Arctic Geopolitical Configuration
1012002, Daxecker 2011) and a higher probability of intraregional conflict
(Libman 2006).
The scientific response to the changing environment in the Arctic did
not take long to appear: the number of Arctic-related publications has
almost tripled within the last two decades.^4 Indeed, most works operating
on the systemic level of approximation either highlight the diversity of
polar territories (Dowdeswell and Hambrey 2002, Stein 2008), or assess
the efficiency of Arctic regional cooperation (Chaturvedi 1996, Exner-
Pirot 2012). Others offer scenarios of forthcoming geopolitical development
(Brigham 2007, Chapman 2011, Ostreng et al. 2013), or list the potential
sources of intraregional conflict (Lindsay 2012, O’Rourke 2013). With the
exception of a series of issue-specific institutional reports and a
comprehensive empirical study on the Arctic geopolitical landscape by
Knell (2008), a rigorous attempt to depict areas with a higher probability
of potential conflict due to internal, structural forces operating within the
region’s geopolitical system (i.e. not due to accident or chance) is still
missing from the literature.
Based on a geographical-administrative definition of the region, a
theoretical basis in French structuralist geopolitics, cross-sectional data for
2000, 2005, and 2010 from national and international statistical databases,
and technical capabilities of cluster analysis, this study aims at detecting
zones of consensus and zones of conflict within the Arctic geopolitical
space and evaluating the overall stability of a given configuration in the
context of climate change. First, in order to discover geopolitical groups
(“zones of consensus”) and intergroup buffer areas (“zones of conflict”)
Arctic provinces are differentiated according to sixteen attributes reflecting
their physical, economic, demographic, and military performance, and
their integration environment throughout the first ten years of the new
millennium (area, average temperature in January and July, exclusive
economic zone, sector area, total and indigenous population, gross regional
product and its agriculture/industry/services segregation, advancement in
economic and military regionalism, military bases and expenditures, and
possession of nuclear weapons). The stability of each grouping is
evaluated. Second, conflict potential is calculated for each Arctic state
according to three interrelated parameters, attitude towards conflict
(military vs. peaceful), regime type (authoritarianism vs. democracy) and
trade status (openness vs. autarky). Finally, based on a neoliberal
(^4) Based on average appearance of “Arctic” and “Geopolitics” in Jstor, WoS and
Questia platforms in 1990, 2000, and 2010.