Introduction - Environmental and Human Security in the Arctic - page 2

give content to the concept of security. Opening the space for competing (and
possibly complementary) security perspectives means recognizing and allow-
ing that different actors other than the state are given the power to have their
primary concerns and values heard.
Studying security and identifying security actors and practices is, there-
fore, both a scholarly/analytical activity as well as a political activity. The
very act of defining security and making a claim for that definition is an act
of power, supporting the politics that depend on that definition, or making
a normative claim for why security ought to be defined in a particular way.
When security analysts 'observe' acts of security or security moves, the analyst
has immediately contributed to the politics of the process by recognizing (or
not recognizing) an actor as a security actor and a securitizing move as being
successful or not.
These dynamics of security are well illustrated in the Arctic. The notion
of security has had a constant presence in the Arctic, but its meaning has
changed over time, based on alterations in values and priorities for the region.
The Cold War has played a particularly significant role in the ways in which
security has been understood in the Arctic, whereby individual and commu-
nity perceptions of security have, to be fair, never really played a role. This was
largely a result of policy makers and security analysts focusing almost exclu-
sively upon the tensions between two superpowers, reducing Arctic security
to the balance of power played out with the threat of nuclear force (Heininen
2004). Since the Cold War, however, understanding security in the Arctic has
broadened its scope, including environmental, energy, economic and, as we
wish to argue here, human security (Hoogensen et al . 2009; Broadhead 2010;
Offerdal 2010; Stokke 2011).
The focus of this topic is therefore not re-articulation of 'traditional' Arctic
security focusing solely upon protection of borders and the power dynam-
ics between nation states, linked to a classic geopolitical framework. These
security manoeuvres matter and are always a relevant factor in the security
dynamic, but are limited in their capabilities to provide a more holistic and
comprehensive security picture of the region. Although recognizing the
importance and role of more limited perceptions of security, the work in this
topic draws on a wide variety of intellectual traditions, of which many, if not
most, break beyond the narrow concept. Some of these traditions remain close
to the narrow limitations of traditional security, like the Copenhagen school
on securitization, while others explore a deeper connection between security
actors and security practices as informed by feminist security studies, critical
security studies and human security studies.
As many of the authors in this volume acknowledge, human security was
initially conceived as a concept for the 'global South', with the implication
that the concept has no relevance for global North states. Indeed, it appeared
to be a concept designed for global North states to act for or in the global
South, identifying human security needs, if not potentially rectifying them.