Explaining the Evolution of the Arctic Council

351 Pages·2017·2.65 MB·English

WWeesstteerrnn UUnniivveerrssiittyy
SScchhoollaarrsshhiipp@@WWeesstteerrnn
Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository
8-26-2015 12:00 AM
EExxppllaaiinniinngg tthhee EEvvoolluuttiioonn ooff tthhee AArrccttiicc CCoouunncciill
Andrew Chater, The University of Western Ontario
Supervisor: Elizabeth Riddell-Dixon, The University of Western Ontario
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree
in Political Science
© Andrew Chater 2015
Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd
Part of the International Relations Commons
RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn
Chater, Andrew, "Explaining the Evolution of the Arctic Council" (2015). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation
Repository. 3230.
https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/3230
This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted
for inclusion in Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository by an authorized administrator of
Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact [email protected].
EXPLAINING THE EVOLUTION OF THE ARCTIC COUNCIL

(Thesis format: Monograph)

by

Andrew Chater

Graduate Program in Political Science

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

The School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies
The University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario, Canada

© Andrew Chater 2015
i

ABSTRACT
The Arctic Council is an international institution made up of the eight states that have
territory in the Arctic, namely Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and
the United States, as well as six indigenous peoples’ organizations. When states created the
Council in 1996, it was a research institution that addressed environmental issues and a loosely
defined version of sustainable development. It was a weak institution, without a permanent
secretariat. By 2014, it had become a policy-making body, as well as a research body, that
addressed a wide range of issues, with the aid of a permanent secretariat. New states and
institutions sought to become a part of the Council, which potentially challenged the role of the
indigenous peoples’ organizations. This thesis answers the following question: how can we
explain this evolution of the Arctic Council? It examines the Council’s evolving mandate,
policy-making role, institutional capacity and membership. It addresses this question by
analyzing three international relations theories, namely functionalism, neorealism and neoliberal
institutionalism. This thesis concludes that the economic opportunities in the region made
possible by climate change best explain the evolution of the Arctic Council. Neoliberal
institutionalism best explains the evolution of the Council, while neorealism provides the best
explanation for the outcome of that process.
KEYWORDS
Arctic governance, Arctic Council, international institution evolution
ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project would not be possible without the contributions of many people. First, I
would like to thank my supervisor, Elizabeth Riddell-Dixon, for her insight, support and
guidance over the past five years. She retired from the University of Western Ontario in 2011,
yet has continued to serve as my supervisor and give generously of her time, truly the mark of an
excellent mentor.
I need to thank Adam Harmes, who went above and beyond to deliver many essential
insights and a great deal of guidance. He gave generously of his time, certainly more than what is
expected of a committee member. I also must thank Gordon McBean, who provided a great deal
of support, especially during the fieldwork stage of this work.
I must thank all of those individuals who agreed to be interviewed for this project, giving
freely of their time and providing indispensable information. Thanks goes to the Arctic
Athabaskan Council for allowing me to attend an Arctic Council meeting in October 2013 as part
of its delegation. Special thanks goes to Cindy Dickson, Chief Gary Harrison, Terry Fenge, Chief
Ruth Massie and David Roddick, who organized my attendance despite resistance from the
Council chair.
I also would like to thank those organizations that provided funds to complete the
fieldwork for this project, namely the University of Western Ontario Department of Political
Science, the University of Western Ontario Department of Geography, the University of Western
Ontario Faculty of Social Science and the Arctic Institute of North America. I also would like to
thank the Social Sciences Humanities Research Council, the Ontario Graduate Scholarship and
the Rotman Institute of Philosophy at the University of Western Ontario for additional support.
iii

