arctic security · activities in the arctic (lackenbauer and kikkert). • conference on arctic...

2

R. Huebert

ArcticNet Annual Research Compendium (2011-12)

Arctic Security

2.5 The Emerging Arctic Security Environment (Arctic Security)

Project LeaderRob Huebert (University of Calgary)

Project Team

Network InvestigatorsWhitney Lackenbauer (St. Jerome’s University); Suzanne Lalonde (Université de Montréal)

Collaborators and Research AssociatesBenoit Beauchamp (Arctic Institute of North America); Jessica Shadian (Bodø Graduate School of Business); Lawson Brigham (Institute of the North); Renée Krucas (Kitikmeot Heritage Society); Katarzyna Zysk (Nor-wegian Institute for Defense Studies); James Kraska (US Naval War College); Ryan Dean (Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation)

Postdoctoral FellowsJames Manicom (Balsillie School of International Affairs)

PhD StudentsHeather Exner-Pirot, Marshall Horne, Adam Lajeunesse (University of Calgary); Will Greaves (University of Toronto); Peter Kikkert (University of Waterloo); Daniel Heidt (University of Western Ontario)

MSc StudentsGeoff Adair, Rachel Bryson (University of Calgary)

Technical and Project Staff Nancy Pearson-Mackie (University of Calgary)

Northern HQPHarry Borlase (Memorial University of Newfoundland)

3

R. Huebert


Arctic Security

ABSTRACT

Climate change is fundamentally reshaping the Arctic region. Boundary disputes, newly viable transportation routes, access to resources, and governance issues have generated signifi cant questions about Arctic security and circumpolar geopolitics in the twenty-fi rst century. Anticipating future prospects for competition, confl ict and cooperation in the region requires a systematic ex-amination of the new forces at play, both internation-ally and domestically. Our project examines the funda-mental questions: what is Arctic security? What should policy makers anticipate that the circumpolar world will look like in the future, given the various forces that are now transforming this region? These questions will be posed at the international and national levels to discern what senior government offi cials, indigenous groups, corporate interests, scientists, academics, and Northern residents perceive to be the most signifi cant security and safety challenges in the Arctic, and to determine what unilateral, bilateral and multilateral mechanisms should be in place to address them. This project will make two primary contributions: one policy focused and the other academic. First it will add to the public policy debate about the evolving Arctic security environment. Our research team will critically assess the interplay between traditional, state-based military security and environmental, health, and societal security concerns. Our development of future scenarios – based upon a robust knowledge of past decision-making processes and practices, Northerner’s experiences and priorities, and scientifi c modelling about climate change in the re-gion – will facilitate responsible policy development. In linking international and domestic security practices to human impacts, we will generate more integrated tools to anticipate the consequences of security action/inaction on Northern ecosystems and peoples. This will improve Canada’s capacity to deal with external chal-lenges in a way that is sensitive to, and better integrates, Northerners’ concerns and priorities. Second this pro-ject will advance the academic debates about how best to understand the relationship between environmental, political, and socio-economic processes that are chang-ing ideas about Arctic security. Community consulta-

tions will ground our analyses of how the changing geopolitics of the Arctic will impact Northerners’ cul-ture, well-being, and economies. We will refi ne existing frameworks and models to incorporate the complexity of these new forces, better explain the actions that are now being taken, and generate appropriate lessons for future relationship-building.

KEY MESSAGES

• The complexity of the changing Arctic security environment requires an interdisciplinary ap-proach (history, political science, law, geography, etc.) that blends realist, liberal internationalist, and constructivist approaches.

• Developing the right Canadian Arctic foreign, de-fence and security policies (including confi dence-building measures in the region) and translating them into appropriate facilities, equipment and practices requires a long lead time that is not fac-tored into most academic discussions. Our assess-ments consider current priorities and future sce-narios (up to 2025 and beyond).

• Northern communities’ understandings of securi-ty are not limited to the national security/military dimension. Through collaborative research with Northern communities and shared work with the Munk-Gordon Arctic Security project, we explore “best practices” that incorporate various dimen-sions of security and balance national defence and security imperatives with community devel-opment priorities.

OBJECTIVES

• to examine the interplay between sovereignty and security practices in Canada and in other Arctic states since the Cold War. What opportunities ex-ist for cooperation and confi dence-building in the region? Should policy makers also anticipate fu-ture confl ict in the Arctic, and if so how should

4

R. Huebert


Arctic Security

they best prepare for probable and possible con-tingencies?

• To analyze the drivers behind Arctic and non-Arctic states’ security interests in the Arctic and to develop policy recommendations for the fed-eral government so that it can promote Canada’s national interests with an awareness of how they align with those of other actors

• to critically investigate historical and contempo-rary military activities in the Canadian Arctic and what these have meant to Northern communities through documentary and oral history research.

• to facilitate better decision-making and policy-making on defence and security issues through a more robust understanding of best practices, including how military activities can support the lifestyles, traditions, and values of Canadians liv-ing in remote regions..

Project Milestones

• Edited volume (Lackenbauer) on Arctic Security: Historical Perspectives, Calgary Papers (CMSS and University of Calgary Press), published in 2011

• Monograph (Huebert, Lackenbauer, and Frank-lyn Griffi ths) on Arctic Sovereignty, Security and Stewardship: Canadian Perspectives (published by WLU Press in November 2011)

• Various books (Lackenbauer) on the Canadian Rangers, including a monograph on The Cana-dian Rangers: A Living History, 1942-2012 (ac-cepted by UBC Press, recipient of ASPP funding, to be released in Feb./Mar. 2013); the edited book Canada’s Rangers: Selected Stories, 1942-2012 (Canadian Defence Academy Press, forthcoming 2012); and the edited book The Canadian Rang-ers: The CF’s Eyes, Ears, and Voice in Remote Regions (Canadian Forces Leadership Institute, In Harm’s Way series. to be submitted August 2012).

• Edited volumes on The Canadian Air Force’s Ex-perience in the Arctic (Trenton: Canadian Aero-

space Power Studies Series, Canadian Forces Air Warfare Centre, forthcoming 2012, edited by Lackenbauer and Major W.A. March), the navy in the Arctic (Huebert and Lackenbauer), and army activities in the Arctic (Lackenbauer and Kikkert).

• Conference on Arctic Peoples and Security, held in collaboration with the Munk-Gordon Arctic Security project in January 2013. Lackenbauer is the co-chair of the Arctic Peoples and Security pillar of this research program.

