Канадская и российская системы управления Арктикой: сравнительный анализ

Few would dispute the increasing significance of the Arctic region in International Relations, not only owing to trade routes opening up as a result of global warming,1 but equally due to the vested interest powerful state actors have in this emerging source of natural resources.2 However, from a policy standpoint, even though the circumpolar North has provided a working example of how International Relations diplomacy (IR hereafter) can bridge divides between historically conflictual relations, there remain challenges between Realist and Liberal intergovernmentalist approaches to ensuring continued peace and prosperity in the region, which necessitate a more pragmatic road map for future policy cooperation. Essentially, it is a question of suitably incorporating human security concerns into a framework which is mutually palatable for state-led, and non-state-led, parties interested in the region’s continued development.
In recent years, much of the literature on Arctic IR has focussed around the competition for dominance over maritime affairs3 and natural resources,4 territorial claims,5 or the impact of emerging Russo-Chinese cooperation. Indeed, the study of the interactions between Realism and Liberal Intergovernmentalism has run alongside a broader questioning of the role that bilateral and multilateral relations will play in shaping the future of the region,6 and the significance that non-state actors such as the Arctic Council will play in further developing multi-lateralrelationsbetweenstates.7 Yetunderpinningthis,therearebroaderhumansecurity concerns and representational challenges regarding indigenous populations which must be addressed, not least how an intergovernmental forum can provide otherwise marginalised indigenous populations with a platform to affect policy.8
Situations such as the 2014 Crimean Crisis limit relations between Canada and Russia, undermining diplomatic relations globally and resulting in diplomatic deterioration which subsequently slows progress in the Arctic. The question becomes, whether stronger systems of co-governance can be established, in the face of wider geo-political tensions between Arctic nations. Although there are many factors, this paper will look at how these tensions are shown as stemming from Canada and Russia having key differences in their governance structures. However, due to the unique nature of the Arctic, there is sufficient common ground, both literally and metaphorically, for progress to continue, particularly in terms of Arctic policy agendas, which show a region that experiences peace and cooperation.
The general features of Liberal Intergovernmentalism and Realism as they pertain to IR are well documented, and there have been calls from as far back as 2012 for the establishment of neutral ground on which to build stronger relations,9 with calls for a human security foundation to Canadian policy,10 and for greater regional cooperation on human security across the region.11 By the advent of the 2019 revision of Canada’s arctic strategy,12 Bouffard, Charron and Ferguson had argued for the mutual benefit of improved Russo- Canadian relations,13 with Sergunin and Konyshev outlining the key actors and decision makers that could practically affect change in Russian Arctic policy making14 and Lagutina having summarised their key concepts of both domestic and international priorities.15 Key to the debate surrounding Russian policy development, was the question of the approach to bilateral or multilateral relations at the state and non-state levels.16
Though historically, a considerable amount of research has centered around Americo- Canadian17 and Sino-Russian18 relations, there is an apparent scarcity of papers analysing Canadian and Russian relations directly on the domestic governance level, and how that applies to the circumpolar IR. Given that the majority of the Arctic landmass is Canadian and Russian territory, there still appears to be relatively little research cross-analysing their governance systems, or hypothesizing how their future relations might develop in light of the apparent differences in their governing heritages. Indeed, the question remains, how might a better understanding of these differences in governance approach serve to better inform policy design, bilateral and multilateral negotiations both, and diplomatic relations in general?
To that end, the aim of this paper is to perform a comparative analysis of the Canadian and Russian governance systems as they relate to the Arctic, to factor in the often neglected human security considerations of indigenous peoples, and argue for an evolution in how both nations handle Arctic indigeneity, economic, and environmental issues, as constructive aspects of a more holistic approach to governance of the region as a whole. The objectives behind this research are: Firstly, to detail and highlight Canadian and Russian governance, and Artic governance, in terms of human security, liberal intergovernmentalism, and postcolonialism approaches. Secondly, to give a general overview of Canada and Russia’s Arctic governance systems, particularly on domestic policies regarding indigenous peoples, the environment and economy. Lastly, Canadian and Russian domestic governance systems on these three criteria will be compared (economy, environment, and indigenous peoples) and a comparative analysis will be carried out of “Canada’s Arctic and Northern Policy Framework” (2019) and Russia’s “Strategy for the Development of the Arctic Zone of the Russian Federation and Ensuring National Security for the Period up to 2035” (2020) in terms of human security’s 7 dimensions.
This paper identifies the key characteristics of both Canada and Russia’s most recent Arctic policies, it details how they differ, and the consequences of those differences, and the ways in which they are similar, exploring the implications of those similarities. Moreover, it looks to orient these policy developments within a wider context of seven aspects of human security considerations. It is argued that greater regional autonomy should be afforded the circumpolar regions of Canada and Russia, with an attempt being made to mirror more closely more progressive approaches to human security. While the challenges to such an approach are many, and vary considerably based on the Canadian governance context as much as the Russian (as will be explored in more detail), the resulting benefit to both environmental considerations and human security provision would, as will be outlined, potentiate improved bilateral and multilateral relations at both the state and non-state levels.
The remainder of this paper is divided into the following sections. In section 3, a theoretical framework for Liberal Intergovernmentalism is outlined, along with an analysis of the underpinnings of Human Security, and, of particular relevance to the Canadian and Russian Arctic situation, an exploration of Colonialism and Post-Colonial theory.
Section 4 is comprised of a historical overview of the region, contextualising the history of indigenous peoples in the Russian and Canadian Arctic, exploring the environmental concerns which disproportionately affect the region, and expounding upon the governance system issues facing regional Russo-Canadian cooperation. Building on this foundation, cooperation between Canada and Russia will be chronicled as far back as the Soviet era, alongside an exploration of instances of collaboration in scientific research, maritime safety, and business ventures, before an analysis will be made of non-state actors which influence relations through intergovernmental forums.
In sections 5 and 6, the latest Arctic strategies of Canada and Russia will be analysed in much greater depth, with 7 dimensions of human security being applied to each approach, with a view to analysing how well they achieve these key goals of Human Security satisfaction.
Finally, in the conclusion, a more detailed outline of how greater cooperation might be achieved will be posited, taking account of the unique challenges and contextual issues outlined in the preceding three chapters – ultimately, a call for a thawing in relations will be made, so that the interests of the Arctic can be disentangled from the broader international context, with a view to providing a model in Arctic IR for how non-Arctic geo-political conflict might be reconciled with a more humanistic focus. In spite of the benefits of the Arctic Council as a forum for handling current and future governance dilemmas, it is equally beneficial for both Canada and Russia to have functioning, well-organised governance systems domestically and regionally which extend beyond the Arctic Council. As a potential source of economic growth and strengthened international trade, it is both countries best interest to adapt and be prepared for the unique demands of this new theatre of international politics.