DOI-10.24057/2071-9388-2018-11-1-171-186 Vol.11, No1,p. 171-186 factors. ofimmaterial Geography,importance Environment, Sustainability, of geopoliticsto theArctic/Arcticgeopolitics. of approach from geopoliticsby classicalgeopoliticsto applyingmainapproaches critical Arctic geopoliticsinglobalization. examinesanddiscusses thetransformationThe article holistic pictureofthepost- Arctic, anddiscusswhatmightbespecialfeatures of dimensional dynamics has made Arctic global. aims to draw up aThe article challenges and problems’,‘wicked climate multi- change;andthatnew inparticular there are fresh reminders by thatArcticgeopolitics isimpacted (grand) environmental is araceofresources andtheconsequentemerging addition, intheArctic. conflicts In the Arctic asa’zone of peace’ andexceptional ,in world andsecond, thatthere the eightArcticstates. As well as, thatthere are majorcompetingdiscourses:first, two basedoninternational,systems institutional cooperationbetween andthehighstability presenceis defined. basedonthenuclearweapons’ are Behind thedualismofmilitary geopolitics andIRofthepost-Cold War era,there isanambivalenceonhow ‘geopolitics’ degree in agenda setting. and flexibility of legal certainty, When assessing a state of Arctic geopolitics asprerequisites for atransformation, state sovereignty, suchasfirm high to environmental cooperation.Ontheother hand, features there are certain ofArctic tension andincreaseby causingatransformation politicalstability from confrontation arestability ontheonehand, commoninterests oftheArcticstates to decrease military disputes onnationalborders. norserious conflicts armed thehighgeopolitical Behind governmental governments. organizations andsub-national As aresult, there are neither by Arcticindigenouspeoples, by theArctic states non- andsupported started based on institutional,Arctic is with a high geopoliticalstability cooperationinternational Citation: Key words Abstract. of immaterial factors to critical approach – importance Geopolitics Arctic 1 * 2 Heininen Lassi Corresponding author; [email protected] University ofLapland, University Finland for Institute AppliedSystem Analysis, International IIASA Lassi Heininen (2018) Arctic Geopolitics from LassiHeininen(2018)Arctic Geopolitics approach classicalto critical – Despitedifferent perceptions, discoursesandapproaches, thepost-Cold War : Geopolitics, theArctic, Critical, post-Cold War, World politic 1,2* from cla ssical

171 Sustainability 172 Sustainability routine patrolling by armies andactivities is happening- though thequestionisabout exercise airspace), oramilitary international 95 (Tupolev is seenflyingpass(in “Bear”) when aRussianlong-rangestrategic bomber interpreting Arctic geopolitics. For example, influence how big audience is reading and abouttheArcticbutalso only report text. This isseen,whenmedia doesnot Popular geopolitics is more thanwritten andstrategic.has becomemore important thelastone slightly changed, inparticular are stillrelevant, is been thoughthecontext theArcticandrestbetween of world. They ofrelations kind andanew as majoractors; governments; region-building withstates by indigenous peoples and sub-national and IR:increasing circumpolar cooperation of theearly-21 the following asthemainthemes/trends (Heininen 2004)recognized anddefined 2004 Report Arctic HumanDevelopment As ananalysisofdifferent perceptions, the environmental andclimate change. Arctic hasbecomeabarometer for global (Heininen andFinger, 2017),andtheglobal manifest, thattheArctic isbeenglobalized Arctic, doesn’t stay there!”, indicate, even statements like happensinthe “What the Arctic (Steinberg et al. 2015). Finally, frontier”, “Nature reserve” by Contesting ocean”,statehood”, “Indigenous “Resource to cross borders are “Terra nullius”, “Frozen images, andinternal imaginaries, orexternal (AHDR 2004). Correspondingly, among the by Report theArcticHumanDevelopment “Environmental linchpin”, Arctic”“Scientific of resources”, for military”,“Theater discovery”,“Homeland”, “Storehouseof “Land oftheArcticregion,concerning suchas There are alsoothervisionsorperceptions influenced theandArcticgeopolitics.reality (1987)has Gorbachev President Mikhail to callthe Arcticasa “zone ofpeace” by 2003). Fortoo (Moisio example, the phrase They, aswell geopolitics, astexts, construct through, and by, and rhetoric. a speech act contest and (political) fight, which is done possibletoto happen. make This requires The ultimate aim,or ‘arts’, of ‘Politics’ issaid GEOGRAPHY, Introduction ENVIRONMENT, st century’s Arcticgeopolitics century’s SUSTAINABILITY of theearly-21 dominating says thatthe Arctic major (Heininen,2010): The relations (IR)havetwo beeninfluenced by century geopolitics andinternational isthatattheearly-21 Behind approach ofgeopolitics. in other actors, are they alongto critical dealing withvaluesandaims, andbringing ‘governance’, notgeopolitics. Although are mostlybeeninterpreted to dealwith challengesofclimate change,to security scienceandpoliticsasresponsesbetween and the interplay or knowledge-creation as identities, landuse, self-determination, raisedby theirorganizations, such particular indigenouspeoples’2016). Unlike, issues, in Union’s attention to theArctic(Raspotnik, which for exampledirected the European IR asatraditionalunderstandingofpolitics, geopolitics, aswell realism asthatofnew of along to themainstream interpretation of was/is slogans ormisleadingrhetoric. It 2007, isnotonlymediaheadlines, wretched Poleexpedition to thebottom oftheNorth in theRussian after geopolitics, particularly indicates. The interpretation ofareturn of Pole”North (Traufetter, 2008)mediaheadline Battleforthe emerging conflicts,as“The there isa ‘race’ for resources andconsequent is back!” may occur. Or, thatintheArctic -, the slogan or headline that “geopolitics on theotherhand, on(state) sovereignty, eds. 2015;Powell eds. andDodds 2014),and 2016;Steinbergidentities (Raspotnik etal. indigenouspeoples and Arctic &Northern perceptions oftheArctic, Arcticgovernance, on theonehand, ondifferent imagesand are concentrating several contributions literature ofArcticgeopolitics&IR there the 2015).In and Mikkola politics (Käpylä it cannotbeisolated from international other region oftheworld, andtherefore 2008). Further, any thattheArctic islike the Arctic (Borgerson 2008; Traufetter or even anew ‘cold war’, in hasstarted and theconsequentemerging conflicts, discourse saying thataraceofresources As acounter-argument, there isanother 2017; NGP 2017; Byers Yearbook 2011, 2012). as a’zone ofpeace’ (Heininen2016; Zagorski intergovernmental cooperation,theArctic basedonestablished geopolitical stability st century iswithahigh century 01 (11)2018 st Arctic Lassi Heininen Arctic Geopolitics from classical... international law and treaties, national factors, such as quality of the environment, policies, institutional points of view and knowledge, and that there are several actors. international institutions, such as the Arctic The both parts of the dualism are correct, Council (Murray and Nuttall eds. 2014; and thus, facts. Therefore, it is needed to ask: Yearbook of Polar Law 2013; Heininen 2011). Does the current Arctic geopolitics go along In addition, there are a few fresh reminders: to the mainstream understanding (classical) First, that ‘the environment matters’, i.e. Arctic of geopolitics, or along to critical approach geopolitics, as well as security, is impacted based on the transformation from classical by (grand) environmental challenges, to critical geopolitics? Or, is the current state Su s tainability in particular long-range pollution (e.g. (of Arctic geopolitics) some sort of hybrid, nuclear wastes) and rapid climate change which includes aspects from the both 173 (Hoogensen Gjörv et