• Dissemination of research fi ndings at Canadian and international conferences. (ongoing)

• Author and co-author scholarly articles and book chapters, as well as op-ed and shorter policy ex-aminations for newspapers and magazines (ongo-ing)

• Maintaining a website that charts Arctic foreign and defence policies and activities in the region (ongoing)

INTRODUCTION

In the last fi ve years the issue of Arctic Security has developed as one of the most important questions in the international system. Mixed messages from journalists, academics, and government offi cials predict both con-fl ict and cooperation in the region. On the one hand, talk abounds of “a new Cold War” tied to a supposed “race for resources,” an international scramble to claim the riches of a newly accessible region, and the buildup of military capabilities for Arctic operations. On the other hand, the governments of the Arctic coastal states sug-gest an era of enhanced cooperation rooted in interna-tional law and respect for sovereign rights.

This research project interrogates the underlying prem-ises of emerging Arctic security issues. What should policy makers anticipate that the circumpolar world will look like in the future, given the various forces trans-forming this region? How do we measure processes of confl ict and the processes of cooperation? By posing these questions at the international and national levels

5

R. Huebert


Arctic Security

to discern what senior government offi cials, indigenous groups, corporate interests, scientists, academics, and Northern residents perceive to be the most important sovereignty, security and safety challenges in the Arc-tic, our research team seeks to determine what unilat-eral, bilateral and multilateral mechanisms should be in place to address them.

Our project complements the ArcticNet projects on “Climate Change and Commercial Shipping Develop-ment in the Arctic” and “The Law and Politics of Cana-dian Jurisdiction on Arctic Ocean Seabed.”

ACTIVITIES

Archival research was conducted by Whitney Lacken-bauer in Ottawa and Yellowknife and by Peter Kikkert in Ottawa, Inuvik, and Washington, DC. This related to projects on Canadian concepts of Arctic sovereignty and security during the Cold War; Canadian-American relations related to Arctic issues; and the impacts of se-curity projects on Northern peoples and ecosystems.

Field research with the Canadian Rangers was carried out by Peter Kikkert in the Mackenzie Valley and west-ern Arctic (in conjunction with JTFN), Cambridge Bay (in partnership with 1 CRPG), and Resolute; and by Harry Borlase in Goose Bay, Makkovik, and Hopedale, Labrador (in partnership with 5 CRPG). Lackenbauer also continues to work closely with the Canadian Rang-ers across Canada.

Lackenbauer conducted interviews with military offi -cials and senior Arctic offi cials in Canada, the United States, and Europe. He also advised various govern-ment departments and the Canadian Forces on Arctic security issues, appeared on several television and radio programmes, and was frequently interviewed for news-paper and magazine articles about Northern sovereignty and security topics.

Suzanne Lalonde’s research into the legal challenges which confront the Arctic region was conducted princi-

pally by an in-depth analysis of the primary documents produced at the national level (principally within Can-ada and the United States), at the regional level (with an emphasis on the work of the Arctic Council and the OSPAR Commission) and at the international level (in respect to the development of the concept of marine protected areas).

Her fi eld work, as a legal academic, consisted in con-ducting interviews and initiating discussions with offi -cials and experts from around the world. Taking advan-tage of a prolonged stay in Australia, Suzanne Lalonde was able to discuss Australia’s initiative at the Interna-tional Maritime Organization in regards to the protec-tion of the Torres Strait with various offi cials in govern-ment but also the Australian legal community. A major international conference in Wollongong also afforded the opportunity of discussing the sensitive question of the Torres Strait with experts from countries opposed to the Australian measures.

This research pattern was repeated throughout the year. While an investigation of offi cial documents provides the raw material for her research, Suzanne Lalonde gains critical insights into the key issues and priorities of the Arctic States and those beyond the region through her participation in international workshops and confer-ences.

For personal reasons, Rob Huebert had to postpone most of his research trips planned for 2011-12 to 2012-13. Nevertheless, he continued to meet with policy-makers and academics at domestic and international academic conferences, and he was actively engaged in public outreach activities through the media and speak-ing engagements. He also supervised graduate students working on Arctic security topics.

RESULTS

The International Dimension (lead: Rob Huebert)

Although many of the travel plans for 2011-12 associ-ated with the International Dimension were put on hold

6

R. Huebert


Arctic Security

for a year owing to personal reasons, Rob Huebert’s publications continue to examine the international mili-tarization/securitization of the circumpolar north, and its implications for Canada. Although media coverage continues to adopt the frame of an “Arctic race,” most academic assessments and offi cial northern strategy documents emphasize cooperation rather than confl ict. Huebert cautions that, while cooperation is desirable, ongoing investments by the Arctic states in advanced military capabilities, coupled with growing interest in Arctic resources and transit routes by non-Arctic actors, may heighten competition. Furthermore, Huebert iden-tifi es how the Arctic remains a key geostrategic theatre for Russian and American deterrence, and postulates how non-Arctic confl icts may spill over into the Arctic in the future.

Over the past year, the research team continued to con-sult with (and advise) senior political bureaucratic and military offi cials in the eight Arctic states, as well as non-Arctic stakeholders, international organizations, and private sector interests.

ArcticNet funding has helped to facilitate a wide array of publications, conference papers, public lectures, edi-torials in national and regional newspapers, television and radio interviews, and meetings with government decision-makers. To give a few examples, Suzanne Lalonde was invited to participate in a round-table dis-cussion with Réal Brisson, Captain of HMCS Montreal about the challenges facing the Canadian Navy in the Arctic in March 2011. She also participated, along with Huebert, in an international gathering of government and academic experts from the fi ve Arctic coastal States in Fairbanks, Alaska in July 2011. This meeting pro-duced a set of recommendations for the future govern-ance of the Arctic Ocean beyond national jurisdiction. All three researchers also participated in the third wrap-up conference of the International Polar Year, held in Montreal at the end of April 2012. During the confer-ence, Huebert and Lalonde were invited to meet with the Director of the Offi ce of Ocean and Polar Affairs at the U.S. Department of State, Evan T. Bloom, along with the American Consul General, Andy Parker.

Lalonde also collaborated with political geographer Clive Schofi eld at the University of Wollongong in Australia and obtained a research development grant from SSHRC for a project contrasting Canadian and Australian policies in regards to a strategic strait under their jurisdiction: the Northwest Passage and the Torres Strait.

Lackenbauer met with various scholars and offi cials from Europe and Asia during conferences in Reykjavik and Nuuk, laying the groundwork for closer collabora-tion on opportunities for enhanced bilateral cooperation as well as a comparative studies on the development of Arctic security policies. He has published short com-mentaries on security questions and the Arctic Council, and presented his insights on Canada’s security rela-tionships with other Arctic states at various academic, policy, and defence events in Canada and the United States.

In this past year, James Manicom’s specifi c work on “Overlapping Claims to the Arctic Seabed: Lessons from East Asia’s Maritime Disputes” yielded fi ve pa-pers for peer-reviewed journals, numerous opinion pieces and eight conference papers. He was invited to present his work to the Canadian Forces College, the Canadian Embassy in Tokyo, Temple University in To-kyo, the Ocean Policy Research Foundation in Tokyo, the US Naval War College, the Liu Institute at UBC, and the Asian Institute at the University of Toronto.

