An Analysis from the English School Perspective on conflict issues in the Arctic Region of the Russian Federation and the United States

Rusya Federasyonu ve Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nin Arktik Bölgesi’ndeki uyuşmazlık konularına yönelik İngiliz Okulu Perspektifi’nden bir analiz

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14687/jhs.v18i1.6094

Keywords:

Arctic, US Arctic Doctrine, English School, RF Arctic Doctrine, Dispute Analysis, Arktik, ABD Arktik Doktrini, İngiliz Okulu, RF Arktik Doktrini, Uyuşmazlık Analizi

Abstract

When the current literature on RF and the USA's Arctic doctrines, strategies and disputes are examined, it is seen that there are two basic approaches that provide analyzes from realist and liberal perspectives. A large body of these analyzes focus on singular and linear dimensions, primarily on energy security and military issues. The number of studies which examine the dimensions of the conflict from a realistic perspective and synthesize with the cooperation and governance offered by the liberal perspective is relatively low. There is a need for a more in-depth understanding of the region, so extensive studies involving multidisciplinary dimensions that can promote collaboration and expertise sharing as well as resolution of disputes among security actors. In this study, the subject dispute matters were examined from the perspective of English School, which can present a unique framework by synthesizing the traditions of realism, rationalism and revolutionism. In conclusion part, possible solution suggestions in accordance with the international law for the resolution of disputes are discussed within a broader framework offered by the English School perspective. In addition, the role and functions of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in the struggle for dominance of the region as the third actor, which led to various discussions with large–scale investments and cooperation agreements across the region, were also included. In today's world where power-based approaches are replaced by binding international rules, it is concluded that in order to develop the cooperation in the Arctic Region, the international community, especially in terms of the the littoral states; developing policies that support joint scientific studies and prioritize measures to increase the socio-economic conditions and human development levels of indigenous peoples and communities living in the region are more significant than being a commercial and economic gain center provided by the rich energy resources and new maritime trade routes which emerged due to global warming.

Özet

RF ve ABD’nin Arktik politika, doktrin, strateji ve uyuşmazlık konularını ele alan güncel literatür incelendiğinde realist ve liberal bakış açılarından analizler sunan iki temel yaklaşımın olduğu görülmektedir. Söz konusu analizlerin büyük bir kısmı başta enerji güvenliği ve askeri konular olmak üzere, tekil ve doğrusal boyutlar üzerine odaklanmaktadır. Uyuşmazlık boyutlarını realist bir bakış açısıyla irdeleyerek, liberal perspektifin sunduğu iş birliği ve yönetişimle sentezleyebilen çalışma sayısı ise oldukça azdır. Bölgeye yönelik daha derinlikli bir anlayışı, dolayısıyla, güvenlik aktörleri arasında uyuşmazlıkların çözümünün yanı sıra iş birliği ve uzmanlık paylaşımını teşvik edebilecek çok disiplinli boyutların analize dâhil edildiği kapsamlı çalışmalara ihtiyaç bulunmaktadır. Bu çalışmada bahsi geçen uyuşmazlık konuları, gerçekçilik (realism), akılcılık (rationalism) ve devrimcilik (revolutionism) geleneklerini sentezleyerek özgün bir çerçeve sunabilen İngiliz Okulu perspektifinden irdelenmiştir. Sonuç bölümünde anlaşmazlıkların çözümü için uluslararası hukuka uygun olası çözüm önerileri İngiliz Okulu yaklaşımının sunduğu daha geniş kapsamlı bir çerçevede tartışılmıştır. Ayrıca bölgeye yönelik büyük çaplı yatırımları ve iş birliği anlaşmaları ile çeşitli tartışmalara yol açan Çin Halk Cumhuriyeti’nin (ÇHC) üçüncü aktör olarak bölge hâkimiyet mücadelesindeki rolü ve işlevi de incelemeye dâhil edilmiştir. Güç temelli yaklaşımların yerini, bağlayıcılığı bulunan uluslararası kuralların aldığı günümüzde Arktik Bölgesi’ndeki iş birliği potansiyelinin geliştirilebilmesi için başta kıyıdaş devletler olmak üzere uluslararası toplumun; küresel ısınma nedeniyle ortaya çıkan zengin enerji kaynaklarının ve yeni deniz ulaşım / ticaret yollarının sunduğu ticari ve ekonomik bir kazanç merkezi olmaktan ziyade ortak bilimsel çalışmaları destekleyen ve bölgede yaşayan yerli halkların ve toplulukların sosyoekonomik koşullarını ve insani gelişim düzeylerini artıracak önlemleri önceleyen politikalar geliştirmelerinin daha önemli olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Author Biographies

Ebru Caymaz, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University

Assist. Prof. Dr., Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University

Y. Barbaros Büyüksağnak, Pîrî Reis University

Lec., Pîrî Reis University

References

Alexandrov, O. (2009). “Labyrinths of the Arctic Policy”, Russia in Global Affairs 3.