al. eds. 2013). Second, approach? that globalization and its new geo-physical and socio-economic dynamics affect the To answer to these questions I apply the main Arctic region, and followed from that the schools of thought of geopolitics – classical, new multi-dimensional dynamics has made new and critical -, and their factors, to the Arctic geopolitics global (Keil and Knecht eds. Arctic and Arctic geopolitics of the post- 2017; Heininen and Southcott, eds. 2010), Cold War period. Here factors (of geopolitics) and the globalized Arctic has worldwide play important role, as well as who are the implications to the Earth (System) (Heininen actors, in particular important are values and and Finger 2017). aims of actors, their relations with theories and facts, and in particular how to change The aim of this article is to draw up a holistic the facts to reach the values and aims. Final, picture of the post-Cold War Arctic, and I define and discuss common interests discuss what might be special features of between the Arctic states, as well as special Arctic geopolitics in globalization. The article features of Arctic geopolitics, which made examines and discusses the transformation of possible the transformation of the post-Cold approach from classical geopolitics to critical War geopolitics from confrontation to high geopolitics by applying main approaches of stability. geopolitics to the Arctic/Arctic geopolitics. Before applying geopolitics to the post-Cold The used method here is critical approach War Arctic, I will examine and discuss the of geopolitics. It is analytical and goes main schools of thought of geopolitics and beyond classical geopolitics and traditional their factors, in particular the approach shift or positivist interpretation of international from classical to critical geopolitics. politics by drawing up a holistic picture on the issue area and having an unorthodox Materials and methods approach of IR. The critical approach, as critical social science in general, aims to take When assessing a state of Arctic geopolitics into consideration, in addition of general and IR of the post-Cold War era, there criteria of science (including criticism), is an ambivalence on how ‘geopolitics’ values and aims/goals, and their relations is defined, and what approach to use. with theories and facts, the interrelations Behind is the dualism of on the one hand, between theories, facts, values and aims/ military presence based on the nuclear goals, and final, how to change the facts weapons’ systems of the two superpowers to reach the values and aims/goals (Harle – this is according to classical geopolitics 2003). This is much according to the original and emphasizing physical space, power, idea of ‘politics’ to make possible to happen. technology and a state -, and on the other If you value peace, and aim to have a peaceful hand, high geopolitical stability based on situation, you choose theories, methods and international, institutional cooperation means accordingly. Therefore, you cannot between, and concern on state of the lean alone on factors, such as physical space, environment by, the eight Arctic states – this natural resources and power/force, which indicates critical approach of geopolitics are determined with aims/goals like natural and emphasizes an importance of other laws. You also need actors, in whose interest 174 Sustainability the Arcticstates are): First, to decrease and analyzed commoninterests between discussed coming), amongalready known, researchneed for (Heininen forth- further for atransformation. Though there isa features ofArcticgeopoliticsasprerequisites cooperation, andontheother hand, certain Cold War environmental to functional period transformation from theconfrontation ofthe and increaseby causinga politicalstability tension Arctic states to decrease military on theonehand, commoninterests ofthe are thehighgeopoliticalstability Behind 2014). (Clifford 2017;Heininen2016;etal. and ithasalready passed, for far, afew tests politics,and uncommoninstabilitiesinworld recent politics timesininternational turbulent has beenmanagedto maintaininspite of a solid foundation and be resilient, since it 2008). Declaration seems toThe have stability five littoral statesOcean (Ilulissat oftheArctic Fairbanks 2017),aswell Declaration asby the in theArctic.” (e.g., 2015; IqaluitDeclaration cooperation andconstructive peace, stability thecommitment tomaintain “Reaffirming meeting declarationsoftheArcticCouncil: with thefirstpreamble ofthejointministerial even demonstrated, by the eight Arctic states stability, aswell stated, ascooperation,isfirmly those from outsideoftheregion. The high and local actors, Arcticactors andbetween theArcticstatesdialogue between andother cooperationonseveral fields,functional anda disputes onnationalborders. Instead, there is there norserious are conflicts neitherarmed governments.and sub-national As aresult, organizationspeoples, non-governmental non-state actors, suchasArcticindigenous by Arctic by theArcticstates andsupported institutional, cooperationstarted international basedon is withahighgeopoliticalstability and approaches, thepost-Cold War Arctic Despite different perceptions, discourses to reachchange facts thevalues. with interests, includingvaluesandaimsto peace isnever passive andneedsactors actors. isphilosophy Behind thatto maintain elitist non-state andnon-(security)political peace is,andother people(s),civilsociety GEOGRAPHY, Result s ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY

assertion by the theory of functionalism. offunctionalism. by thetheory assertion of thepost-Cold War this Arcticsupports increase.” (Lamy etal. 2013). history The short of withdrawing from cooperative ventures the benefitsofcooperation andthecosts more embeddedinanintegration process, cooperationthatasstates functional “become is ‘spillover’, themainideaofprocess of them would damagethecooperation. Behind much eachofthemwould lose, ifanyone of withintheArcticstates how rational thinking 2017), isthere even thatthere to thatextend is understanding, or ‘Arctic consensus’ (Zagorski 2017). (Heininen2016;Byers all theparties This based oncooperation)would be beneficial for on confidence(whichiscorrespondingly of thehighstability, built andthatthestability the Arctic states of the value and importance Arctic withoutajointunderstandingwithin would notbethere inthepost-Cold War These commoninterests andhigh stability Arctic Economic Council. strategies andaccording to the missionofthe by theArcticstates’ nationalpoliciesand development in the Arctic, much prioritized businessrelationslong-term andeconomic Final, to enhanceanddevelop sustainableand domestic level” (Forbis and Hayhoe 2018). environment thanatthe policymaking the ArcticCouncil’s subgovernmental to reach higherpositionofinfluence“within including to allow thescientificcommunity (Toyamascientific research Statement 2016), ‘laboratory’/‘workshop’ ofinternational to maintainandenhancetheArcticasa ofexploration Fifth, basedonthehistory protection andregion-building leadby states; environmental will correspondingly support non-state (localandregional) actors, which governmentspeoples, andother sub-national Arctic indigenous cooperation between and encouragecircumpolar inter-regional of theArcticCouncil. Fourth, to support as majoractors, suchastheestablishment region-buildingallow modern withstates be expandedonto otherfields. Third, to protection andassessment,whichcould scientific) cooperation for environmental and (expert andfunctional transboundary Second,aim for confidence-building. tostart theformerbetween rivals, astheultimate tension andincrease politicalstability military 01 (11)2018 Lassi Heininen Arctic Geopolitics from classical...

