266
Arctic Yearbook 2015
its complex geopolitical links to other parts of the world have given rise to political destabilization in
the region (Luedtke & Howkins 2012; Martin-Nielsen 2015). Recent developments in Ukraine further
complicate the issue by altering the relations between several states with Arctic interests and the
Russian Federation. In this context, states’ behaviour suggests that defining a new balance of power
and devising an appropriate governance model has become increasingly urgent, while the challenge is
to bring all of the relevant aspects into the frame and to develop a coherent and manageable balance.
This paper takes a closer look at the references to commonality, which are a salient, albeit ambiguous
feature of the current discussion on Arctic governance. It does so from a legal perspective and with
the purpose to unveil a twofold divide in the discussion. Legal and political purposes intersect and
they vary depending on whether they are made from an Arctic or a non-Arctic perspective. Despite
similar rhetoric, intentions may differ greatly and it is not unusual that different players refer to the
law in irreconcilable or controversial ways. In a first step, the variety of references to commonality is
charted and the underlying rhetorical strategies are carved out. In a second step, the references’ legal
accuracy and their conceptual contribution to the development of a legal framework for Arctic
cooperation are analysed. This should enable a better understanding of the diverging intentions and
strategies at play in the discussion and the difficulties to reach a common understanding of how to
govern the Arctic region.
Commonality in discourses on the Arctic
With respect to the Arctic, commonality is referred to in many different fora, including in political
statements, official policy papers and pleas made by diplomats in academic settings. Most of these
references do not seek exclusively – if at all – to be convincing from a legal perspective, but they all
strive to be politically compelling. And yet, they are often made in contexts where politics and law are
inextricably intertwined and where the law is even expressly mentioned – albeit at times in ways that
cast doubt on whether the law is correctly interpreted or understood. How is commonality referred
to? What do these references reveal about the legal stances taken by states with regard to the Arctic
and what messages do they convey? These are the main questions addressed in this first part.
References to commonality…
The following review of expressions recently used or reported is admittedly anecdotal and focuses on
the clearest and therefore sometimes most contentious references. The purpose is to provide a good
sense of the variety of references to commonality that may be encountered in the debate on Arctic
governance, as they all potentially influence the legal framing of the region and Arctic cooperation.
Different formulations notwithstanding, the references always correlate to either a perspective of
regional Arctic commonality or a perspective of global commonality regarding Arctic issues. The
distinctly Arctic perspective of commonality is characteristic of the Arctic states’ view. The Ottawa
Declaration, which establishes the Arctic Council as a facilitator of cooperation among Arctic states
“on common Arctic issues”, according to article 1 (a), is clearly based on the concept of a regional
common. Rothwell (2008: 247) explains that the