33. TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY AND THE SEA Continental shelf - Natural prolongation - Annexation - Arvid Pardo's warning EEZ/fisheries - Conservation and an ecological space - Territorial space Disorder concerns relating to both

34. TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY AND THE ARCTIC

35. TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY AND THE ARCTIC "This isn't the 15th Century, you can't go around the world and just plant flags and say 'We're claiming this territory'," - Peter MacKay, Minister of Foreign Affairs