Correspondingly, before this cooperation (consisting of traditional and new several started in the Arctic region there were a few factors of geopolitics), as well as Arctic features of Arctic geopolitics, as well as those security (including aspects of traditional, of Arctic security, which can be interpreted environmental and human security), are to be preconditions for the current state tightly connected with the environment. of high geopolitical stability. They made Following from this, geopolitics and functional cooperation (for environmental security in the Arctic context are combined protection) possible and promoted the with each other, as the second feature. manmade trans-boundary cooperation, and The third feature of Arctic geopolitics is Su s tainability thus also made the transformation possible ‘exceptionalism’, i.e. the high geopolitical in the first place. Later they put the Arctic stability of the post-Cold War Arctic based 175 states’ governments carefully to consider on the institutional cooperation between the risk and costs if they would lose the high the Arctic states, and supported by the stability. Thus, they created opportunities Arctic Council observer countries, makes the for the Arctic states to recognize common Arctic region exceptional in world politics interests and understand the benefits of and IR. Finally, the Arctic is globalized, them, and at the same time these features and thus, the globalized Arctic can be were strengthened. Among the features as interpreted as a new geopolitical context, preconditions for international cooperation which can be interpreted as a potential asset and high geopolitical are: First, global nuclear to reformulate a state of world politics with deterrence of the two superpowers - the ‘uncommon instability’ (Heininen 2016). Soviet Union and the USA – as the original nature of the military and a legacy of the Discussion Cold War period. Second, that in the Arctic there were/are neither (armed) conflicts From classical to critical geopolitics nor serious disputes on state sovereignty or disagreements of national borders between Geopolitics is one of the so-called grand the Arctic states. Third, instead there was/is a theories used in several disciplines, such high degree of international legal certainty in as (Political) Geography, Strategic studies the Arctic, in particular meaning the UNCLOS and IR. It deals with ‘Geography’, ‘Politics’ and the legally-binding agreements under and ‘Technology’ with an emphasis on the the auspices of the Arctic Council. Fourth, interrelationships between them. ‘Classical there were devolution and other soft ways geopolitics’, the original school of thoughts of (the Nordic model of) governance, which on geopolitics, as well as its sub-theories, is were renewed and promoted by innovative traditionally interpreted to deal with ‘physical legal and political arrangements (The Arctic space’, including natural resources, ‘power’ Yearbook 2017; AHDR 2004). Final, the Arctic and a ‘state’. In the focus, are the strategic states have separated issue areas by leaving value and control of a physical space, and issues of ‘high’ politics out of the joint agenda the power and hegemony connected with a of the Arctic Council (also Byers 2017), in state (Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff, 1990). Here particular that “the Arctic Council should not a ‘state’ refers to the institution of a nation / deal with matters related to military security” unified state as a political and administrative (a well-known foot-note in the Ottawa entity, or ‘polity’, as well as the unified state Declaration 1996). As a result, the agenda system. ‘Power’ means both ‘might’ of, and setting in the post-Cold War Arctic is flexible. brute force by, a state, which is, if needed, guaranteed by “unilateral, national(istic), Following the common interests and the competitive, military power” (Newcombe geopolitical features as prerequisites, it 1986). In addition, ‘technology’ plays a is possible – as well as there is a need for relevant role here, as the technology models further research (Heininen forth-coming) - of geopolitics did in the Cold War Arctic to recognize several special features of the emphasizing the importance of advanced post-post Cold War Arctic as potential new (arms) technology (e.g., airplane, missile and themes of Arctic geopolitics of the 2010s. The submarine) (Heininen 1991). first special feature is that Arctic geopolitics 176 Sustainability conflicts (Kaplan 2002). (Kaplan conflicts consequent disintegration and ethnic migration, growth areas, ofurban andthe degradation ofnatural environment causes and environmental forces, that the as a result of the explosion of demographic be ageopoliticaltreat, when states collapse 1990). The environment wasinterpreted to andPfaltzgraff, (Dougherty perspective the scope, for examplewithanecological in environmental studiesby broadening wasalsoapplied Arctic (Heininen1991).It control inthe as arms anddisarmament waters (e.g. Posen 1986),aswell 1987;Miller andArctic North and theUSAinHigh strategiesthe maritime of the Soviet Union dealingwith strategic studies, inparticular War and period, butappliedinsecurity not, however, totally forgotten intheCold World War. Research ongeopoliticswas of theArcticin2 happen, ithappened-for themilitarization technology allowed itto if advancedmilitary interpreted to betheultimate precondition – oftechnology.determination They are emphasize even thestrategic importance, mentioned technology models, which Among implementationsare theabove- GEOGRAPHY, and partly stillattheearly-21 and partly major powers inthe19 there wasthehegemony competitionofthe followed from this, even asdetermined, highand ofCentral Asia very importance Game” visionemphasizes thegeostrategic geopolitics states. Final, theso-called “Great (Dalby 2002),astheotherdiscourseofArctic emerging conflicts related to theirutilization of natural resources and potential race and models emphasize thestrategic importance Cold War (Heininen1991). The resources almost a taboo in science after the2 almost atabooinscienceafter was thereason why geopolitics became reputation ofgeopoliticsfor decades, and and Pfaltzgraff 1990). This muchruinedthe and resources, ‘Lebensraum’ (Dougherty and asanexcuse to occupy territories new Haushofer,and Karl for itspower politics interpreted by Friedrichthinking Ratzel geopolitical used geopolitics, inparticular years. For example, theNaziGermany as misused, inpolitics within the last hundred in general, have largely beenapplied, aswell These models/visions, as well asgeopolitics ENVIRONMENT, nd World War and the Worldand War th and20 st century. SUSTAINABILITY th centuries centuries nd politics and practice of diplomacy ofdiplomacy politics andpractice “based a traditionalunderstanding ofinternational politics, orwhat isunderstood as ‘Realpolitik’, neglected. powerThis muchsoundslike climate