Discourses about Arctic resources and their exploitation often carry a lot of misconceptions. In this chapter, we specifically want to deconstruct some of these tenacious representations. Through a political geography approach, we propose an examination of the spatial logic of the exploitation of extractive resources in the Arctic and underlying political stakes. We begin with an overview of the availability of proven and estimated resources in the region. Starting from this first observation, which already contributes to nuance an often too optimistic discourse on regional availability, we consider the many constraints that arise in the face of exploitation: technical, financial constraints… We also emphasize the importance of distinguishing between hydrocarbons and mining resources: the difficulties encountered are not of the same order. This allows us finally to analyze the political stakes of resource exploitation in the Arctic – from local geopolitics and social acceptability to major global issues. While the exploitation of resources in the Arctic is an established fact, we wish to propose a nuanced analysis of this reality and to consider its scope at all scales.

Voir la publication originale

Many representations and narratives about the Arctic and Arctic politics carry misconceptions and flawed generalizations. Usually, the term ‘Arctic’ is used as an unproblematized—by default—geographical frame, without considering why this particular ‘Arctic’ framing was chosen and what this choice entails. Yet, considering geographical framing is important as the very choice behind it already carries a political agenda. This paper argues that focussing on the interplay between the different ‘scales’ of the Arctic can shed light on the politics of Arctic scales and resulting discourses. To that end, I analysed every Arctic strategy published by both Arctic and non-Arctic actors. I concentrated on strategies that specifically focused on the Arctic region as a whole, to draw comparisons from these framings. Using thematic analysis, I examined how the Arctic is construed and how the scale at which Arctic issues are framed comes with political consequences. In doing so, I wish to underline the interplay scales and underlying political processes. I conclude by stressing that recognising and attending to the production of ‘scale’ as an inherently political process greatly improves our understanding of regional politics.

Voir la publication originale

International negotiations for the deep sea occur through two channels: under the authority of the International Seabed Authority (ISA) for exploitation, and within the framework of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) for claims related to the extended continental shelf, overseen by a scientific commission. This study focuses specifically on the latter, aiming to analyze the contentious issues that arise during these negotiations. By examining a comprehensive database containing the 93 submitted claims, the 38 commission responses, and countries' reactions, we establish a typology of countries' responses and investigate how they address overlapping claims. Additionally, we explore the arguments countries use to dispute claims. Our findings reveal that, in the majority of cases, states adhere to UNCLOS procedures. However, it is important to note that the commission can only provide consultative advice. Consequently, we supplement our analysis by examining overlapping claims in the Arctic region, emphasizing the resilience of the legal framework even in times of crisis. Through this research, we contribute to the scholarly dialogue on ocean governance, Arctic politics, and geopolitics.

Two states can have several bilateral agreements between them, some legally binding and others not. Is there a discernible pattern to how states structure the chronological sequence of binding and non-binding agreements governing a specific issue area? For example, do states prioritize a binding treaty to establish the foundation of their cooperation and later iron out details in non-binding instruments? Or do they first experiment with a low-commitment memorandum of understanding before eventually settling on a more permanent treaty? This paper explores these questions using the example of space governance, which is characterized by a high number of bilateral agreements. Examining space agreements between 287 state dyads, it finds evidence that a combination of power asymmetry and trust levels shapes the sequence of binding and non-binding agreements. These findings are of particular relevance to the literature on informal governance, regime complexes and space politics.