I would like to thank Patricia Bell, as well Darlene Nuqingaq and the Iqaluit Music
Society, who provided me with opportunities and support to travel to Iqaluit, Nunavut. These
experiences provided essential inspiration for this project.
Lastly, I would like to thank my parents, Al and Susan Chater, for their endless support.
This thesis would not be possible without their support, encouragement and devotion. Each
proofread this thesis and provided great insight. I am truly lucky to have such wonderful parents.
------
I am solely responsible for any errors or omissions in this work.
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................ vii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
1.1 – What is the Arctic Council? ......................................................................................... 2
1.2 – What is the History of the Arctic Council? ................................................................ 10
1.3 – What is the Arctic Council’s Mandate? ..................................................................... 15
1.4 – How Does the Council Operate?................................................................................ 16
1.5 – How is the Arctic Council Evolving? ........................................................................ 24
1.6 – How Do Others Theorize the Arctic Council? ........................................................... 26
1.7 – How is the Thesis Structured? ................................................................................... 31
1.8 – What Are the Contributions of the Thesis?................................................................ 34
1.9 – What Methodology is Employed? ............................................................................. 38
CHAPTER 2: EXPLAINING THE EXPANDING MANDATE OF THE COUNCIL ............... 43
2.1 – Theorizing the Evolution of the Arctic Council .............................................................. 46
2.2 – Understanding the Evolution of the Council ................................................................... 55
2.2.1 – 1991-1996 ..................................................................................................................... 56
2.2.2 – 1996-2004 ..................................................................................................................... 74
2.2.3 – 2004-2007 ..................................................................................................................... 83
2.2.4 – 2007-2014 ..................................................................................................................... 88
2.3 – Analysis of the Evolution of the Arctic Council’s Mandate ............................................ 94
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 110
CHAPTER 3: EXPLAINING THE POLICY-MAKING ROLE OF THE COUNCIL .............. 112
3.1 – Theorizing the Evolution of the Arctic Council’s Policy-Making Role ........................ 115
3.2 – Understanding the Evolution of the Council’s Policy-Making Role ............................. 124
3.2.1 – 1991-1996 ................................................................................................................... 124
3.2.2 – 1996-2004 ................................................................................................................... 132
3.2.3 – 2004-2007 ................................................................................................................... 140
3.2.4 – 2008-2013 ................................................................................................................... 145
3.2.5 – 2013: The Future of Policy-Making in the Council .................................................... 150
3.3 - Explaining the Evolution of the Arctic Council’s Policy-Making Role ......................... 154
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 169
CHAPTER 4: EXPLAINING THE EVOLVING INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY OF THE
ARCTIC COUNCIL ................................................................................................................... 171
4.1 – Theorizing the Evolution of the Arctic Council’s Institutional Capacity ...................... 175
4.2 – The Evolution of the Council’s Institutional Capacity .................................................. 182
4.2.1 – 1991-1998 ................................................................................................................... 183
4.2.2 – 1998-2007 ................................................................................................................... 187
4.2.3 – 2007-Present ............................................................................................................... 195
4.3 – Analyzing the Evolution of the Arctic Council’s Institutional Capacity ....................... 203
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 212
v

CHAPTER 5: EXPLAINING THE ROLE OF OBSERVERS IN THE ARCTIC COUNCIL .. 213
5.1 – Theory on International Co-operation and Observers ................................................... 216
5.2 – The Evolution of the Council’s Observers..................................................................... 219
5.2.1 – 1991-1996 ................................................................................................................... 219
5.2.2 – 1996-2004 ................................................................................................................... 222
5.2.3 – 2005-Present ............................................................................................................... 224
5.3 – Analysis Using International Relations Theory ............................................................. 234
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 237
CHAPTER 6: THE EVOLUTION OF THE ARCTIC COUNCIL PERMANENT
PARTICIPANT’S STATUS, RIGHTS AND INFLUENCE...................................................... 238
6.1 – Theoretical Predictions on the Influence of Non-State Actors ...................................... 242
6.2 – The Evolution of the Permanent Participants ................................................................ 246
6.2.1 – 1991 to 1998 ............................................................................................................... 246
6.2.2 – 1998 to 2004 ............................................................................................................... 260
6.2.3 – 2004: The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment ............................................................ 273
6.2.4 – 2005 to 2013 ............................................................................................................... 276
6.2.5 – 2014: The Future Influence of Permanent Participants .............................................. 291
6.3 – Analysis Using Theories of International Relations ...................................................... 294
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 298
CHAPTER 7 – CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 299
7.1 – The History of the Arctic Council ................................................................................. 299
7.2 – Contributions to Theory ................................................................................................. 309
7.3 – Directions for Future Research ...................................................................................... 311
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 314
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................. 316
APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................. 318
BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................... 319
CURRICULUM VITAE ............................................................................................................. 339
vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1: Summary of Chapters…………………………………………………………...……32
Table 1.2: Variables……………………………………………………………………………...39

Table 2.1: Dependent and Independent Variables……………………………………………….53
Table 2.2: Analysis……………………………………………………………………………..103
Table 2.3: Theoretical Explanations for the Evolution of the Council’s Mandate……………..104
Table 2.4: Dependent and Independent Variables Analysis……………………………………106

