137
Arctic Yearbook 2013
Jegorova
where the very concept of security transforms from state-centric hard security approach to human-
centric soft security, thus creating a complex multi-level multi-actor framework from a rather single-
focused paradigm. These changes denote a fundamental step toward growing world-wide
interdependence and the process of globalisation.
So what has caused an image shift from ―the Arctic as a cluster of smaller regions‖ to ―the Arctic as
a part of globalised world‖? As Hettne and Söderbaum propose, it is a natural process of region
evolution, with early stages involving very little inter-regional interaction and the final stage being
close to a homogeneous but multinational communal entity. However, if we consider the whole
picture and assume all world regions to be at the final stage of regional development, the world that
consists of several region-states would itself become an entity striving for unification.
Globalisation is based on regionalisation. The second wave of interest toward the Arctic, and
especially, the greater involvement of Asian states in Arctic affairs is a clear indication of ongoing
globalisation. Although some of these states have already been involved in polar research activities
for quite a long time, it is nevertheless remarkable how their focus is now if not slowly shifting then
at least enlarging in order to encompass new fields of interest (such as economy and energy
security). The Arctic that for a long time has been an isolated area up north has slowly integrated
with southern areas, creating a greater region of a so-called wider Arctic. This integration trend is
still ongoing, tying the Arctic closer to world affairs and making it an indivisible part of a globally
interdependent system.
This change is also influencing the regional security environment, introducing new factors and
increasing already existing risks. With greater human activity in the region the potential threat to the
environment (e.g., through oil spills and pollution) and the society (e.g., through potential increase in
crime rate and forced changes in lifestyle) increases sufficiently. However, in the modern age of
unified markets the process of globalisation cannot be averted without any damage to the state. As
is also underlined by Buzan, the sectors of security are deeply intertwined, and thus, if certain
economic benefits are to be gained, some risks in other fields might need to be allowed to increase.
As can be seen from the theoretical and practical discourse of this article, the main aspect in
understanding the Arctic is the very perception of this region. Analysed using different theoretical
frameworks, be it realism, (neo)liberalism, or any other IR theory for that matter, the perception of
the Arctic will be shaped differently. Analysed using different premises, be it the Arctic Five‘s
national perspective or observer states‘ stance of addressing the Arctic as a global common, the
region will be allocated a different role. What is really needed is a clear and coherent understanding
of this region‘s complicated nature and all issues involved.
All in all, the Arctic is both a cluster of smaller regions and a sub-region of its own. It is a complex
entity, dynamic and functioning on different levels, and it is as unified with and similar to the global
world as it is isolated and different from it. Global warming is evident in every corner of the Earth,
but due to its nature the effects of climate change can be best acknowledged and monitored in the
Arctic. International maritime regulations are applicable everywhere, but due to specific climate and
ecological conditions the Arctic needs special rules to be devised. Energy security is also a global