Astrasheuskaya, N; Foy, H. (2019). “Polar Powers: Russia’s Bid for Supremacy in the Arctic Ocean”, 28 Nisan, https://www.ft.com/content/2fa82760-5c4a-11e9-939a-341f5ada9d40, Erişim Tarihi 20 Temmuz 2020.

Atland, K. (2008). “Mikhail Gorbachev, The Murmansk Initiative, and the Desecuritization of Interstate: Relations in the Arctic”, Cooperation and Conflict, Vol. 43, No:3, ss.289-311.

Belov, P. (2012). Resource- Demographic Aspects of Russia’s Arctic Geopolitics. In Geopolitics: Theory, History, Practice. Moscow.

Brady, A. M. (2014). “China’s Undeclared Arctic Foreign Policy”, Arctic 2014: Who Gets A Voice and Why It Matters: Polar Initiative Policy Brief Series, Wilson Center.

Breum, M. (2019). “Why President Trump’s Idea to Buy Greenland is not A Joke in Denmark and Greenland”, Arctic Today, 23 Ağustos, s. 2.

Brown, C. (1997). Understanding International Relations, Houndmills, Mcmillan.

Buchanan, E. (2020). “There is No Arctic Axis”, Foreign Policy, 21 Temmuz.

Bull, H. (1966). “The Grotian Conception of International Society” Herbert Butterfield ve Martin Wight (ed.), Diplomatic Investigations, London, Allen and Unwin.

Bull, H. (1977). The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, London, Macmillan.

Bull, H. (1986). Anarchical Society; Martin Wight, Power Politics, Hedley Bull ve Carsten Holbraad (der.), Londra, Penguin, 2. baskı.

Byers, M. (2009). Who Owns the Arctic?: Understanding Sovereignty Disputes in the North, Douglas & McIntyre, 1st Edition, Canada, 2009.

Chen, G. (2012). “China’s Emerging Arctic Strategy”, The Polar Journal, 2, ss. 357–71.

Chorush, A. J. (2020). “Prepared to Go Fully Kinetic”: How U.S. Leaders Conceptualize China’s Threat to Arctic Security”, The Arctic Institute’s China Series.

Çin Halk Konseyi [The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China] (2018). “China’s Arctic Policy”, January, http://english.gov.cn/archive/white_paper/2018/01/26/content _281476026660336.htm, Erişim Tarihi 24 Haziran 2020.

Department of Defense (DoD), (2013). “Arctic Strategy”, Kasım https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2013_Arctic_Strategy.pdf, Son Erişim Tarihi 15 Ağustos 2020.

Department of Defense (DOD), (2019). “Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2019”,

https://media.defense.gov/2019/May/02/2002127082/-1/-1/1/2019_CHINA_MILITARY_POWER_REPORT.pdf. Son Erişim tarihi 24 Haziran 2020.

Department of the Navy (2015). A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower: Forward, Engaged, Ready, s. 6. http://www.navy.mil/local/maritime/150227-CS21RFinal.pdf, Son Erişim Tarihi 13 Temmuz 2020.

Devlen, B.; Özdamar, Ö. (2010). “Uluslararası İlişkilerde İngiliz Okulu Kuramı: Kökenleri, Kavramları ve Tartışmaları”, Uluslararası İlişkiler, Cilt 7, Sayı 25 (Bahar), s. 43-68.

Devlen, B.; James, P.; Özdamar, Ö. (2005). “The English School, International Relations and Progress”, International Studies Review, Cilt 7, s.171-197.

Dunne, T. (1998). Inventing International Society: A History of the English School, London, Macmillan, 1998.

Gül, T. (2014). “Arktikte’ki Rusya: Sorun ve İşbirliği Arasındaki Gel-Git”, Bilgesam Analiz, No.1167.

