In this thesis the ways in which power is shaped in the Arctic among the ‘Arctic five’ states are analyzed. It is argued that the Arctic is a multipolar region, in which Russia is the most dominant...Show moreIn this thesis the ways in which power is shaped in the Arctic among the ‘Arctic five’ states are analyzed. It is argued that the Arctic is a multipolar region, in which Russia is the most dominant and other actors adopt strategies towards Russia such as soft balancing, bandwagoning, and appeasement. The thesis shows that traditional conceptions of power do not apply unequivocally to the Arctic region, because it is hard to control effectively due to its unique geographical composition. Power in the Arctic is based on the recognition of sovereign rights over an area, which will give states economic opportunities (control over waterways and resources) in the future due to melting ice. The ideal of permanence underlying modern sovereignty is absent in the changing Arctic, and sovereign rights for exploitation of an area do not give states actual sovereignty. Sovereignty disputes are therefore often unclear and create interesting power dynamics. They are resolved through institutional procedures based on international law and political geography, yet states have opportunities for negotiation and can adopt their own viewpoints on sovereignty based on what suits the national interest. Thus the Arctic provides a unique example of ‘structural power’ and the interaction between structure and agency. Due to the ever-changing nature of the Arctic, states’ interests are more future-oriented than elsewhere. The thesis concludes that while security and sovereignty have become more important in the Arctic in recent years, there is no ‘security dilemma’ because capacity building does not directly threaten other states, and military conflict does not lead to gains and is highly unlikely. Security issues are rather more specific and less concerned with warfare, and more with the environment and emergencies. The difficulty of operating in the Arctic environment compels states to cooperate through international institutions, but the ‘Arctic five’ do this to further their national interests. The interdependence of the Arctic with the system-level is traced, and it is found that states are limited in their options in the Arctic due to mutual commitments on a global scale and possible precedent effects of agreements in the Arctic.Show less