The Domestic Dimension (lead: Whitney Lackenbauer)

One of the key elements in our project is to system-atically analyze and debate the relationship between sovereignty, security and safety in Canadian political discourse and policy.

This dimension of our research plan was exemplifi ed this past year in Lackenbauer and Huebert’s book Can-ada and the Changing Arctic: Sovereignty, Security, and Stewardship, co-authored with Franklyn Griffi ths. The authors grapple with fundamental questions about how Canada should craft a responsible and effective

7

R. Huebert


Arctic Security

Northern strategy. They outline diverse paths to achiev-ing sovereignty, security, and stewardship in Canada’s Arctic and in the broader circumpolar world. This book should inspire continued debate on what Canada must do to protect its interests, project its values, and play a leadership role in the twenty-fi rst-century Arctic. It also includes forewords by Senator Hugh Segal and former Minister of Foreign Affairs and of National Defence Bill Graham.

Historical aspects of this subject area were also ana-lyzed in two edited volumes: The Canadian Air Force’s Experience in the Arctic, part of the Canadian Aero-space Power Studies Series published by the Canadian Forces Air Warfare Centre, which Lackenbauer co-edit-ed with Major W.A. March (in translation, forthcoming June 2012), and Canada and Arctic Sovereignty and Se-curity: Historical Perspectives, edited by Lackenbauer for the Calgary Papers in Military and Strategic Studies series which was published in 2011 (e-version avail-able online at http://cpmss.synergiesprairies.ca/cpmss/index.php/cpmss/issue/current). These books include a wide range of perspectives on diplomatic, military, and socio-cultural issues related to Arctic security practices.

The recent fl urry of scholarship on Arctic sovereignty and security often marginalizes the place of relation-ships and memory in Northern responses to southern sovereignty and security agendas. To address this short-coming, we have partnered with Northern stakehold-ers to critically examine the historic and contemporary practice of Arctic sovereignty and security assertion in evolving cultural, political and spatial contexts. For example, Lackenbauer and Kikkert visited Cambridge Bay in February 2011 to develop research plans with the Kitikmeot Heritage Society for a pilot project on community history, emphasizing relationships with the military.

Lackenbauer’s completion of a major monograph en-titled The Canadian Rangers: A Living History, which has been favourably peer reviewed and will appear with UBC Press in early 2013, will stimulate further

dialogue on this particular (and unique) relationship between Northerns and the Canadian Forces (CF). So will forthcoming edited books on Canada’s Rangers: Selected Stories, 1942-2012 and The Canadian Rang-ers: The CF’s Eyes, Ears, and Voice in Remote Regions (contracted by the Canadian Forces Leadership Institute for the In Harm’s Way book series which will be sub-mitted this summer).

This past year, various research team members met with CF offi cials to discuss strategic plannning issues. They disseminate research fi ndings at policy related confer-ences, most notably a workshop on The Defence of Canadian Arctic Sovereignty and Security: The Role of the Canadian Forces, orgazined in partnership with the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies and Canada Command, held in Calgary on 25 March 2011.

Media and Public Outreach

ArcticNet funding this past year facilitated a wide array of publications, conference papers, public lectures, edi-torials in national and regional newspapers, television and radio interviews, and meetings with government decision-makers. For example, presentations by Lack-enbauer and Lalonde included:

Keynote Addresses

Lackenbauer, “Canada, the United States, and Arctic Sovereignty: A History of Cooperation and Prospects for the Future.” The Changing Arctic: International Co-operation and Development Conference, University of Minnesota, Humphrey School of Public Affairs, Min-neapolis, Minnesota, 27 October 2011.

Lackenbauer, “Sovereignty Includes Me: Northerners, National Defence, and Security since the Second World War.” Laurier Centre for Military Strategic and Dis-armament Studies 22nd Military History Colloquium, Waterloo, Ontario, 5 May 2011.

Lackenbauer, “Polar Race or Polar Saga? History and Canada’s Role in the Circumpolar World.” 1st Annual UWO History Graduate Student Conference, London, Ontario, 27 March 2011.

8

R. Huebert


Arctic Security

Conference papers

Huebert, “The Emerging Arctic Security Environment,” Conference- The Third Annual Denver Forum on Pub-lic Policy Arctic Perspectives: The 2020 Horizon, Ca-nadian Consulate General Denver, March 1, 2012.

Huebert, “Lessons Learned; Canada, The Arctic And Shipbuilding,” Conference- New Paradigms for De-fence and Industrial Policy, School of Policy Studies , Queen University, Kingston, February 27, 2012.

Lackenbauer, “Northern Sovereignty,” and Huebert, “Canadian Arctic Sovereignty, Boundary Resolution and Economic Development,” Northern Lights 2012 Business and Cultural Showcase, Ottawa, 1 February 2012.

Huebert, “Security and the Arctic Council: The Unin-vited Uncle at the Wedding,” The Arctic Council: Its Place in the Future of Arctic Governance, University of Toronto, January 16, 2012.

Huebert, “Rising Temperatures, Rising Tensions: Pow-er Politics and Regime Building in the Arctic,” Polar Oceans Governance in an Era of Environmental Chang: Canadian and Australian Perspectives, Australian-Ca-nadian Oceans Research Network (ACORN), Sydney, Australia, December 12, 2011.

Lalonde, “Australia’s Quest to Protect the Torres Strait: A Cautionary Tale for Canada’s Northwest Passage.” Paper at the conference “Polar Governance in an Era of Environmental Change,” Australian-Canadian Oceans Research Network (ACORN), Sydney, Australia, 12-13 December 2011.

Lalonde, “The Arctic Exception and the IMO’s PSSA Mechanism: Assessing their Value as Sources of Pro-tection for the Northwest Passage.” Paper at the con-ference “The Limits of Maritime Jurisdiction,” Law of the Sea Institute, University of Berkeley, Wollongong, Australia, 28 November – 2 December 2011.

Huebert, “Circumpolar Relations, Defence and Security in the Arctic – Looking Beyond 2015,” Workshop on Future of the Global North, Jasper, Alberta, November 24, 2011.

Lackenbauer, “National Security, Human Security: Sovereignty, Security and Northern Peoples, 1942-2012.” Paper at the Association for Canadian Studies in the United States 2011 biennial conference, Ottawa, 19 November 2011.

Huebert, “Arctic Security,” Conference – Canadian Coast Guard 2011 Maritime Security Conference, Ot-tawa, November 16, 2011.

Lalonde, « Claims to an Extended Continental Shelf by the Arctic Coastal States. » Paper at the 10th anniver-sary conference celebrating the partnership between the Faculty of Law of the University of Montreal and the School of International Law of the China University of Political Science and Law, 9 November 2011.

