Search results

Open Access (free)
Power in cross-border Cooperation

The volume explores a question that sheds light on the contested, but largely cooperative, nature of Arctic governance in the post-Cold War period: How do power relations matter – and how have they mattered – in shaping cross-border cooperation and diplomacy in the Arctic? Through carefully selected case studies – from Russia’s role in the Arctic Council to the diplomacy of indigenous peoples’ organisations – this book seeks to shed light on how power performances are enacted constantly to shore up Arctic cooperation in key ways. The conceptually driven nature of the enquiry makes the book appropriate reading for courses in international relations and political geography, while the carefully selected case studies lend themselves to courses on Arctic politics.

Open Access (free)

2 Theoretical background The last two decades of the twentieth century saw a remarkable increase in the breadth and depth of international environmental cooperation.1 Several explanations have been offered to account for this trend, among them the growing transborder implications of national environmental problems and the combination of a general rise in international transactions and governmental involvement in environmental affairs at the national level (Hanf and Underdal 1998, pp. 149–51). Co-operative arrangements show great variation in their degree of

in Implementing international environmental agreements in Russia
What contribution to regional security?

transition to the market and democracy, economic development, a stable energy supply, environmental cooperation and the networking of civil societies. Subregional groups thus consolidate the OSCE model of security building by offering a means for the dissemination and adoption of the norms and standards of the OSCE, the Council of Europe and the EU. Subregional institutions cannot, however, compensate for the denial of the benefits attending EU and NATO membership.41 An important undertaking of the BSEC is reducing intra-regional tensions by creating and sponsoring a

in Limiting institutions?
Open Access (free)

-operative framework aimed partly at environmental issues. The Declaration on Arctic Military Environmental Co-operation (AMEC) (Ministry of Foreign Affairs 1996) was signed in 1996 by Norway, the Russian Federation and the USA.39 The parties stated 10 International environmental agreements in Russia their mutual interest in reducing the deleterious effects of military operations to the Arctic environment, including the ecological risks associated with nuclear waste in the Arctic. Norway and the USA pledged their support in providing the Russians with technological and other

in Implementing international environmental agreements in Russia
Open Access (free)
Theorising Arctic hierarchies

credibility to Norway’s special role in Arctic politics in the eyes of other Arctic countries. As a Norwegian interviewee with responsibilities relating to environmental cooperation put it: ‘The Canadians are envious of our relationship with Russia. How frank we can be with our Russian counterparts and what we achieve. They call upon us as bridge builders.’ A North American interviewee echoed this point: ‘Norwegians present themselves as a channel to the Russians and help other countries interpret Russian positions and messages. They are useful in playing this role and

in Arctic governance

created at this meeting: 1  In relation to the Subgroup on Economic Co-operation: industrial cooperation, co-operation on technical regulations and conformity assessment, co-operation in the field of services, investment promotion, macro-economic dialogue, scientific and technological co-operation, energy co-operation, transports, telecommunications, information technology and information society, co-operation on agricultural and rural sector fisheries, customs co-operation, statistic co-operation, environmental co-operation, consumer protection and data protection; 2

in The European Union's policy towards Mercosur:
Open Access (free)

both international negotiations and the regime is important. Even though corporations do not participate in international regimes, their access as observers to preparatory sessions can vary significantly. We assume that influence will increase as industry has more access to decision-making processes. Decision-making procedures applied in international environmental cooperation vary as well. Unanimity is most demanding, requiring the positive approval of all parties. Under the condition of unanimity, reactive industry influence within one single state can block the

in Climate change and the oil industry

and readopted, and Norwegian policy on renewables has not provided any strong incentives for Statoil. On the other hand, Norway was one of the first countries to adopt a CO2 tax, which applied specifically to the Norwegian continental shelf. This tax influenced the realisation of Statoil’s CO2 programme, which aimed to increase energy efficiency. Statoil played the key role in the MILJØSOK initiative aimed at identifying solutions and improving environmental cooperation between the state and oil companies. MILJØSOK has also been seen as an important explanation for

in Climate change and the oil industry