250
Arctic Yearbook 2015
the office of the chair are outlined above - is the critical factor, since it affects both the quality and
quantity of the chair's resources as well as the formal and informal constraints. More specifically, what
matters is the intervention capacity given to the chair (i.e. control over agenda management and
brokerage) as well as institutional continuity and the duration of the chairmanship. In short, the greater
the chair’s control over process, the more institutional continuity and the longer the duration of its
tenure, the more effective the chair will be (Blavoukos et al. 2006: 152). When it comes to the resources
available to the chair, these include the already mentioned asymmetrical access to information and
legitimacy of the chairmanship office. With regard to formal constraints placed upon the chair, these
include the mandate, decision-making rules and control mechanisms within the institution. The
mandate – or, like in the case of the United Nations Security Council and the Arctic Council, rules of
procedure – outline tasks and functions assigned to the chair, thus defining its intervention capacity.
Again, the less detailed the mandate, the more the institutional autonomy of the chair. Similarly with
decision-making rules, the more demanding the rule (for example special majority, unanimity or
co