Huebert, “Circumpolar Relations, Defence and Security in the Arctic,” Conference -The 2011 National Sympo-sium on Homeland Security and Defense, Colorado Springs, November 1, 2011.

Huebert, “Canada’s Arctic Security Dilemmas,” Lack-enbauer, “Sovereigntizing and Securitizing Moves: Un-derstanding Canada-United States Relations in a Cir-cumpolar Framework,” and Lalonde, “Le rôle du droit international dans la résolution des différends dans la région Arctique.” Papers at the conference « L’Arctique en transition : enjeux régionaux et équations géopoli-tiques », Chaire Raoul-Dandurand, UQAM, Montreal, 3-4 October 2011.

Lalonde, “Russia and Canada: Facing Arctic shipping challenges.” Paper at the conference “Russia and Cana-da: Facing Northern and Arctic Challenges”, St-Peters-burg, Russia, 22-25 September 2011.

Huebert, “Canada, Europe and the Defence of the Arc-tic: Partners or Competitors?” Conference - The Eu-

9

R. Huebert


Arctic Security

ropean Union, Canada, and the Arctic: Challenges of International Governance, Carleton University, Ottawa, September 21, 2011.

Huebert, “Canadian-American Arctic Relations – Old Tensions and New Challenges,” Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute Luncheon, Calgary September 21, 2011.

Huebert, “Security & Sovereignty Issues and Chal-lenges: A Circumpolar Snapshot,” Conference - Fifth Northern Transportation Conference: Circumpolar Challenges and Opportunities, Anchorage, Alaska, Sep-tember 20, 2011.

Huebert, “Canada’s Defense Security and the Arctic: what has been done and where is Canada going?” Con-ference – Canada’s Arctic Policies and Strategies, Uni-versity of Alberta, Edmonton, September 16, 2011.

Lackenbauer and Borlase, “Mukluks on the Tundra: The Canadian Rangers, Sovereignty, and Security.” Pa-per at the Fourth Symposium on Polar Law, University of Greenland, Nuuk, Greenland, 10 September 2011.

Huebert, “The Transforming Arctic and Northern Aer-ospace Defence and Security in the Arctic” Canadian Air Force, United States Air Force, Australia Air Force, New Zealand Air Force and Royal Air Force -5 Eye Conference – meeting of Commanders of the Air Force, Quebec City, September 7, 2011.

Huebert, “Understanding the new arctic: Canada and The Emerging security regime: The Strategic Dimen-sion of Canada’s North,” briefi ng to the Canadian Coast Guard, Calgary, July 4, 2011.

Lalonde, “International Law and the Peaceful Reconcil-iation of Competing Interests in the Arctic,” and Hue-bert, “The Resolution of boundary issues in the Arctic is only the beginning...” Papers at “The Changing Arctic: Sovereignty, Resources and Security”, Kingston Con-ference on International Security, 13-15 June 2011.

Huebert, “Developing an Arctic Roadmap for the Inter-national Oil and Gas Industry,” Conference- 5th Harsh Weather Summit 2011, Discovering the Next Arctic Frontiers, Maastricht, May 31, 2011.

Lackenbauer, “Securitization and Sovereigntization in the Canadian Arctic”; Huebert, “The Arctic is HOT! The Developing Arctic Security Regime: Setting the Stage for Canada”; and Lalonde, “The International Legal Framework : A Stabilizing Force in the Arctic?” Papers at the conference “L’Arctique identitaire”, Ob-servatoire de la politique et la sécurité de l’Arctique, UQAM, Montreal, 29 April 2011.

Huebert, “The New Developing Arctic Military Re-gime: What are the Asian Interests and Challenges ?” and Lackenbauer, “Canada, Russia, and the Circumpo-lar Theatre.” Papers at the conference Geopolitics, Re-sources and Security: Asia and the Arctic in the 21st Century, Ottawa, 8 April 2011.

Huebert, “The Developing Arctic Security Regime: Setting the Stage for Canada,” and Lackenbauer, “The New Arctic Security Regime,” The Defence of Canadi-an Arctic Sovereignty and Security: The Role of the Ca-nadian Forces, Centre for Military and Strategic Stud-ies/Canada Command conference, Calgary, Alberta, 25 March 2011.

Lackenbauer, “The Strategic North: How Great of a Risk Does Regional Militarization Pose to the National Security of the Arctic States?” Paper delivered at the Future of the Arctic Conference, School for Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Wash-ington, DC, 2 February 2011.

Lackenbauer and Huebert also participated in a morn-ing seminar roundtable for parliamentarians on “Cana-da’s Arctic Challenges,” hosted by the Library of Par-liament, on 17 February 2011.

Lalonde also participated in a workshop organized by Network investigator Michael Byers which brought together a group of law of the sea experts to discuss

10

R. Huebert


Arctic Security

various issues relating to the general theme of the meet-ing: “Resolving Arctic Boundary Disputes”, Salt Spring Island, B.C., 11-13 March 2011. She also participated in an international workshop hosted by the University of Fairbanks, Alaska: “The Arctic Ocean Beyond National Jurisdiction”, 24-28 July 2011. She was assigned to the international law group and, with colleagues from the Arctic coastal States, drafted a set of recommendations for the future governance of the Arctic marine areas be-yond national jurisdiction. She was also invited to take part in a round-table, organized by the Observatoire de la politique et la sécurité de l’Arctique, at the Université du Québec à Montréal with Captain Réal Brisson (Mon-treal frigate) on 12 May 2011.

DISCUSSION

International Dimension

Arctic melting driven by climate change is reshaping the geopolitics of the far North, and as governments re-spond with steps such as rebuilding their military capa-bilities, multilateral mechanisms must be strengthened to head off potential confl icts. Climate Change and In-ternational Security: The Arctic as a Bellwether, a ma-jor report produced by a team led by Rob Huebert and released in early 2012, examined a recent spate of Arc-tic-related announcements and actions by circumpolar states, including the United States, Canada, Russia and several European countries. The emerging security is-sues in the Arctic, it concludes, could foreshadow cli-mate change’s broader infl uence on geopolitics globally in the post-Cold War era.

Temperatures are rising in the Arctic at about twice the global rate, and the decline in summer sea ice over the past decade is outpacing scientists’ projections. The rapid melting is driving increased interest in new and expanded shipping routes, oil and gas exploration, and Arctic fi sheries. In the fi ve years since Russia planted its fl ag at the North Pole, Arctic states have issued a string of major policy announcements and begun reas-sessing and rebuilding their military capabilities in the region. “The repositioning we see in the Arctic clearly

demonstrates that climate change presents not only huge environmental and economic challenges, but national security challenges as well,” said Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) President Eileen Claus-sen, formerly Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientifi c Affairs and Senior Director for Global Environmental Affairs at the National Security Council. “These emerging Arc-tic issues are unfortunately just a preview of the kinds of security challenges we’ll see more of as the world warms.”

