297
Arctic Yearbook 2015
and perspectives that are instructive when approaching how best to expand the capacity of existing
governing regimes.
The first part of this paper explores the history behind, and structure of, current governing
arrangements in the Arctic. When considering relevant governing analogues, scholars often turn to
the Antarctic Treaty System. This author argues the comparison is inappropriate. Competing resources
claims, territorial disputes, differing governing priorities, and fundamental geography make the two
regions polar opposites, or as phrased by Oran Young, “antipodes in more than geography” (Young
1992: 184).
The second part of this paper identifies five areas for governing realignments; these concepts are
drawn from the region’s history, existing structures, and tactics already employed. Covered in the
discussion are ad hoc, bilateral and multilateral governing structures, functional strategies, regional seas
agreements, and a comprehensive Arctic Treaty.
The second part of the paper primes the analogue introduced in part three – the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). With the introduction of the ASEAN analogue, a relevant regional
model is introduced. Sharing similar high-political stresses (military tension, resource and territorial
disputes) and low-political norms (a zone of peace doctrine, a non-legal governing personality) with
the High North, ASEAN’s success in achieving peaceful regional integration holds tremendous
promise for the Arctic. The need to view challenges in the Arctic beyond the domestic political lens
makes the analogue valuable as ASEAN leaves the domestic political escape hatch open; states are
free to step away from the multilateral table where they see independent comparative advantages. It
should go without saying that obvious features make Southeast Asia and the Arctic distinctly different
regions; however, distinct similarities merit scholars’ attention and consideration. Making the leap
from theory to practice, the paper closes offering a series of policy prescriptions – ostensibly derived
from the ASEAN analogue – for Arctic policy-makers. From working toward an Arctic economic
community to adopting a declaration of non-interference, it becomes evident that shared issues with
tried solutions unite Southeast Asia and the Arctic.
The desire for cooperation in the Arctic is both genuine and demonstrated. When a non-regional
perspective and a globalized attitude are adopted, it quickly becomes evident Southeast Asia offers
instructive prefabricated structures that are ready for adoption in the Arctic. It is the intention of this
paper to make some of those key linkages both evident and accessible.
The Antarctic analogue
As touched on in the introduction of this paper, Antarctic governance has been called upon, in both
academic and policy-making circles, as an analogue for Arctic governance. Specifically, the Antarctic
Treaty of 1959 is brought into focus as a worthy analytical frame through which Arctic regimes can
be considered. Most critically, the locus of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) is a declaration in Article
I that “Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only” (ATS 1959). Keeping in mind that the
Antarctic Treaty was signed while the Cold War was in full swing, the front-and-center emphasis
placed on peaceful activity should not come as a surprise. A second defining feature of the ATS can
Lidow