Authors: Christine Rosenfeld*, George Mason University, John De Rosa, Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution, George Mason University, Violeta Ferati, Institute of Political Science, Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany, Sara Cobb, Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution, George Mason University
Topics: Political Geography, Cultural and Political Ecology, Human-Environment Geography
Keywords: Arctic, strategic choice, risk analysis, security
Session Type: Virtual Paper
Start / End Time: 3:05 PM / 4:20 PM
Room: Virtual 39
Presentation File: No File Uploaded
The pathways to peace and cooperation in the Arctic among regional and global stakeholders have not yet been fully paved. Long-term peace depends on the integration and recognition of the varying understandings of what “security” (should) mean and how it would materialize in collective decision-making processes. Given the rapid changes in the Arctic, understanding interpretative frameworks of key stakeholders will play a central role in the actions of key stakeholders. Indeed, the way parties construct their preferences has import for how they are making sense of situations and gauging their own participation. Achieving stability within a geographically unstable Arctic is thus anchored in the analysis of party preferences through the analysis of their statements and positions. We ask: what are the strategic choices of Arctic stakeholders, including state members, Indigenous permanent participants, and non-Arctic observers of the Arctic Council, and how do they frame and position themselves as being entitled to make strategic choices within and about the Arctic realm? Furthermore, what are the perceived risks for various actors and how to they compare to perceived risks of other actors? To answer this, we examine the policy and strategy declarations of the Arctic Council actors by relaying on narrativized strategic choice theory, using DeDoose to code 3500 excerpts across 34 documents. Excerpts were coded three times: by proposition (motive, perception, preference), by theme, and by level of risk. Results indicate varying understandings of security and categories and levels of risk, revealing avenues that could lead both towards conflict and peace.