Building upon his previous analyses of countries’ an-nouncements and actions since 2008, Huebert found that while all support the goal of maintaining coopera-tive relations in the region, several have also made clear that they intend to defend their national interests there if necessary. In policy statements, as well as multilateral actions and agreements, the Arctic countries have dem-onstrated a sincere desire for the region to be developed cooperatively and peacefully, the report says. For ex-ample, in the 2008 Ilulissat Declaration, the fi ve coastal Arctic states—Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the United States—agreed to settle any territorial dis-putes under accepted principles of international law as they seek to extend their claims to Arctic territory.

On the other hand (and in contrast to the dominant academic viewpoint espoused by scholars like Oran Young, Lawson Brigham, Franklyn Griffi ths, Whitney Lackenbauer, and others), Huebert and his co-authors observe that some countries are rebuilding military forces far beyond “constabulary” needs, such as po-licing waterways, and others are drawing up plans to do so. For example, Russia plans to build several new nuclear-powered submarines for fast attack or nuclear missile launch missions, and the Norwegian Air Force has announced plans to acquire 48 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. “Consequently,” the report says, “if political cooperation in the region should sour, most of the Arc-tic nations will have forces that are prepared to compete in a hostile environment.”

One potential source of tensions is access to shipping routes through the Northwest Passage, through the Ca-

11

R. Huebert


Arctic Security

nadian archipelago, and the Northeast Passage, along Russia’s coast. While the United States views freedom of the seas for navigation as a core interest in the Arctic, Canada and Russia, each with vastly more Arctic coast-line than the United States, put stronger emphasis on territorial sovereignty.

To keep relations from veering toward confl ict, the re-port calls for countries to move quickly to strengthen existing multilateral mechanisms. As a fi rst step, it recommends that the Arctic Council, which includes all of the Arctic states, reconsider its existing prohibi-tion on discussing military security issues. Otherwise, it warns, smaller groupings may emerge, and countries left out may feel threatened. As another example, the report cites support by the Department of Defense for U.S. ratifi cation of the Law of the Sea treaty, which provides a framework for resolving issues such as the delimitation of the continental shelf in the Arctic. “The Arctic is a true bellwether on climate-related security issues,” said lead author Huebert. “Arctic states should act quickly to reinforce multilateral mechanisms before resource competition and core national interests take center stage. And other countries should watch closely to learn from our successes or failures in managing this new breed of security challenge.”

Huebert’s calls to expand the Arctic Council mandate have provoked a debate with Lackenbauer over the fu-ture of the Council, which is the premier forum for re-gional dialogue to promote cooperation, coordination, and interaction amongst the Arctic states and Northern indigenous peoples. The plethora of challenges facing the twenty-fi rst century Arctic – from climate change, to resource development and increased shipping, to security concerns related to developments both within and external to the region – have promoted some com-mentators to insist that the Council now be enhanced (or even fundamentally reformed) to remain relevant. Lackenbauer argues that the suggestion to expand the Council’s mandate to include security questions is theo-retically attractive, but it raises as many questions as it solves. Popular audiences still equate security with “hard” national security and defence, however much academics and some political fi gures would like to see the concept expanded to include “softer” human and

environmental aspects. Ironically, the Arctic states and Permanent Participants have unanimously downplayed the probability of armed confl ict in the region. Does an insistence on the supposed “need” to broaden the Arc-tic Council’s mandate to include security not signal that defence and security issues are more central than many commentators allege? Furthermore, do the Arctic states really want defence issues debated in the Council? Giv-en Russia’s fears of NATO encirclement, security de-liberations would be an ongoing reminder that it stands apart from the majority of Arctic states (and all of the other Arctic coastal states) in the defence realm.

More generally, Lackenbauer suggests that a formal se-curity dialogue would have dramatic institutional impli-cations. For example, if national security issues domi-nate the agenda, the voices of Permanent Participants would be marginalized. “The Arctic Council is a suc-cessful, creative, and fl exible experiment that has right-fully become the primary forum for Arctic cooperation – but it is not a panacea for all Arctic challenges,” he concludes. “In its current form, the Council continues to improve our awareness of soft security and safety issues facing the Arctic and its peoples. Pushing to broaden its mandate to include hard security issues, however, risks setting it up to fail.” Unlike most Canadian academ-ics, Lackenbauer envisions an ongoing role for the fi ve coastal states (the Arctic-5) to work directly on some Arctic Ocean issues. In Canada’s case, he asserts that a multi-layered approach is appropriate for a country that has to balance domestic, continental, circumpolar, and global interests.

In addition to these debates, the research team is active-ly developing a research focus on Asian security inter-ests in the Arctic. In addition to secondary literature re-views, interviews with key stakeholders, workshop and conference participation, and media monitoring, we are comparing how East Asian and Arctic states respond to maritime boundary disputes (with reference to coopera-tion and confrontation). James Manicom, for example, is investigating the relationship between domestic ac-tors (“Arctic constituencies”) in Canada and the gov-ernment. Although the East Asian experience suggests that these actors can tie the hands of policymakers, this

12

R. Huebert


Arctic Security

does not appear to be the case in Canada. The absence of “an anti-other” legitimizing narrative in Canada pre-vents such an eventuality. Problematically, the govern-ment has at times indicated the beginnings of such a narrative, with a potentially adverse effect on coopera-tion. As a product of emerging research opportunities (including collaboration with the “Climate Change and Commercial Shipping Development in the Arctic” pro-ject), our research has expanded to include interactions between South and East Asian states and Arctic states.

Domestic Dimension

Canada boasts the world’s longest coastline, and most of it is in the Arctic. It has extensive jurisdiction and sovereign rights in the region, which it sees as a re-source frontier, a homeland for its northern peoples, and a source of national identity. Uncertainty over cli-mate change, international interest in Arctic resources, undefi ned continental shelf boundaries, potentially vi-able maritime transportation routes (particularly the Northwest Passage which Canada considers its internal waters, not an international strait), and perceived sov-ereignty and security threats make Canadians keen ob-servers of geopolitical dynamics related to the Arctic and what these mean for their foreign, defence, and do-mestic policies.

At the highest political levels, the Canadian government has intertwined sovereignty issues with strong rhetoric asserting Canada’s status as an “Arctic superpower.” On the one hand, the Conservative government of Stephen Harper adopts provocative rhetoric, proclaiming that it will “stand up for Canada” based on the idea that “use it or lose it is the fi rst principle of sovereignty.” It has adopted a sovereignty-security framework as a pretext to generate domestic support for investments in Cana-dian Forces capabilities and to defend its jurisdiction.