Heininen, L. (2011). “Arctic Strategies and Policies – Inventory and Comparative Study”, The Northern Research Forum &The University of Lapland. Akureyri, Iceland, August.

Heininen, L.; Sergunin, A.; Yarovoy, G. (2014). Russian Strategies in the Arctic: Avoiding a New Cold War, Valdai Discussion Club Grantees Report, Moscow, September, s. 74.

Hong, N. (2012). “The Melting Arctic and Its Impact on China's Maritime Transport”, Research in Transportation Economics, Vol. 35, No. 1, ss. 50-57.

Huebert, R. (2019). “A New Cold War in the Arctic?! The Old One Never Ended!”, Arctic Yearbook, https://arcticyearbook.com/arctic-yearbook/2019/2019-commentaries/325-a-new-cold-war-in-the-arctic-the-old oneneverended#:~:text=Thus%20throughout%20the%20Cold%20War,strategic%20importance%20of%20the%20Arctic, Erişim Tarihi 1 Temmuz 2020.

Jakobson, L. (2010). “China Prepares for An Ice-Free Arctic”, SIPRI Policy Paper, No. 2.

Jakobsen, L; Peng, J. (2012). “China’s Arctic Aspirations”, SIPRI Policy Paper 34, November.

Jacobsen, M.; Herrmann, V. (2017). “Arctic International Relations in a Widened Security Perspective”, Politik, 20(3), ss.6-14.

Klimenko, E. (2020). “Russia’s New Arctic Policy Document Signals Continuity Rather Than Change”, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Nisan.

Kopra, S. (2020). “China and its Arctic Trajectories”, The Arctic Institute’s China Series.

Kraska, J. (2009). “International Security and International Law in the Northwest Passage”, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 42, 1109–1132.

Lanteigne, M. (2016). “China and the Northern Sea Route: Placing Their Bets”, Arctic Journal, August.

Lanteigne, M. (2019). “The Changing Shape of Arctic Security”, NATO Review, June.

Little, R. (1998). “International System, International Society, and World Society: A Re-Evaluation of the English School”, B.A Roberson (der.), International Relations Theory. London, Pinter.

Little, R. (1995). “Neorealism and the English School: A Methodological, Ontological, and Theoretical Reassessment”, European Journal of International Relations, Cilt 1, Sayı 1, s. 9–34. s. 18.

Medvedev, D. (2008). “Foundations of the State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Arctic up to and Beyond 2020” [Osnovy Gosudarstvennoi Politiki Rossiiskoi Federatsii v Arktike na Period do 2020 Goda I Dal’neishuiu Perspektivu] http://www.rg.ru/2009/03/30/arktika-osnovy-dok.html, (Erişim Tarihi 25 Temmuz 2020).

McDaniel, C. P. (2017).“Russia’s Arctic Strategy: An Analysis of the Role of Diplomatic, Cooperative, and Domestic Policies”, The Arctic Institute.

Mikhail Gorbachev's Speech in Murmansk at the Ceremonial Meeting On the Occasion of the Presentation of the Order of Lenin and the Gold Star to the City of Murmansk, 1 Ekim 1987, https://www.barentsinfo.fi/docs/Gorbachev_speech.pdf, Erişim Tarihi 1 Temmuz 2020.

Moore, J. N. (2004). United States Adherence to the Law of the Sea Convention A Compelling National Interest. http://www.virginia.edu/colp/pdf/house-testimony.pdf, Son erişim Tarihi 13 Haziran 2020.

National Security Decision Memorandum 144, “United States Arctic Policy and Arctic Policy Group” National Security Council, 1971.

National Security Decision Memorandum 202, “Arctic Program Review and Recommendations National Security Council, 1973.

National Security Decision Directive 90, “United States Arctic Policy” National Security Council, 1983.

NSPD 66/HSPD 25 (2009). (National Security Presidential Directive 66/Homeland Security Presidential Directive 25. https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-66.htm, Son Erişim Tarihi 13 Haziran 2020.

Ohnishi, F. (2014). “The Struggle for Arctic Regional Order: Developments and Prospects of Arctic Politics”, Eurosia Border Review, 5(2), ss.81-97.

Oreshenkov, A. (2009). “Arctic Diplomacy,” Russia in Global Affairs, (4) October-December. http:// eng.globalaffairs.ru/number/n_14250, Son Erişim Tarihi 13 Haziran 2020.

