Chapter Seven
108
population.^26 Military presence in the region is another traditional factor to
be considered while studying geopolitics.^27 Recent geopolitical theory
indicates that, in the post-bipolar world, socio-economic factors come out
ahead of a traditional military-oriented vision of the region (Osherenko
and Young 1989, Zellen 2009, Sale and Potapov 2010), and economic and
regional factors are to be included in the analysis. Finally, keeping in mind
that “the lines between international economics and regional economics
are becoming blurred”^28 and cooperation, not conflict, is in everyone’s
interest,^29 it is also useful to put Arctic provinces into a regional integration
context, revealing and contrasting the extent of their participation in intra-
and inter-regional institutionalized integration.
In order to contrast the probabilities of Arctic provinces’ involvement
in intraregional conflict we analyse their conflict potential through the
prism of the proximity of a threat. Keeping in mind that the majority of
interstate conflicts occur between nearby states^30 (Bremer 1992, Huth
1996, Hensel 2000) and since “...contiguity produces the strongest effect,
increasing the probability of war by over 35 times – more than such
common explanations as alliances, major power status, and relative
capabilities,”^31 we discover whether or not proximity increases the risk of
intraregional conflict in every dyad of the Arctic provinces, according to
their conflict-related configuration. Such configurations are defined by a
simultaneous interplay of three dichotomous parameters: regime type
(democratic versus non-democratic), attitude towards conflict (neutral
versus militaristic) and trade status (autarky versus trader) in line with
Wolfson, Madjd-Sadjadi, and James’ thought experiment.^32 The latter
parameter starts with longitudinal empirical observation: “two-thirds of
the time, neutrality and trade go together and neutrality and democracy go
together, while two-thirds of the time, militarism and autarky go together
and militarism and non-democracy go together.”^33 Since each province is
(^26) See Jackson (2007).
(^27) Classical thalassocratic and tellurocratic geopolitical theories.
(^28) Krugman, Geography and Trade, 8.
(^29) Hough, International Politics of the Arctic: Coming in from the Cold, 116.
(^30) Unlike distant states nearby states are expected to be more conflict-prone due to
their overlapping interests and perceived security threats, and ease in projecting
sufficient military capabilities – Hensel, “Territory: Theory and Evidence on
Geography and Conflict”, 6.
(^31) Hensel, “Territory: Theory and Evidence on Geography and Conflict”, 10.
(^32) Wolfson, Madjd-Sadjadi and James, “Identifying National Types: A Cluster
Analysis of Politics, Economics, and Conflict”, 608.
(^33) Ibid.