Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
Conclusion
Revisiting Arctic security
Marina Goloviznina and Gunhild
Hoogensen Gjørv
The question of the future configuration of Arctic security is still open (Huebert
et al . 2012). This question more than ever includes a broader understanding of
what security means. The interest in the subject of exploring human security in
the Arctic has increased considerably since 2004 when a few of us came together
in Tromsø and started a discussion about it almost a decade ago. Many more
themes could have been included here, exploring more deeply the connections
between human activity and society and the environment, a connection that is
crucial in the Arctic setting. The work here can be thus considered a foundation,
a starting point, rather than the final answer on the subject.
Almost all of the authors who have contributed to this work either live
their daily lives in the region called the Arctic, or are often back to the Arctic
as the lives, experiences and activities of the region are their primary focus of
work. Most of the contributors were there in 2004 at the first meeting that
generated the interest in this topic.
The Arctic is a dynamic region, and changes are happening both quickly (for
example climate change which is impacting this region faster than any other on
the planet) and gradually (for example governance structures such as international
law, bilateral agreements and the development of institutions such as the Arctic
Council). These chapters have given us a glimpse into different ways of thinking
about security, of people's lives, both political and personal - from state to individ-
uals/communities across the Arctic, with a focus on Canada, Russia and Norway.
Human security has been considered problematic as a concept for the
Arctic. Why? Largely because the region is not beset with large-scale, open
conflict (to be blunt). As well, resistance to using the concept in the Arctic
bases itself upon a further assumption about how much insecurity is war-
ranted to be able to really classify it as 'human insecurity' or something that
deserves the attention of human security analysis, although that threshold
may be dependent upon the eye of the beholder (see Owen 2004). Thus the
assumptions that are supposedly embedded within 'freedom from fear, free-
dom from want' are often not perceived as relevant to the region.
This topic is not a call to turn our heads away from global problems and
challenges and human suffering, not least that which happens in regions
 
 
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search