change, were underestimated or such astheenvironment, people(s)and ofreal issues andchallenges, importance ofclassicalapproach, the narrow thinking andAgnew, (Tuathail policy 1992).Dueto environment offoreign andtheconduct the relationship the physical between politics”,of international especially geopolitics to beconcerned geography“the hegemonic states, which understands politicsbyinternational major powers and is muchto studythespatializationof geopolitics Based onthesemajortheories rimlands.and two to theArcticregion consistingofanocean the SovietUnion,butithasnotbeenapplied George Kennan’s ‘policy ofcontainment’ of Spykman’s wasafoundation for theory oceans from to China. theMediterranian andthe theheartland between rimland ofthe importance Crescent’,‘Inner i.e. the 1944)emphasizes thestrategic(Spykman Rimland theory Pfaltzgraff 1990),andhis and the Heartland’s landmass(Dougherty for overestimatingtheory thepotential of Heartland criticized Mackinder’s Spykman not to ratifytheUNCLOS. Correspondingly, seas, which is one of the reasons for the USA USA still much emphasizes the freedom of ocean atthetime).Notsurprisingly, the into considerationnordefinedasan taken (interestingly, was neither theArcticOcean Empireas didtheBritish andtheUSAlater access into oceans, two controls the world, oceansandhasopen oftheworld two andstates thatwhocontrols, atleast, theory 1918)muchchallengestheHeartland Mahan even bigger. Mahan’s (e.g. Seapower theory thus, madethehugelandmassofEurasia and wastotallyArctic Ocean ice-covered is goodto remember thatatthetime the landmassofEurasia (the It ‘Heartland’). the world, sinceitcontrols EastEurope and interpreted, oreven determined, to control (e.g. 1904),Russiacanbe Mackinder of According theory to the Heartland andthatofRimland: Seapower theory theory, the geopolitics are theHeartland ofclassical Among major(sub)theories 01 (11)2018 Lassi Heininen Arctic Geopolitics from classical... on the assessment of power, territory, and All in all, redefinition of geopolitics occupied material interests, with little concern on more room with new discourses, and ’new’ ethical realities” (Lamy et al. 2013). and ‘critical’ schools of thought of geopolitics were established. It was the 1990s, when Classical geopolitics was challenges in the geopolitics had some sort of renaissance in 1990s by new and critical approaches that research. For example, ‘new geopolitics’ as a re-conceptualized the traditional definitions school of thoughts is keenly related with the and interpretations. In the background was growing importance of ‘Economics’ per se, on the one hand, that classical geopolitics and economic integration, when after the Su s tainability interpreted geopolitics as a determined end of the Cold War period economics took dogma. Geopolitics and its traditional over geopolitics (Ohmae, 1995). Economic 177 interpretations were not deeply analyzed but integration became more important in more copied from natural sciences, as a state international politics and foreign policy, “was seen as a living organism that occupies when national economies were not any and that grows, contracts, and eventually more strictly regulated by states, influenced dies”, or at least as an aggregate-organism by new theories of economics, such as ‘New (Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff 1990). For liberalism’, but opened for international example, not to consider the Arctic Ocean markets run by trans-national financial and as an ocean, but only determined by sea ice, other companies. does not take into consideration changes in a nature, i.e. climate change, and that those The importance of geoeconomics could changes, when they are rapid, have societal also be seen in the 1990s among the impacts and influence politics and policy- Arctic states, when after the end of the making. On the other hand, there was a shift Cold War the Nordic countries, first joined in mindset and cultures due to globalization, the European Economic Area (EEA) in as well as change in security premises due to 1994, and in 1995 Finland and Sweden pollution and the consequent environmental joined the ECs / EU (Denmark had joined awakening, and their impacts to policy- in 1973). As well as, when Canada and the shaping and policy-making. USA, together with Mexico, established the North America Free Trade Area (NAFTA) in Behind were also indicators of a transition 1996. Or, when the Arctic states showed into other kinds of more globalized systems, more interest towards economic activities such as economic integration making in the Arctic by establishing joint ventures ‘geoeconomics’ strategic, regional or city between Western and Russian companies states as new influential actors (with different dealing with exploitation of hydrocarbons interests as nation states), and later the in the Russian Arctic, and thus going social and economic systems based on the beyond the geopolitical barriers of digital world developed with the internet the Cold War. For example, there were (here the internet as a virtual reality can be several negotiations between Russian seen as an emerging geopolitical space companies (e.g. Gazprom, Rosneft) and (Vuori, 2017)). These approaches made Western companies (e.g. Norsk Hydro, geopolitics a discursive practice by which Conoco Inc., Total S.A., Neste Oy) about to represent international politics as a ‘world’ joint exploitation of oil and gas drilling characterized by particular types of places, ventures. The best known of them the peoples and dramas (Tuathail and Agnew, Shtokman gas field “became a flagship 1992). Geopolitics was (re)defined as human name for Russian oil and gas development action not determined, since people give in offshore Arctic conditions. ” This flagship the meaning for ‘geo’ in social and political status was related to the desire of the state activities, they are actors, not ‘geo’ per se. to find new sources of economic stability...” Following from this, geopolitics could also (Goes, 2018). So, when internationally the be defined as a contest or fight, where the Shtokman case was seen from the point relation between geopolitical discourse and of view of geoeconomics and a part of geopolitical rhetoric is important (Moisio, new liberalism, nationally in Russia it, was 2003). seen as a strategic resource base which 178 Sustainability T development ofthecountry. provides themeansfor thesocio-economic GEOGRAPHY, change the facts to reachchange thefacts thevaluesandaims. how to into consideration, in particular taken andtheirinterrelations -shouldbe and facts values andaims, theirrelations withtheories relevant to geopolitics, -i.e. andthatthey as well actors, asnew were alsorecognized factors, factors, andsoft) (immaterial new As aresult, inadditionofmore traditional andreachchange theexistingfacts your aims. as ‘cooperation’ and ‘peace’ asmeanshow to 1999).As well 2003;Jukarainen state (Moisio indicating thatthere are asa otheractors which cometogether with people(s), space’,‘social ‘identity/ies’and ‘knowledge’, differentbetween factors. Amongthemare things,immaterial aswell asinterrelations deal withvalues, aims/goalsandother state power, there exitotherfactors, which addition ofphysical space, technology and having a generalunderstandingthat,in traditional approaches ofgeopoliticsby challenged, aswell asproblematized, the rising powerrising defeat (Allison, 2017). 