For all the attention that hard-line rhetoric generates in the media and in academic debates, this discourse is only one part of a more complex picture. A more posi-tive and constructive message emerges from Canada’s offi cial Northern Strategy and Arctic foreign policy documents released since 2009. These documents em-

phasize confi dence in Canada’s sovereignty position and the need to improve the social and economic well-being of northern residents; promise to advance meas-ures for environmental protection and sustainable de-velopment; and commit to enhance internal governance and mechanisms of multilateral cooperation. It is this dual messaging – emphasizing sovereignty, national security, and national interests, as well as international cooperation and stewardship – that reveals Canada’s complex perspective and position on Arctic issues.

Canada’s historic and ongoing dilemma is how to bal-ance sovereignty, security and stewardship in a manner that protects and projects national interests and values, promotes sustainable development and healthy commu-nities, and facilitates circumpolar stability and coopera-tion. This remains the centrepiece of the academic de-bate in Canada, which is encapsulated in the respective viewpoints of Rob Huebert and Whitney Lackenbauer. Their chapters in James Kraska’s edited book Arctic Security in an Age of Climate Security, published by Cambridge University Press in 2011, are a case in point. Huebert emphasizes that, although the post-Ilulisaat po-litical discourse in Canada has explicitly emphasized circumpolar cooperation and faith in legal frameworks to resolve disputes, senior politicians’ statements and defence planning continue to intimate potential confl ict. Lackenbauer, by contrast, sees no inherent contradic-tion between investments in improved Arctic military capabilities and an unfolding “Arctic Saga” rooted in cooperation. Balancing an Arctic security agenda with domestic imperatives to improve the quality of life of Northerners, and converting a broad strategy into de-liverables that produce a more constructive and secure circumpolar world, are real challenges facing Canada in the twenty-fi rst century Arctic. Although the deep cuts announced in recent federal budgets have not hit core Arctic defence and security projects, the question lin-gers about whether the government will carry through on its plans. Much will depend upon public support for the government’s Northern Strategy, and the project team continues to gauge public opinion about Arctic sovereignty and security and how this informs policy implementation.

13

R. Huebert


Arctic Security

One clear success story is the Canadian Rangers, who are popularly recognized as the Canadian Forces’ “eyes and ears” in remote regions. Lackenbauer, who has been researching the Canadian Rangers over the past decade, observes in his groundbreaking research that they represent an important success story for the Ca-nadian Forces as a fl exible, inexpensive, and culturally inclusive means of having “boots on the ground” to exercise Canadian sovereignty and conduct or support domestic operations. As a bridge between cultures and between the civilian and military realms, the Rangers have evolved to represent a successful integration of national security and sovereignty agendas with commu-nity-based activities and local stewardship. This prac-tical partnership, rooted in traditional knowledge and skills, promotes cooperation, communal and individual empowerment, and cross-cultural understanding. It is a positive civil-military and inter-cultural “success story” that, in his view, deserves to be better known. His three forthcoming books on the Rangers, which will appear in print over the next year, are designed to reach academic, popular, and policy audiences respectively. They will be the only major publications to date on the Rangers that are not merely travelogues by journalists tagging along on a single Ranger patrol.

Another primary goal of our multidisciplinary research team is to critically interrogate past sovereignty and security practices in the Arctic to better discern trends that inform current and future decision-making. Histo-rians Whitney Lackenbauer and Peter Kikkert continue to correct what, in their view, is a problematic narra-tive suggesting that the Canada-United States relation-ship in the Arctic has been mainly confl ictual. Their research fi ndings suggest the opposite. Their chapter “Sovereignty and Security: Canadian Diplomacy, the United States, and the Arctic, 1943-68” argues that Ca-nadian policy makers, particularly in the Department of External Affairs, did an admirable job of balancing Canadian sovereignty interests with the security needs of the United States from the early Cold War to the eve of the Manhattan voyage in 1969. Although Canada did not get its way on every issue, an underlying spirit of mutual respect allowed Canada to preserve - and indeed strengthen - its sovereignty while accommodating its

American ally insofar as its national interests allowed. This approach secured United States acquiescence to Canadian territorial sovereignty claims, despite Amer-ica’s rejection of the sector principle. When the empha-sis shifted to maritime issues in the 1950s, the legal is-sues proved more intractable but a functional approach, predicated on “agreeing to disagree” over the status of the waters of the Arctic archipelago, maintained a coop-erative bilateral relationship. Rather than seeing Cana-dian decision-making in the 1940s and 1950s as failing to secure American acquiescence to Canada’s future claim to the Northwest Passage, a more positive ap-praisal might recognize how careful diplomacy helped to position Canada so that it could implement a func-tional approach under Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in the early 1970s and declare straight baselines under Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in 1985. While post-war diplomatic actions appear ad hoc, reactionary, and tentative, they were appropriately suited to a complex situation. Offi cials at External Affairs acknowledged Canada’s limitations but managed in steering a prudent and practical course to lay the groundwork for future assertions of Canadian jurisdiction and sovereignty in the Arctic.

Project team members are testing this thesis about the bilateral defence relationship in the Arctic through a series of grounded case studies. For example, Lacken-bauer and Kikkert used the case study of Task Force 80 and the high arctic resupply mission of 1948 to re-evaluate Canadian-American relations in the early Cold War Arctic. The archival record reveals that, rather than sacrifi cing sovereignty in the interests of continental se-curity, the Canadian government scrutinized and moni-tored American defence activities in the Arctic to ensure that it retained an appropriate level of control. There were oversights, missteps, and miscommunication on both sides, but offi cials derived important lessons from the 1948 mission which were applied to subsequent re-supply activities, setting the course for an increasingly smooth operational relationship.

Functional cooperation may have prevailed historically and continue today, but this does not resolve thorny international legal questions that remain and have in-

14

R. Huebert


Arctic Security

creased in importance as the impacts of climate change have become more manifest. Straddling the interna-tional and domestic divide, is the question of the role international law can play in both fostering the creation of multilateral cooperative regimes that are responsive to new realities in the Arctic but also in defending and securing critical national objectives.

Suzanne Lalonde’s research considers the extent to which existing international legal norms and frame-works can provide clear and predictable outcomes and thus provide stability for the region. Using two key processes – boundary delimitation as in the case of the Beaufort Sea and the determination of the limits of the outer continental shelf – Lalonde highlights signifi cant gaps in the legal regimes and concludes that interna-tional law can only provide partial solutions and cannot alone guarantee the peaceful reconciliation of compet-ing interests. Other processes, political and diplomatic, will greatly infl uence the model of governance which emerges in the Arctic. Lalonde’s conclusions thus un-derline the importance of the research conducted by the project team and the need to better understand Arctic policies as defi ned at the national and regional levels.