Østerud, Ø.; Hønneland, G (2014). “Geopolitics and International Governance in the Arctic”, Arctic Review on Law and Politics, Volume 5, ss. 156–176.

Özman, A. (1984). Birleşmiş Milletler Deniz Hukuku Sözleşmesi. İstanbul Deniz Ticaret Odası.

Parnemo, L. K. (2019). “Russia’s Naval Development – Grand Ambitions and Tactical Pragmatism”, The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 32:1, ss. 41-69.

Pompeo, M. R. (2019). “US Warns Beijing’s Arctic Activity Risks Creating ‘New South China Sea’”, The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/06/pompeo-arctic-activity-new-south-china-sea. Son Erişim Tarihi 13 Ağustos 2020.

Pompeo, M. R. (2019). “Looking North: Sharpening America’s Arctic Focus, 2019, https://www.state.gov/looking-north-sharpening-americas-arctic-focus/, Erişim Tarihi 17 Haziran 2020.

Putin, V. (2013). Strategiya Razvitiya Arkticheskoi Zony Rossiyskoi Federatsiii Obespecheniya Natsional’noi Bezopasnosti na Period do 2020 Goda [The Strategy for the Development of the Arctic Zone of the Russian Federation and Ensuring National Security for the Period up to 2020]. Approved by President Vladimir Putin on February 20, 2013 http://правительство.рф/docs/22846/, Erişim Tarihi 25 Temmuz 2020.

Rosneft, (2013). ‘Rosneft And Sinopec Agree Memorandum on Prepaid Export Contract’, Press Release, 22 Ekim, https://www.rosneft.com/press/releases/item/24362/ Erişim tarihi 17 Haziran 2020.

Schepp, M.; Traufetter, G. (2009). “Riches at the North Pole: Russia Unveils Aggressive Arctic Plans,” Spiegel Online International, 29 January. Available at: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/riches-at-the-north-pole-russia-unveils-aggressive-arctic-plans-a-604338.html, Erişim Tarihi 3 Ağustos 2020.

Sun, Y. (2020). “Defining Chinese Threat in the Arctic”, The Arctic Institute’s China Series.

The Maritime Executive (2 Mart 2018), “China Surpasses U.S. as Largest Crude Oil Importer”, s.1.

The Stimson Center, (2013). “Evolution of Arctic Territorial Claims and Agreements: A Timeline (1903-Present), 15 Eylül, https://www.stimson.org/2013/evolution-arctic-territorial-claims-and-agreements-timeline-1903-present/, Erişim Tarihi 3 Ağustos 2020.

White House, (1994). “United States Policy on the Arctic and Antarctic Regions”, Presidential Decision Directive / NSC-26.

White House, (2009). “Arctic Region Policy”, National Security Presidential Directive-66 / Homeland Security Presidential Directive-25.

White House, (2013). “National Strategy For The Arctic Region”: https://polarconnection.org/us-national-strategy-arctic-region-may-2013/#:~:text=The%20Strategy%20identifies%20three%20key,Strengthen%20International%20Cooperation, Erişim Tarihi 3 Ağustos 2020.

Wight, M. (1991). International Theory: The Three Traditions, Brian Porter ve Gabriele Wight (der.), Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press/Royal Institute of International Affairs.

Watson, A. (1987). “Hedley Bull, State Systems, and International Studies”, Review of International Studies, Cilt 13, Sayı 2.

Wight, M. (1977). “Systems of States”, Hedley Bull (der.), Christianity, Diplomacy, and War, Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press.

Wight, M. (1966). Why Is There No International Theory?, Herbert Butterfield ve Martin Wight(der.), Diplomatic Investigations, London, Allen and Unwin.

Wight, M. (1953). Systems of States; Herbert Butterfield, Christianity, Diplomacy, and War, Londra, Epworth.

Willett, L. (2009). The Navy in Russia’s “Resurgence”, RUSI Journal, 154: 1, pp. 50–55.

Downloads

Published

2021-03-27

How to Cite

Caymaz, E. ., & Büyüksağnak, Y. B. (2021). An Analysis from the English School Perspective on conflict issues in the Arctic Region of the Russian Federation and the United States : Rusya Federasyonu ve Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nin Arktik Bölgesi’ndeki uyuşmazlık konularına yönelik İngiliz Okulu Perspektifi’nden bir analiz. Journal of Human Sciences, 18(1), 76–93. https://doi.org/10.14687/jhs.v18i1.6094

Issue

Section

International Relations