An Explanation for the Growing Institutional Capacity of the Arctic Council
The Northern Review 48 (2018): 51–80
In 1996 the Arctic states—Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Russia and the United States—created the Arctic Council as an institutionally weak body. It lacked bureaucracy to provide direction for the institution or a stable budget. The council had weak institutional capacity. In 2011, the council announced the creation of a permanent secretariat. In 2014, it announced the creation of a “project support instrument,” which is similar to a budget. Why did states support increasing the institutional capacity of the Arctic Council? The Arctic Council’s institutional capacity is growing because all states perceive that this is in their interest as it helps the institution carry out its expanded mandate; however, states have increased capacity in such a way as to ensure the council will not become overly powerful. In addition, effective negotiation tactics by the Nordic governments made the expansion of the council’s institutional capacity more likely. Most current literature explains that the council has weak institutional capacity and its expansion has been a natural evolution. This work contributes that the council’s expansion has been a political process, resulting from tactful political manoeuvre and negotiation. The method utilized is historical process tracing, drawing on council documents and interviews with key council decision-makers. Scholars who seek a stronger and more activist Arctic Council should consider its continued weakness.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
c. The journal has the right to authorize third-party publishers & aggregators to include the Article in databases or other services (EBSCO, Proquest).
d. The journal has the right to share the Article on the Internet, through social media and other means.