12 timesof16awarhasoccurred whena how powerCritical transformation happens: models) the Resource modelsand Technology technology, power/force by thestate (e.g. Factors: physical space+naturalresources hegemony andforce; exploration,state sovereignty,Reflects ‘Geo’+ ‘Politics’; Traditional andnarrow interpretation of ’ hese new discourses and approacheshese new Classical’ geopolitics: Table 1.Differences between ’ ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY C lassical’ and’ material tomaterial (digitalization). immaterial to localandglobal(globalism), andfrom (devolution), fromsubsidiarity national problems),(wicked from centralized to space), from power politicsto knowledge interpretations (‘politicization’ ofphysical towardstheories different discourses and movement from determined, disciplinary geopolitics indicates andreflects the From classicalgeopoliticsto critical society). (includingpeople(s)and civil several actors environment), andinadditionofthestate ‘politicization’ ofphysical space(the geopolitics identity/ies, images, knowledge, Factors: inadditionthoseofclassical recognizes aspower; knowledge sophisticated powerReflects and mainstream thinking; beyond ’Realpolitik’Goes andchallenges ’ C environment as a value, and that quality of geopoliticsisalackto recognize the of the traditional approach weaknesses adaptation) (Heininen2013).Oneofthe aims to changeit(either viamitigationor asavaluewith geopoliticalfactor (new) and thatithasbecomeanimportant oftheenvironment,strategic importance have shown, even clearly manifested, the change, andlong-rangepollutionearlier, within theArcticregion. climate Indeed, global impacts, such asclimate change, Arctic geopoliticsdueto globalizationand fundamental changesintheArctic and do, however, into consideration alsotake economic interests are stillimportant. They resources and resource governance, and (A5)Arctic Ocean –sovereignty, power over states (A8), orthefive littoral states ofthe the Arcticstates –eithertheeightArctic space, power withastate) connected for etc..) (e.g., anditsmajorfactors physical (e.g., thetechnology andresources models, Based onclassicalapproach ofgeopolitics R ritical’ geopolitics: ecent changesofA C ritical’ and Geopolitics Their F rctic geopolitics rctic 01 (11)2018 actors as aresource storehouse dueto itsrich covered seas. The Arcticis(still) interpreted ecosystem, large nature marine andice is ageographical region with aunique the Arcticandgeopolitics: The Arctic of astate –are stillpresent andrelevant in natural resources, technology and power ofgeopolitics - physicalfactors space, Controversial or not, those traditional there.actors position oftheArcticstates andstate-related whatisthe development, andinparticular Arctic geopolitics and regional (resource) in andstakeholders actors (international) Arctic; third, to (re)define whoare relevant develop renewable energy resources inthe and withdraw Sea) from theBeaufort (e.g.and gasdrilling Shell’s decisionto freeze investments new in(offshore) oil related pressure to reduce CO on the COP 21 Paris Agreement and the problemwicked intheArctic;second, based create industries increase areal inextractive long-range pollutionwhichtogether withan into consideration rapid climate change and including thefollowing first, to take aspects: This approach refers geopolitics to critical threatens peoples’ traditionallivelihoods. thousands, andthatclimate change kills heavily and and thatpollutionimpacts matters andmuchdealswithlivelihoods, into consideration.Further, thatidentity withtheiridentitieshaveseveral actors taken there are more sophisticated and factors Arctic geopoliticsincludes, for example, that naturedimensional andmulti-functional of globalized Arctic region. Further, themulti- century’s of the twenty-first description approach andsolid and multi-dimensional on thatitisneededto have amore holistic as well astheirinterests, are infocus. Based governments,civil societies and sub-national other actors, indigenousandotherpeoples, stability, into aswell consideration astakes factors, such asidentities, knowledge, geopoliticsrecognizes critical Unlike, new andPfaltzgraff 1990). (Dougherty one ofthemajorenvironmental theories irony here isthatgeopoliticsdefinedas physical spacewithnaturalresources. The of interpreting theenvironment onlyas (of theenvironment) matters, inaddition Lassi Heininen 2 emissions, has become, the more important formathas become, themore important itsglobalnature,change, inparticular 2003). The climate more factor critical into consideration(Moisio,should take is aformat ofpower, whichisrelevant, and and civilsocieties(geographical) knowledge Closely related peoples with(Indigenous) understanding oftheregion. producing thus shaping our knowledge, discourse, andacademiccommunities andambitionsto shapethe with concerns within andbeyond national borders, NGOs collaborationboth development seeking national governments incharge ofregional 2009),sub- sovereignty Declaration (Inuit and politicalidentitiesredefining energetically emphasizingtheircultural peoples (organizations) Indigenous of transnational actors, including network is influenced by anincreasingly dense thepost-Cold Indeed, War Arcticgeopolitics and interests muchdealwithvalues. alwaysthough actors comewithinterests, oftheirinterests,forgets the importance but ofactors emphasizes theimportance 2007). Rodon The agent-based modeling peoples without their own state (Abele and people(s) and civilsocieties, andIndigenous thattherefact are asa/the otheractors ‘state’, is an factors the new ‘actor’ per se, i.e. the which influenceArcticgeopolitics. Oneof factors, andthatthere are several actors, geopoliticsrecognizes critical Unlike, several Arctic. for noreal yet, nucleardisarmament, inthe 2012),whichisalsoareason (Wezeman the region dueto theirglobaldeterrence of RussiaandtheUSA,are deployed in structures, mostlynuclearweapon systems the nationalstrategies. The military heavy also relevant, thoughnotemphasized in the Arctic. The technology models are models are stillrelevant andappliedin this, itisjustified to argue thatthe resource policies ofallArcticstates. Following from emphasized inthenationalstrategies and and thatresource exploitationhasbeen reason for mass-scaleutilizationofresources, might soundasacliché, thisisthedefacto animals,other marine forests. Though it and otherminerals(USGS2008),fishes natural resources, suchashydrocarbons Arc tic Geopolitics from c classi al ...