Lalonde also investigates whether international legal instruments can promote Canada’s sovereignty and se-curity in the Arctic. At the core of this research pillar are Canada’s stated objectives and priorities in regards to the Northwest Passage. In light of signifi cant opposition to Canada’s claim to the waters of the Arctic archipela-go, Lalonde has analyzed whether existing international mechanisms might not help Canada fulfi ll its steward-ship obligations without sacrifi cing the needs of Cana-dian Northerners and the marine environment. The fo-cus of her research has been the International Maritime Organization, identifi ed by the 1982 UN Law of the Sea Convention as the competent international organiza-tion in all matters relating to shipping and navigation. The IMO’s work in relation to the Polar Code and its procedures for the designation of “special areas” and “particularly sensitive sea areas” (PSSAs) have been as-sessed and compared to the internal waters regime under the Law of the Sea. Lalonde has also devoted consider-able research time to the concept of marine protected

areas and its potential for promoting Canada’s priority of preserving the Arctic marine environment. She has also conducted this work in collaboration with the net-work investigators involved in “The Law and Politics of Canadian Jurisdiction on Arctic Ocean Seabed” project.

CONCLUSION

Arctic sovereignty, security, and governance issues con-tinue to garner signifi cant national and international at-tention. Our research fi ndings raise important questions about the growing international scholarly consensus that the region is inherently cooperative. Assessments of military and security trends, as well as critical reap-praisal of international legal issues related to boundary disputes and other uncertainties in the region, point to growing competition as well as cooperation. Although members of the research team differ in their interpreta-tions of trends and debate what they means for the fu-ture of the circumpolar world, our ongoing dialogue (in publications, public lectures, and policy forums) con-tinues to infl uence core academic and policy debates in Canada and other Arctic states.

By bringing historical, legal, and political science frameworks and methodologies to bear on our readings of the evolving Arctic security environment, this project is challenging widely held assumptions about Canada’s relationships with the United States and other Arctic states. Historical case studies suggest that Canada did a more successful job balancing sovereignty and security imperatives than scholars like Shelagh Grant have as-serted. This revised narrative emphasizing bilateral co-operation provides a strong basis for a confi dent and en-hanced Canada-US Arctic security relationship without undue concern that this erodes Canadian sovereignty.

Our work continues to critically assess Canada’s northern policies and practices through policy papers, academic publications, opinion pieces, and media en-gagement. Our fi ndings confi rm the need for promised investments in enhanced defence capabilities, particu-larly to support broader whole of government security

15

R. Huebert


Arctic Security

and safety priorities (such as search and rescue, emer-gency response, and enforcement of Canadian regu-lations). Furthermore, Lackenbauer’s work with the Canadian Rangers affi rms that national defence and security agendas are not necessarily harmful to North-erners, but can actually support healthy, self-governing communities.

Confi dence-building measures, both domestic and in-ternational, are key to a stable, secure, and peaceful Arctic. In improving our understanding of past and present sovereignty and security considerations, this project encourages the implementation of a Canadian northern strategy that refl ects Northerners’ interests, aligns with the interests of the other Arctic states, and anticipates the rising interest of non-Arctic stakeholders in the region so that they can be appropriately engaged both today and in the future.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Whitney Lackenbauer would like to thank the Wal-ter and Duncan Gordon Foundation-Munk Centre for Global Affairs for support through its Arctic Security programme; the Social Sciences and Humanities Re-search Council of Canada for a research development grant to partner with the Kitikmeot Heritage Society on community histories in Cambridge Bay; and St. Je-rome’s University for a Faculty Research Grant to sup-port research on the Joint Arctic Weather Stations pro-gram.

Rob Huebert would like to thank Canada Command (DND) and Canadian Coast Guard for the support that they have provided.

REFERENCES

Griffi ths, F., Huebert, R., Lackenbauer, P.W. 2011. Can-ada and the Changing Arctic: Sovereignty, Security and Stewardship, 301 pp.

Huebert, R. 2012. Submarines, Oil tankers and Ice-breakers: Trying to Understand Canadian Arctic Sov-ereignty and Security, International Journal 66(3): 809- 824.

Huebert, R. 2011. Canadian Arctic Sovereignty and Security in a Transforming Circumpolar World, Read-ings in Canadian Foreign Policy In Bratt, D., Kukucha, C. (Eds) Classic Debates and New Ideas 2nd edition, p 346-370.

Huebert, R. 2011. Is the Arctic Being Militarized or Securitized? And What Does it Matter? The Dispatch IX(2): 5-6.

Huebert, R. 2011. The future of Canadian airpower and the F-35, Canadian Foreign Policy Journal 17 (3): 226-236.

Huebert, R. 2011. Canada and the Newly Emerging In-ternational Security Regime, Arctic Security in an age of Climate Security, 193-217.

Huebert, R., Exner-Pirot, H., Lajeunesse, A., Gulledge, J. 2012. Climate Change and International Security: The Arctic as a Bellwether, Center for Climate and En-ergy Solutions, 50 pp.

Kikkert, P. 2011. Rising Above the Rhetoric: Northern Voices and the Strengthening of Canada’s Capacity to Maintain a Stable Circumpolar World, Northern Re- view, 33: 29-45.

Kikkert, P., Lackenbauer, P.W. 2011. Setting an Arctic Course: Task Force 80 and Canadian Control in the Arc-tic, The Northern Mariner, 327-358.

Lackenbauer, P.W. 2012. Security and the Arctic Coun-cil, The Dispatch: Quarterly Review of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, p.23-24.

Lackenbauer, P.W. 2011. Polar Race or Polar Saga? Canada and the Circumpolar World, Arctic Security in an Age of Climate Change, p.218-243.

16

R. Huebert


Arctic Security

Lackenbauer, P.W. 2011. ‘Use it or Lose it,’ History, and the Fourth Surge, Canada and Arctic Sovereignty and Security: Historical Perspectives, p.425-348.

Lackenbauer, P.W. 2011. Mixed Messages from an ‘Arctic Superpower’? Sovereignty, Security, and Can-ada’s Northern Strategy, Atlantisch Perspectief, p. 4-8.

Lackenbauer, P.W. 2011. Arctic Security, Public Opin-ion, and the Canadian Agenda, The Dispatch, 17-18.

Lackenbauer, P.W. 2011. The Canadian Rangers: A Liv-ing History, The Canadian Rangers: A Living History, 640 pp.

Lackenbauer, P.W. 2011. Aboriginal Peoples in the Ca-nadian Rangers: Canada’s ‘Eyes and Ears’ in Northern and Isolated Communities, Hidden in Plain Sight: Con-tributions of Aboriginal Peoples to Canadian Identity and Culture 2: 306-328.

Lackenbauer, P.W. 2011. The War Will Be Won When the Last Low-Level Flying Happens Here in Our Home: Innu Opposition to Low-Level Flying in Labrador, Newfoundland and Labrador Studies.

