introduction

The newly discovered valuable condition gave rise to increased attention from several countries. This condition goes back to the history of the Arctic. More specifically, to the Triassic4 and early Tertiary5 period . At these times, greenhouse gasses warmed the world far hotter than it is today. The Arctic itself almost had a tropical climate: this was caused by a higher global temperature and by the fact that the Arctic was situated in warmer latitudes because of tectonic plates.VIII The climatic conditions of the Arctic during this period, namely high temperature and a lot of organic life on the surface level, gave rise to the high amount of gas as well as oil deposits, now located in the basins of the Arctic ocean floor. Scientists estimate this seafloor is home to almost 30% of natural gas and 13% of the oil deposits around the world.IX Since 1979 researchers kept satellite records to estimate the decrease of the Arctic ice. Now, the ice has lost 40% of its area, which introduces a new geographic situation in the Arctic ocean.X The oil and gas deposits come free and can provide potential wealth for the countries that own this land and can export these resources. So, new economic opportunities for the future of the Arctic come to rise, this forms an explanation for the increased attention in the Arctic region.XI XII

4 The Triassic Period occurred between 251 million and 199 million years ago. It marked the beginning of major changes that were to take place throughout the Mesozoic Era, particularly in the distribution of continents, the evolution of life, and the geographic distribution of living things.XCIII 5 The Tertiary Period occurred 66 million to 2.6 million years ago. It was marked with an interval of enormous geologic, climatic, oceanographic, and biological change. It spanned the transition from a globally warm world containing relatively high sea levels and dominated by reptiles to a world of polar glaciation, sharply differentiated climate zones, and mammalian dominance.XCIV

RETHINKING THE CONCEPT OF TERRITORIES The climatic and geographic situation within the Arctic region gave rise to a discussion about the geographical position and the political framework we could use for the arising new land (when fully melted the Arctic Ocean covers 14.06 million square kilometres)XIII. Both the geographical position as well as the political framework influence each other and decide how we perceive this land differently. The quote ‘The world is an archipelago’ from the philosopher Edouard GlissantXIV offers a way to rethink territories and their political sovereignty. The term archipelago refers typically to a group of islands closely scattered in a body of water. All these islands have their own identity but are still part of one political community. For this reason, the world, or more precisely the Arctic, which consists of several nations but thought of as one, is an archipelago.XV

Geographically the Arctic circle, a line of latitude about 66,5 degrees north of the Equator, defines the area of the region we call the Arctic.XVI Five states that directly border the Arctic lay in this region. These states are Canada, Denmark (Greenland), Norway, Russia, and the United States and form the Arctic Five6. Besides these five bordering nations, also Finland, Sweden, and Iceland have rights and privileges within the Arctic, but they are not located within the Arctic Circle and are not part of the Arctic Five. Therefore, we are not yet able to understand ‘who owns the Arctic’ and ‘what is the political extend of the Arctic.’XVII

Perceiving the Arctic environment as an archipelago transforms it into a more relatable space. It gives us the opportunity to understand the ownership and extend of the Arctic environment. Within an archipelago, several countries, each with a limited area, but constructed into one legislative body get in dialogue with each other. As a consequence, blurred borders between the countries arise. Hypothetically we could say that the different landmasses within the Arctic at once form one political body which is still geographically separated by pieces of the ocean. The archipelago now comprises several voices of the various nations and creates a new framework for Arctic sovereignty. Within this idea we can install a new understanding of the word nation, which is traditionally seen as a country with limited borders and only one legislative body.XVIII All around the world, the limits of a country reach to the territorial waters of a nation. Within these national waters, a country has exclusive rights to use the resources embedded in the seafloor. This extension is called the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)7. Taking a look at the Arctic seabed, gives us a better understanding of the possible conflicts arising from the establishment of the EEZ. Currently, there is no agreement over the position of the borders8 of every nation located within the Arctic Circle. This uncertainty makes the Arctic region particularly interesting to talk about the concept of the EEZ.XIX

The current situation in which every nation can exploit the resources within its EEZ allows the surrounding countries of the Arctic ocean to claim sovereignty over their local assets embedded within this EEZ. The problem here is that at this point, the claims from the different nations that are surrounding the Arctic ocean are overlapping. So, there is no agreement over the precise location of the borderlines within the Arctic sea yet. Therefore, some parts of the sea don’t belong to anyone, and since nobody owns these pieces of land, nobody can claim the resources located within these regions.XX