179 Sustainability 180 Sustainability re-militarized, byre-militarized, more andsophisticated soft Arctic isbeenhighlypoliticized, thoughnot physical space. thepost-Cold Indeed, War of geopolitics, thismeansto politicize a and thatofclimate. As approaches critical oftheenvironmenton astate (quality) peoples asactors, there isagrowing concern geopolitical factors, aswell asindigenous valuesas andotherimmaterial knowledge communications. Finally, to have identity, knowledge and influence ismore basedon andsocialmedia,powerinternet basedon are notonlyphenomenaoftheera manipulation andfalsification,these theories, and disinformation, conspiracy fullofmis- the airis, every-now-and-then, can betransferred into power. Though more importantly, there isinfluence, which force,economic power andmilitary and more, meanonly ‘hard’ power, politicalor Following from this, power doesnot,any Agreement Cooperation, ofScience 2017). Western science(Toyama Statement, 2016; has already sometimebeenrecognized by indigenous environmental (TEK) knowledge Therefore, inArctic research traditionalor climate and theenvironment hasbecome. of power,knowledge on orinfluence, GEOGRAPHY, C geopolitics. mostly basedonclassical and power game= technology, state hegemony weapon systems); (thenuclear the military Dominated by militarization: old W ar’sgeopolitics: ENVIRONMENT, Table Stages Geopolitics 2.Major ofArctic SUSTAINABILITY (1980s-1990s) geopolitics: T approaches ofgeopolitics. andmoreon new critical peoples=based Indigenous circumpolar cooperationby and self-consciousness protection andresearch; on environmental cooperation international on theenvironment; and growing concern pollution, nuclearaccidents cooperation: long-range and transboundary environmental degradation Dominated by ransition period’s global warming, aswell asto growing global oflong-rangepollutionand due to impacts premises) insecurity ofashift an evidence threatsof governments (as to security new politicization oftheArcticregion) andthose a state of the environment (as an example of power) to responses ofnon-state on actors ofstate andstate (asalegacy Arctic Ocean sovereignty by thelittoral states ofthe of theCold War), andanemphasison of classical geopolitics systems (as a legacy from thepresence ofthenuclearweapon War Arctic by several anddifferent ways: the influenceisseenin,post-Cold test. Actually, geopoliticsinfluences, or Arcticcooperationintointernational a confusion, thoughithasputtheestablished causing mostlymisinformation and consequences has comewithlessharmful (classical) geopolitics. Fortunately, sofarthis narrowly to meantraditionalapproach andunderstood and alsoby policy-makers, inmediareports misunderstood, inparticular in theArcticof2010sitisoften If inthe2 If War. intheColdways than wasthemilitarization nd geopoliticswas misused, WW P and globalism. geopolitics based oncritical formatas anew ofpower = climate andenvironment) (on traditional knowledge (exceptional); scientificand cooperation transboundary andfirm stability highgeopolitical security; sovereignty andenergy ofstate importance (‘geoeconomics’);activities and increase ofeconomic mass-scale exploitation (e.g. food safety); hype of & rapidclimate change exploitation: pollution change andhype of Dominated by climate ost- C old W ar’sgeopolitics: 01 (11)2018 Lassi Heininen Arctic Geopolitics from classical... interest towards, and influence in, the Arctic Arctic geopolitics from the confrontation (as critical approaches of geopolitics). of the Cold War period to transboundary cooperation at the 21st century. Due to this In contrast to traditional approach, a institutionalized Arctic cooperation there is comprehensive description with holistic high geopolitical stability and the region is approach of the twenty-first century’s neither overtly plagued by military conflicts Arctic geopolitics includes comprehensive nor disarmament, though the nuclear coverage of the approaches of both classical weapon systems of Russia and the USA (Cold war) and critical (post-Cold war) are still been deployed there. International Su s tainability geopolitics, i.e. “the history and identity of Arctic cooperation, under the auspices of a ‘geopolitical’ Arctic and the contemporary the Arctic Council and between the Arctic 181 triangle of Arctic geopolitics: rights, interests states and the Arctic Council observer and responsibilities” (Raspotnik, 2016). For countries continues, so far, after passing a example, to (re)place the Arctic within the few tests of growing tension between Russia context of global multi-dimensional change, and the West, as well as the consequent and explore worldwide implications would sanctions and counter-sanctions. This give a chance to define the global Arctic exceptionalism is another special feature of as a new geopolitical context. A state of Arctic geopolitics (from the point of view of Arctic geopolitics at the post-Cold War era critical approach of geopolitics). is much with this kind of comprehensive approach including identities, rights and Behind are on the one hand, common responsibilities, as well as (traditional) interests starting from the ultimate knowledge and stability-building (Heininen aim to decrease military tension and 2016). increase political stability using functional cooperation on environmental protection, Conclusions due to pollution (in particular nuclear safety), and region-building as the main means. On At the early-21st century the Arctic region the other hand, certain features of the Arctic plays a key role in the global ecosystem and were prerequisites for stability-building, such bio-geophysical processes that are heavily as the original global nature of the military, impacted by climate change and other firm state sovereignty, high degree of legal global changes, and are closely integrated certainty, and separation of certain issue with current global economics and related areas, in particular that military-security, on energy security dynamics, as they relate to the agenda of the Arctic Council. Followed world politics. Long-range pollution was from this, first conclusion of this article is the first trigger, which caused a change in that the high Arctic geopolitical stability security premises and a paradigm shift, and is conscious and manmade (by the Arctic made environmental protection as the first states). It also seems to be resilient, since it field of functional cooperation between the has passed a few tests, and big geopolitical eight Arctic states. It was followed by the changes, such as the self-governing status rapid warming of Arctic climate. These were of Greenland, could be executed in a calm wake-up calls to the Arctic states of growing and peaceful manner with full agreement of concern on a state of the environment a state and sub-national government. by non-state actors, such as indigenous peoples, (I)NGOs, scientists and scholars Another conclusion, as well as a scientific to start environmental cooperation. These finding, is that based on the common were behind the first special feature of Arctic interests and the preconditions there are geopolitics from the point of view of critical certain (existing or emerging) features of approach of geopolitics. Arctic geopolitics: First, that geopolitics and security are tightly connected with the environment, and second that geopolitics Followed from the functional cooperation and security are been combined with each for environmental protection by the Arctic other in the Arctic context. The third feature states, there was a significant change in of Arctic geopolitics is that the Arctic is 182 Sustainability