Lackenbauer, P.W. 2011. Canada and Arctic Sovereign-ty and Security: Historical Perspectives, Calgary Papers in Military and Strategic Studies, 448 pp.

Lackenbauer, P.W. 2011. Canada’s Rangers: Selected Stories, 1942-2002, CDA Press.

Lackenbauer, P.W., Kikkert, P. 2011. Building on ‘Shift-ing Sands’: The Canadian Armed Forces, Sovereignty, and the Arctic, 1968-72, Canada and Arctic Sovereignty and Security: Historical Perspectives, p. 283-308.

Lackenbauer, P.W., Kikkert, P. 2011. Sovereignty and Security: The Department of External Affairs, the Unit-ed States, and Arctic Sovereignty, 1945-68, Serving the National Interest: Canada’s Department of Foreign Af-fairs and International Trade, 1909-2009, p101-120.

Lalonde, S. 2011. Valuating Canada’s position on the Northwest Passage in light of two possible sources of international protection: Article 234 of UNCLOS and an IMO PSSA designation, Submitted to Law of the Sea Institute, Berkeley University.

Lalonde, S. 2011. Case Study: The Arctic, Kaikobad Compendium of International Boundary Delimitation Law and Practice.

Lalonde, S., Lasserre, F. 2011. The Northwest Passage: a potentially weighty precedent? Ocean Development and International Law.

Manicom, J. 2011. Maritime Boundary Disputes in East Asia: Lessons for the Arctic, International Studies Per-spectives, 327-340.

2011-12 PUBLICATIONS

All ArcticNet refereed publications are available on the ASTIS website (http://www.aina.ucalgary.ca/arcticnet/).

Griffi ths, F., Huebert, R. and Lackenbauer, P.W., 2011, Canada and the Changing Arctic: Sovereignty, Secu-rity and Stewardship, Canada and the Changing Arctic: Sovereignty, Security and Stewardship, xxx, 301 pp.

Huebert, R., 2011, Canadian Arctic Sovereignty and Se-curity in a Transforming Circumpolar Worl, Readings in Canadian Foreign Policy: Classic Debates and New Ideas 2nd edition edited by Duane Bratt and Christo-pher Kukucha, 346-370.

Huebert, R., 2011, Is the Arctic Being Militarized or Se-curitized? And What Does it Matter?, The Dispatch Vol, IX, No. 2, 5-6.

Huebert, R., 2012, Submarines, Oil tankers and Ice-breakers: Trying to Understand Canadian Arctic Sover-eignty and Security, International Journal Vol.66 No.3, 809-824.

17

R. Huebert


Arctic Security

Huebert, R., 2011, The future of Canadian airpower and the F-35, Canadian Foreign Policy Journal Vol. 17, No. 3,, 226-236.

Huebert, R., Exner-Pirot, H., Lajeunesse, A., and Gulledge, J., 2012, Climate Change and International Security: The Arctic as a Bellwether, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, 50 pp.

Huebert. R., 2011, Canada and the Newly Emerging In-ternational Security Regime, Arctic Security in an age of Climate Security, 193-217.

Kikkert, P., 2011, Rising Above the Rhetoric: Northern Voices and the Strengthening of Canada’s Capacity to Maintain a Stable Circumpolar World, Northern Re-view, v.33, 29-45.

Kikkert, P. and P.W. Lackenbauer, 2011, Setting an Arc-tic Course: Task Force 80 and Canadian Control in the Arctic, The Northern Mariner, 327-358.

Lackenbauer, P.W., 2011, Polar Race or Polar Saga? Canada and the Circumpolar World, Arctic Security in an Age of Climate Change, 218-243.

Lackenbauer, P.W., 2011, ‘Use it or Lose it,’ History, and the Fourth Surge, Canada and Arctic Sovereignty and Security: Historical Perspectives, 425-38.

Lackenbauer, P.W., 2011, Mixed Messages from an ‘Arctic Superpower’? Sovereignty, Security, and Cana-da’s Northern Strategy, Atlantisch Perspectief, 4-8.

Lackenbauer, P.W., 2011, Arctic Security, Public Opin-ion, and the Canadian Agenda, The Dispatch, 17-18.

Lackenbauer, P.W., 2011, The Canadian Rangers: A Living History, The Canadian Rangers: A Living His-tory, 640 pp.

Lackenbauer, P.W., 2011, Aboriginal Peoples in the Ca-nadian Rangers: Canada’s ‘Eyes and Ears’ in Northern

and Isolated Communities, Hidden in Plain Sight: Con-tributions of Aboriginal Peoples to Canadian Identity and Culture, Vol. 2, 306-328.

Lackenbauer, P.W., 2011, ‘The War Will Be Won When the Last Low-Level Flying Happens Here in Our Home’: Innu Opposition to Low-Level Flying in Labra-dor, Newfoundland and Labrador Studies.

Lackenbauer, P.W., 2011, Canada and Arctic Sovereign-ty and Security: Historical Perspectives, Calgary Papers in Military and Strategic Studies, 448 pp.

Lackenbauer, P.W., 2011, Canada’s Rangers: Selected Stories, 1942-2002, CDA Press.

Lackenbauer, P.W., 2012, Security and the Arctic Coun-cil, The Dispatch: Quarterly Review of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, 23-24.

Lackenbauer, P.W. and Kikkert, P., 2011, Building on ‘Shifting Sands’: The Canadian Armed Forces, Sover-eignty, and the Arctic, 1968-72, Canada and Arctic Sov-ereignty and Security: Historical Perspectives, 283-308.

Lackenbauer, P.W. and Kikkert, P., 2011, Sovereignty and Security: The Department of External Affairs, the United States, and Arctic Sovereignty, 1945-68, Serving the National Interest: Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, 1909-2009, 101-120.

Lalonde, S., 2011, Evaluating Canada’s position on the Northwest Passage in light of two possible sources of international protection: Article 234 of UNCLOS and an IMO PSSA designation, Soumis au Law of the Sea Institute à l’Université Berkeley.

Lalonde, S., 2011, Case Study: The Arctic, Kaikobad Compendium of International Boundary Delimitation Law and Practice.

Lalonde, S., 2012, Marine Protected Areas in the Arctic, The Law of the Sea and Polar Regions: Interactions be-tween Global and Regional Regimes.

18

R. Huebert


Arctic Security

Lalonde, S., 2012, The IMO’s Polar Code, Special Ar-eas and PSSAs: What More Does Canada Need?, Polar Oceans Governance in a Era of Environmental Change.

Lalonde, S. and Lasserre, F., 2011, The Northwest Pas-sage : a potentially weighty precedent?, Ocean Devel-opment and International Law.

Manicom, J., 2011, Maritime Boundary Disputes in East Asia: Lessons for the Arctic, International Studies Perspectives, 327-340.

arctic security · activities in the arctic (lackenbauer and kikkert). • conference on arctic...

Documents