Table 3.1: Dependent and Independent Variables……………………………………………...121
Table 3.2: Analysis……………………………………………………………………………..162
Table 3.3: Theoretical Explanations for the Evolution of the Council’s Policy-Making Role...164
Table 3.4: Dependent and Independent Variables Analysis……………………………………165

Table 4.1: Dependent and Independent Variables……………………………………………...180
Table 4.2: Analysis……………………………………………………………………………..206
Table 4.3: Theoretical Explanations for the Evolution of Council Capacity……….…………..207
Table 4.4: Dependent and Independent Variables Analysis……………………………………208

Table 5.1: Council Observers as of 2015……………………………………………………….231
Table 5.2: Results……………………………………………………………………………….234

Table 6.1: The Importance of Non-State Actors in International Institutions………………….243
Table 6.2: Permanent Participant Participation, 1998-2004……………………………………273
Table 6.3: Permanent Participant Projects……………………………………………………...278
Table 6.4: Permanent Participant Participation………………………………………………...283
Table 6.5: Analysis……………………………………………………………………………..295
vii

LIST OF ACRONYMS
AIA – Aleut International Association
AAC – Arctic Athabaskan Council
ABA – Arctic Biodiversity Assessment
ACIA – Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
ACAP – Arctic Contaminants Action Program
ACMM – Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting
AEC – Arctic Economic Council
AEPS – Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy
AMEC – Arctic Military Environmental Co-operation
AMAP – Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme
CAFF – Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna
DMM – Deputy Ministers Meeting
D.C. – District of Columbia
EPPR – Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response
GIS – Geographic Information Systems
GCI – Gwich’in Council International
IPS – Indigenous Peoples’ Secretariat
ICC – Inuit Circumpolar Council
MM – Ministerial Meeting
NEFCO – Nordic Environmental Finance Corporation
NATO – North Atlantic Treaty Organization
POP – Persistent Organic Pollutant
PCB – Polychlorinated Biphenyl
PSI – Project Support Instrument
PAME – Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment
RAIPON – Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North
SAO – Senior Arctic Official
SDWG – Sustainable Development Working Group
USSR – Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
U.S. – United States
U.S.A. – United States of America
USD – United States Dollar
UV – Ultraviolet
1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
In 1996, many Arctic policy-makers1 and activists believed the newly created Arctic
Council was a weak, informal research institution offering limited opportunities to address issues
that are important to people who live in the Arctic region.2 By 2013, the Council appeared more
robust than ever as it created major international agreements that responded to the consequences
of climate change in the Arctic. The major research question addressed in this thesis is: how can
we explain this evolution of the Arctic Council? The Council is an international institution
charged with the promotion of environmental conservation and sustainable development in the
Arctic region. It is evolving from a research institution that addresses environmental issues to a
forum for policy-making on a wide variety of issues. This institution is worthy of serious
scholarly attention because the Council is the premier governance institution for the Arctic
region and it addresses profoundly important global issues such as climate change. The evolution
of this institution will have consequences for the global community. Thus, the trajectory of its
evolution is of interest not only to those who study the region, but also to those concerned with
broader global politics. This thesis explains the Council’s evolution by assessing the predictive
validity and reliability of three theories of international co-operation: functionalism, neorealism
and neoliberal institutionalism. This work argues that the Arctic’s economic potential has created
an incentive for states to facilitate governance through the Council, though great powers are the

1 In this thesis, “policy-maker” refers to an official who attended Council meetings representing a state, non-
governmental organization, international institution or indigenous peoples’ organization. This group includes
government officials, political activists, political actors (such as elected representatives) and scientists. I use the
term “policy-maker” as a generic term because 1) all of these actors sought to contribute to the development of
policy through the Council and 2) they were entrusted to represent the views of their organization in a diplomatic
capacity.
2 Interviews with eleven different Council policy-makers, winter, spring and summer 2013. This group includes a
former senior Canadian foreign affairs official, a junior Canadian foreign affairs official, two senior United States
Environmental Protection Agency officials, one former senior government of Alaska official, one senior United
States State Department official, one former senior United States Department of the Interior official, a senior
Norwegian foreign affairs official, two senior Icelandic foreign affairs officials and a Russian scientist who has
worked with the Council. The comment arose in response to a discussion that the Council, over time, has become a
more professional body.