instability’ andIR. These specialfeatures can timesandwith of turbulent ‘uncommon potential asset to (re)formulate politics world and IR. This can been interpreted as a Arctic region exceptional politics inworld theglobalized,to maintain it,makes stable of theArcticstates andtheirjointefforts geopolitical stability, asacommoninterest globalized. The finaloneisthatthehigh GEOGRAPHY, References A Comprehensive Survey. Third Collins Edition. Publishers. USA:Harper J.E. andPfaltzgraff R.L.Jr.Dougherty (1990). ContendingRelations. International of Theories Press.Minnesota Dalby S.(2002). “Environmental Security.” Borderlines, Volume of University 20.Minneapolis: geopolitical-tension/ analysis/2017/01/04/how-has-cooperation-in-the-arctic-survived-western-russian- geopolitical tension? Available at:http://pagebuilder.arctic.arcpublishing.com/pb/voices/ Clifford R.(2017). How hascooperationintheArcticsurvived Western-Russian andComparative Law.International Studiesin Cambridge Law andtheArctic. M.(2013).International Cambridge,Byers UK: 2017, Relations Vol. 31(4)375-402. and cooperation: international an Arctic case study. M. (2017). Crises Byers International Warming”. Foreign Affairs,March/April 2008. Borgerson S.G.(2008). “Arctic Meltdown: ofGlobal Implications The Economic andSecurity Research Forum. Available at:http://www.arcticyearbook.com Pirot and J. Plouffe. [online] Security,Geopolitics and on and Northern Thematic Network The Arctic Yearbook 2015 “Arctic Governanceand Governing.” Eds. by L.Heininen,H.Exner- arcticyearbook.com Research Forum. andSecurity,on Geopolitics andNorthern Available at:http://www. Environment.” Eds. by L.Heininen,H.Exner-Pirot &J. Plouffe. [online] Thematic Network The Arctic Yearbook 2017– intheArctic:Policy,“Change andInnovation & Society 17,2017,pp.TIME, April 8-9. Can stakes: Allison G.(2017).High Trump Koreadeal? aNorth andXiavoid warandstrike 2017byon 11May theArctic States. The Agreement ArcticScientific Cooperation (2017).Signed onEnhancingInternational Institute. Stefansson Arctic AHDR2004.Akureyri: Report, AHDR (2004).ArcticHumanDevelopment Atlantic. Palgrave Basingstoke: North Palgrave Macmillan, Pivot, 42-61. M.(2014). Ackren “Greenlandic Paradiplomatic Relations.” andSovereignty inthe Security Internationalism.” Canadian Foreign Policy, (13)3(2007),pp. 45-63. Abele F. and Rodon T. (2007). in the Global Era: Diplomacy “Inuit The Strengths of Multilateral ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY peaceful transformation to happen. to understand politicsandpower andmake inorder tothe facts reach thevalues, i.e. how approaches ofgeopolitics, ifto aimto change for a paradigmin shift is an opportunity When to interpret them as trends, there the post-post Cold War’s Arctic geopolitics. be interpreted themes, as new or trends, of 01 (11)2018

Lassi Heininen Fairbanks: Press. ofAlaska University C.,ed.Heininen L.andSouthcott (2010). andGlobalization. The Circumpolar North 0/08865655.2017.1315605 (downloaded 2017) at05:3704December Method.” ofBorderlandsStudies, Journal 2017.[online] Available at:https://doi.org/10.108 Heininen L.andFinger M.(2017). “The ‘Global Arctic’ and Context Geopolitical asaNew Tampereen yliopisto. säätelyjärjestelmää.” Tampere Peace No. Research 43. Institute. Research Report Tampere: Arktiksen -Kohti Arktiksessa läsnäolonympäristöriskit Heininen L.(1991).”Sotilaallisen Stefansson Arctic Institute, 2004.Akureyri: pp. 207-225. Report) Human Development Heininen L.(2004). andGeopolitics.” Relations “Circumpolar International AHDR(Arctic In: pointofview).” inaChange–Geopolitical North 1/2010,pp. 5-19. Politiikka Heininen L.(2010). High “Pohjoiset (The alueetmuutoksessa – geopoliittinennäkökulma Akureyri: Research ForumThe Northern & The ofLapland. University August 2011. Heininen, L.(2011). “Arctic Strategies andPolicies andComparative Study.” -Inventory Press, ofCalgary University pp.warmer 35-55. World. Zellen. Scott Calgary: Edited by Barry in theCircumpolar North.” The Fast-Changing for a ArcticSecurity Arctic:Rethinking Heininen L.(2013). “’Politicization’ oftheEnvironment: Environmental Politics andSecurity 2014, pp. 241-258. Powell Massachusetts, Dodds. Edward Cheltenham, UKandNorthampton, andKlaus Elgar: Arctic.” Polar Knowledges, Resources Geopolitics: andLegal Regimes. Edited by RichardC. Heininen L.(2014). Actors, Geopolitics: Interests andProcesses“Northern inthecircumpolar pp. 12-34. and Climate. Ed. by Palgrave LassiHeininen.Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, Pivot, 2016, Security”. of Definition oftheGlobalArctic. StateFuture Security Policy,Security Economic Heininen L.(2016). oftheGlobalArcticin “Security Transformation –ChangesinProblem published inautumn2018) politics?”world Eds. by GlobalArcticHandbook. M.Finger &L.Heininen.Springer. (willbe Heininen L.(forth-coming). “Special Features –apotential ofArcticGeopolitics assetfor by V. andS.Moisio. Harle Tampere: Gaudeamus, pp. 17-35. Eds.Harle V. geopolitikka. tiedettä?Muuttuva (2003). kriittistä geopolitiikka kriittinen “Onko Novosti Press 1,1987.Moscow: Agency.October of thepresentation oftheOrder ofLenin ofMurmansk, to thecity andtheGlodStarMedal M.(1987). Gorbachev attheceremonialThe SpeechinMurmansk meetingoftheoccasion inaphoneby L.Heininen in8March 2018.Personal M.(2018).Aninterview Goes notes. at: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa359 targets?”climate policy Environmental Research Letters 13[online] (2018)020201Available Forbis R.Jr. (2018). andHayhoe K. to achieving ArcticGovernance holdthekey “Does oftheArctic Council.Meeting (mimeo) Fairbanks (2017).Fairbanks Declaration ofthe OntheOccasion Declaration Tenth Ministerial Arc tic Geopolitics from c classi al ...