To conclude, this situation of claiming a part of your land that extends into the ocean is particularly interesting in the Arctic since countries govern each an individual piece of the Arctic ocean. As from 2007, scientific models and graphs give us evidence about the high amount of exploitable natural resources underneath the Arctic surface.XXI Since these pieces of land are up for grasp, a rise in attention from the surrounding countries to claim the area exists. But, if we want to understand this situation of claiming land through history, we need to take a closer look at the concept of territorializing an area, Whitehead Jones translates this concept as the use of space to control and regulate nature. In the sense of the Arctic, this means the claiming of land to be able to exploit the resources embedded within this land. Territorialization is already part of our culture for a long time. It consist out of two factors, firstly, it construct a space in which political knowledge can be gathered, this gives the state the chance to know nature by it’s spatial form and location. But secondly, it also envolves the regulation of nature through national boundaries, and this factor is important to consider within the Arctic environment. It indicates how we deal with the notion of a nation-state, a notion that gives the possibility to claim ressources located within specific national boundaries.XXII XXIII

6 The Arctic Five is the grouping of the five Arctic littoral states (Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the United States of America) in addressing Arctic affairs. It must be emphasized that this association has no independent power or existence apart from the states that comprise it. This, however, does not deprive the association of importance. Gatherings of and concerted action on the part of the Arctic littoral states have significant implications for the region.XCV 7 An Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is a concept adopted at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (1982), whereby a coastal State assumes jurisdiction over the exploration and exploitation of marine resources in its adjacent section of the continental shelf, taken to be a band extending 200 miles from the shore.XCVI 8 See chapter borders in ‘the bank of evidence’ to understand the actors that are involved and try to claim a piece of land.

THE ARCTIC AS A ‘VOID’ During history, people made several attempts to claim particular pieces of the land. Now the dominant trend in the Arctic is clear. Global warming pushes back the Arctic ice cap what gives the chance to develop new shipping routes9 and offshore petroleum mining10. As a consequence, several states try to claim parts of the sea in the north pole that are melting. In 2007 Arthur Chillingarov, an Armenian-Russian polar explorer planted a flag on the Arctic seabed with the words ‘The Arctic is Russian.’ As a reaction, the Canadian foreign minister Peter Mackay responded; ‘During the 15th century, it was common to use this method to claim territory, but now the situation differs’. This reaction came too fast since the intention of the flag-planting wasn’t about claiming the territory, it was more a symbolic statement, just as the flag-planting on the moon of the US in 1969. Thus, the flag-planting here was a statement to show that the Russian scientists are on the front of the technological shift. Still, the act of planting a flag indicates expansionism, not exploration, and in this way, brings new political negotiations into view. As a response to the dispute, the Danish government invited the surrounding Arctic ocean states to Greenland in 2008. There the four countries (Canada, Russia, Denmark, Norway) signed the Illulisat declaration11, in which they agreed on working together within an existing framework of international law.XXIV XXV

The reaction from the Canadian minister shows that today the situation to claim land differs from the one in history. In the past, it was possible to claim a territory if this land was untended, uncivilized, and uncultivated.XXVI Now, this isn’t the case anymore. Justification of land claims depend on scientific findings. These findings are legalised within the EEZ. The problem in the Arctic is that claims are overlapping, and so these zones aren’t clearly defined yet.XXVII Furthermore, nobody owns the Arctic; which implies that the region is a political as well as geographical void. To clarify this notion of void, I will make a comparison between the geographical borders and the governing system used within the Arctic and Amazon. Both are incredibly large and widespread pieces of nature -14.06 million square kilometres when fully meltedXXVIII and 7,794 million square kilometres, of which 64% in BrazilXXIX respectively- but the geographical and political situation differ drastically. Brazil owns the Amazon; it is a country with fixed borders that decides on the use of the resources in the rainforest. While the extent of the Arctic region is unclear since there are actor evolved within the decision-making organs from around the whole world (FE. In governing bodies such as the Arctic Five, Arctic Council12). Besides this governmental organisation also transforms the region into a much-valued colonialist apparatus since the borders aren’t defined, this implies that countries can claim a specific part of the area. To conclude, both the Arctic and the Amazon physically influence global processes. Still, the Amazon is locally governed while the Arctic is more challenging to comprehend since it is governed by global governing mechanisms.XXX XXXI