183 Sustainability 184 Sustainability GEOGRAPHY, The Free Press. (1995). Ohmae K. The End of the . of Regional Economics.The Rise New York: Finland. ofNorthern Society stability” (2012). Nordia Geographical Publications, Volume 40:4.2012. Tornio: Geographical NGP Yearbook in the Arctic region2011, ”Sustainable Development though peace and Conceptual Comparison.” Peace Research 10(3),pp. Reviews, 1-8,95-99. Newcombe H.(1986). A andAlternative“Collective Security, Security: Common Security Policy andGovernance. Amherst, New York: Press. Cambria R.W.Murray andNuttallA.D., andtheArctic. Relations ed. Understanding (2014). International Moisio. Tampere: Gaudeamus, pp. 93-109. kamppailuna”. S. (2003).”Geopolitiikka Moisio Eds. by geopolitikka. Muuttuva V. &S. Harle (mimeo) September 1986. S.(1986). Miller North. Strategy intheHigh andGeopolitics The Maritime A.T.Mahan (1918). Boston. 1660-1783. Sea of The Influence History Power upon XXIII. No. 1904,pp. 4,April 421-444. H.J. (1904). Mackinder The Geographical Pivot ofHistory. The Geographical Journal, Vol. Oxford: Oxford Press. University Edition. Second Lamy S.L.,Baylis J., P. SmithS.,Owens to GlobalPolitics. (2013).Introduction New York, FIIA Paper,Working 2015. April inUkraine. caseandthecrisis the ArcticSunrise The Finnish Affars, ofInternational Institute H.(2015).OnArcticExceptionalism. reflectionsinthelightof Critical J. andMikkola Käpylä Palgrave Macmillan. S.,ed. (2017).GoverningArctic Change. andKnecht GlobalPerspectives. K. Keil London: House. Random R.D.Kaplan (2002). The Coming Anarchy. theDreams Shattering ofthePost Cold War. USA: pp. 355-382.SAGE Publications. ofNorden inaNordic Journal.” Re-making Geopolitical Cooperation andConflict, vol. 34(4), P.Jukarainen (1999). “Norden -Long isDead Live theEastwards Faced Euro-North. Council. 20015.(mimeo) Iqaluit,Canada, 24April oftheArctic Meeting Ministerial (2015).OntheoccasionofNinth Iqaluit Declaration 2008. (mimeo) Conference (2008).ArcticOcean Declaration Greenland,The Ilulissat –Ilulissat, 27-29May Circumpolaradopted by Council. theInuit onSovereignty Declaration (2009).ACircumpolar intheArctic.” Declaration Inuit Inuit from Routledge. intheArctic.Environmental andHumanSecurity Tonbridge, andEartscan Routledge Kent: G.,Bazely D.R.,Hoogensen Gjörv GolovizninaM.and Tanentzap A.J., eds. (2013). 2014. Available at:www.valdaiclub.com. 2014. Accessed on22ndofOctober Colda New War.” The Valdai Moscow, DiscussionClub, Grantees Report. Russia,September Heininen L.,Sergunin A.and Yarovoy G.(2014). “Russian Strategies intheArctic:Avoiding ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY 01 (11)2018

R Lassi Heininen eceived onF 1(20). 2017,pp. 42-47. A.(2017). Zagorski “Arctic Consensus.” The ArcticHerald, &AnalyticalJournal, Information Nijhoff Publishers.A. Stepien. Leiden-Boston: Martinus The Yearbook ofPolar Law Volume 5,2013(2013).Edited by G.Alfredsson, T. Koivurova and 2012. Wezeman S.T. Capabilities in the Arctic. SIPRI Background Paper, (2012). Military March world.” Research Plan for aPhD ofLapland. studies(September 2017).University (mimeo) Vuori A.(2017). emerging inthedigital Geopolitics politicalspaceoftheinternet: “The www.eurasiareview.com of the Arctic Circle.’North Fact US Geological Survey Sheet 2008-3049. July 2008, http:// USGS (2008). ‘Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal:Estimates ofUndiscovered OilandGas pp. 190-204. reasoning foreign inAmerican policy.” , Volume 11,Issue2,March 1992, Tuathail G.O. andAgnew J. (1992). geopolitical anddiscourse:practical “Geopolitics Resources. Spiegel, Der 19September 2008. Traufetter G.(2008). Pole.The Battlefor Competition theNorth for IceBrings Melting Future. ASSW2015in Toyama, 2015.(mimeo) 30April Toyama Conference Statement ArcticResearch: (2015).Integrating for ARoadmap the London:imaginaries intheCircumpolar I.B. North. Tauris Publishers. Steinberg P.E., Tasch J. H.,ed. andGerhardt (2015).Contesting theArctic, Politics and N.J. (1944). Spykman The Geography ofPeace. New York. Review, Vol. 32,Issue1. N.J. (1938).GeographySpykman andForeign Policy I. PoliticalThe American Science PhD.and itsArctic Context. Deutscland. Universität zuKöln, A. (2016). Raspotnik Frontier:The European European Union and its Northern Geopolitics EdwardRegimes. Massachusetts: Elgar. Cheltenham, UKandNorthampton, Powell ed. (2014)Polar K., R.C.andDodds Knowledges, Resources Geopolitics: andLegal Vol. 43.No. 7,September 1987,pp. 24-29. Posen a B.dangerous (1987). game.U.S. Bulletin of Atomic Strategy: Scientists, Maritime Canada –September 19,1996.(mimeo) ontheEstablishmentofArcticCouncil. (1996).Declaration Declaration Ottawa, Ottawa ebruary 20 ebruary th , 2017 Arc tic Geopolitics A ccepted onM from arch 1 c classi st , 2018 al ...

185 Sustainability 186 Sustainability GEOGRAPHY, ENVIRONMENT, Thematic Network on Geopolitics andSecurity. onGeopolitics Thematic Network at Tongji (China). University He is also Head of (UArctic-NRF) (Russia),HolderofForeignUniversity Professorship Experts at Petrozavodsk in Karelia Summer School of International State Professor(Iceland), Adjunct at Trent (Canada), University Director academic positionsare Visiting Professor ofAkureyri atUniversity PhD studentsfrom different countries. Amonghisother recent teaches MA and lecturesregularly abroad, and andsupervises Studies, Environmental Politics, ArcticStudies. Prof. Heininen research IIASA (Austria). His Geopolitics, fieldsincludeIR, Security of Lapland(Finland) Research (associate) andSenior Scholar at Dr. Heininen Lassi SUSTAINABILITY isaProfessor ofArcticPolitics atUniversity 01 (11)2018