9 See chapter shipping routes in ‘the bank of evidence’ to get an overview of the evolution of the NWP and the related economic developments. 10 See chapter resources in ‘the bank of evidence’ to understand the build infrastructure that goes hand in hand with the digging for resources. 11 The Ilulissat Declaration was announced on May 28, 2008 by the five coastal states of the Arctic Ocean (United States, Russia, Canada, Norway and The Kingdom of Denmark), meeting at the political level during the Arctic Ocean Conference in Ilulissat, Greenland to discuss the Arctic ocean, climate change, the protection of the marine environment, maritime safety, and division of emergency responsibilities if new shipping routes are opened.XCVII 12 The Arctic Council is a relatively fixed and ordered body that has been referred to as a “quasi-international organization” (Nord, 2016: 34). It labels itself, however, a “high level intergovernmental forum” given that it is not an international organization with independent legal character, but rather a space and framework for state action (Rottem, 2016: 169). It brings together numerous actors in a hierarchical organization to consider Arctic matters.XCVIII

NATURE USED FOR CAPITAL The rising interest in the Arctic and the idea of territorializing an area is closely intertwined. The Arctic is a sample model for the effects of climate change as well as for the political power of countries that claim sovereignty. Today, within the legislative framework, we see nature as a national resource. In contrast, the effects of the arising events in the environment are not limited to national borders. They extend and have implications on the global processes of our Earth.XXXII As such, greenhouse gas emission and pollution from activities around the world have an impact on the temperatures within the Arctic. Consequently, changes produced by this rise in temperature will, in their turn, affect the world again through, for example, an increase in sea levels.XXXIII So, this introduces the concept of globalization processes which can be political and environmental; processes where a local phenomenon has an impact on the global climate condition.

The globalization processes came into view during neo-capitalist society. These processes exceed the national bounds of the nation-state. Since several nations claim and export the resources within the Arctic seafloor to the whole world, these resources transformed from being national to simultaneously being global. This transformation of a national resource used on a worldwide market changed the power relation between nature and society. Consequently, globalization influences the conservation of nature, since states start to influence regions that lay beyond their territories. Neil Brenner, in this sense, called for a rejection of the spatial fetishisms. This term is associated with the narrow, territorially conceived notions of state space. By reframing our notion of state space, he asked for greater attention to be given to the integrals space of the state. This integral space is described as: ‘the territory-, place-, and scale-specific ways in which state institurions are mobilised to regulate social relations and to influence their locational geographies.’XXXIV This concept of integral space is moving away from fixed borderlines. It brings the idea of fluid spaces, in which depending on the viewpoint connection between various nations, come into the picture.XXXV Currently, within the Arctic, the state is operating nature for capital via the new trade routes and the resources that come free because of the melting ice. So, in this way the state uses products of nature for economic purposes, to accumulate their capital. The description of a state from Max Weber13 makes nature part of the concept of the state. ‘We have to say that a state is a human community that claims a monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.’XXXVI Thus, with globalization in our mind, we should rethink this description. Globalization can influence the conservation of nature trough the exploiting of resources, if a nation isn’t able to conserve nature while exploiting resources, this will have drastic impacts on the Arctic environment. So, we need to search for a body to sustain a healthy relation between the natural resources and the human exploitation of these resources.XXXVII An example of an organization that takes into account these two factors is the Arctic council. The Council needs to follow the auspices of the Ottowa Declaration14. As a consequence, it can only talk about ’issues of sustainable development and environmental protection in the Arctic,’ and ‘should not deal with matters related to military security.’ This focus implies that when the Council wants to extract resources, it needs to conserve the natural environment of the Arctic.XXXVIII

To conclude, the term climate change is not only about pollution of nature, but also about a shift in how we deal with global governing systems that can influence environmental processes. Within the Arctic, a new way of thinking about territory emerged, namely the political system of the archipelago. This system maintains or monitors a different relationship between nature and society from the global to the local scale. A concrete example is the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)15; this panel provides possible solutions on a global scale instead of the narrow scale of the individual nation. It pinpoints that even within a global environment, countries will eventually experience the impacts of climate change. These impacts mostly influence the fields of agricultural production, human/animal population, and also through losses of territory.XXXIX XL

13 Weber (1864-1920) was a German economist, philosopher, and sociologist who wrote widely on human societies and institutions. He was also one of the first people of the 20th century to tackle the concept of the modern state, something that most scholars thought too obtuse to handle.XCIX 14 The Ottowa Declaration is a declaration on the establishment of the Arctic Council, 1996 (Joint communique of the governments of the Arctic countries on the establishment of the Arctic Council)C 15 The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a new report - Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis - on September 27th, 2013. Many scientists from Arctic Council members contributed to this IPCC report, and the findings have informed the Council’s climate change related work, notably in guiding further scientific efforts and in adaptation actions important to Northern communities.CI