{"id":1754,"date":"2018-01-09T13:00:51","date_gmt":"2018-01-09T13:00:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/nome.unak.is\/wordpress\/?p=1754"},"modified":"2018-03-13T15:17:22","modified_gmt":"2018-03-13T15:17:22","slug":"timo-koivurova-qin-tianbao-sebastien-duyck-tapio-nykanen-eds-arctic-law-governance-role-china-finland-london-hart-publishing-2017","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nome.unak.is\/wordpress\/volume-13-no-1-2018\/book-review-volume-13-no-1-2018\/timo-koivurova-qin-tianbao-sebastien-duyck-tapio-nykanen-eds-arctic-law-governance-role-china-finland-london-hart-publishing-2017\/","title":{"rendered":"Timo Koivurova, QIN Tianbao, S\u00e9bastien Duyck & Tapio Nyk\u00e4nen (eds.), Arctic Law and Governance: The Role of China and Finland (London: Hart Publishing, 2017)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\n\t
\n\n\t\t<\/i><\/span> <\/a>\n\n\t<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n

This edited collection of essays is the product of a two-year project to assess and compare Chinese approaches to the Arctic with Finnish and\/or EU approaches. These three entities are quite distinctive in population, politics and power and hence are not an obvious triumvirate. Nevertheless, the books\u2019 chapters draw out interesting points of comparison. China is a relative newcomer to international relations and economic development in the Arctic. Backed by both military and economic clout, it triggers concerns amongst Arctic inhabitants and other stakeholders regarding its ambitions. Such worries are not helped by China\u2019s closed political decision-making and limited official statements on its Arctic policies. This project, therefore, aims at increasing knowledge and understanding of China\u2019s interests and expectations in the region.<\/p>\n

The introduction to the book provides a good summary of the analyses that follow in the self-standing chapters which are themselves grouped into three Parts: Chinese Perspectives; Comparison between Finland and China; and Comparison between the EU and China. As a collection of essays, the book does not have a single or overarching thesis as such but a number of common themes are identified in the introductory and concluding chapters (by the 4 editors). One repeated them is climate change and pollution. Climate change is not coming to the Arctic: it is already here. China is the World\u2019s biggest fossil fuel consumer and responsible for 29% of global greenhouse gas emissions (the EU, 11%). However, black carbon \u2013 a short term climate forcer – in the Arctic comes mostly from Europe. Europe is also a more significant source of the persistent organic pollutants (POPS) that end up in the Arctic (7). Another theme is economic development: even if the rights to exploit natural resources lie with the Arctic States and the peoples within them, the viability of doing so pivots on demand \u2013 and that demand is predominantly Chinese and European (8.)<\/p>\n

The chapters go a long way to making up for China\u2019s decision not to publish a comprehensive Arctic strategy or make regular and clear statements about its Arctic plans. China is not necessarily to be blamed for this: China is a lot more significant in the Arctic than the Arctic is for China, even if the book demonstrates that Chinese interest (and interests) in the Arctic have grown swiftly in recent years.<\/p>\n

QIN Tianbao and LI Miaomiao\u2019s chapter, \u201cStrengthening China\u2019s Role in the Arctic Council\u201d calls for an official Chinese Arctic strategy but is itself rather more candid than an official State policy document is likely to be and as a result, probably more useful. The two authors make a rather bold proposal that China become a fully-fledged member <\/em>of the Arctic Council (42), which will raise a few eyebrows amongst the more territorially sensitive of the Arctic States. Let\u2019s just say that an official, published Chinese Arctic strategy is the more likely of the two scenarios in the near-term!<\/p>\n

Ren Shidan turns to Chinese Arctic research and points to, amongst other things, frustration with Russia regarding access (53). She argues for freedom of research in the Arctic and rejects arguments that Chinese research is a foil for long-term plans to strip the region of resources. However, her concerns regarding Norway\u2019s interpretation of the Svalbard Treaty (concerns shared by a number of European states) turn the chapter back to resource development (55-57).<\/p>\n

Julia Jalo and Tapio Nyk\u00e4nen identify Chinese priorities in the Arctic based on World Affairs <\/em>(a government-controlled magazine and unofficial mouthpiece). Only nine articles on the Arctic have been published since 2004 (indicating that the Arctic is still a relatively peripheral zone in Chinese politics). However, eight of these articles were published in 2008 or later, peaking when Chinese sought and accepted its seat as an observer at the Arctic Council in 2013, suggesting that interest is growing. The authors recognise that China is often viewed as a \u2018threat\u2019 in the Arctic, especially by those taking a classical realist approach, but they conclude that either China is indeed playing down its real intentions or that (more likely in their view) China is genuinely concerned about climate change and other environmental problems in the Arctic. In either case, they agree with QIN Tianbao and LI Miaomiao that a published strategy would help to clarify the situation.<\/p>\n

Xiaoyi Jiang and Xiaoguang Zhou then consider maritime sovereignty and rights in the Arctic, looking in particular at the potential of the Northern Sea Route as an alternative to (or at least a supplement to) the Malacca route \u2013 even if they also note that Chinese shipping companies are adopting a \u2018wait-and-see\u2019 approach (96). They comment that China \u201chas virtually no influence on the decision-making process at ministerial meetings\u201d (of the Arctic Council)(90) and, like the other Chinese contributors, note that China is trying to be viewed as a partner in the Arctic rather than a threat (95).<\/p>\n

Part II brings us to Finland with Lassi Heininen\u2019s assessment of Finland, the EU and China and the asymmetry between them. Climate change \u2013 and China\u2019s potential to take a lead role \u2013 is once again a key theme (107). Heininen sees common interests in shipping (Finland builds; China ships) (109); scientific research; resource governance and international cooperation (129). However, Finland and China also have shared interests in resource development in the Arctic (Finland produces; China buys) (118-120).<\/p>\n

Tapio Nyk\u00e4nen presents the other chapter in this Part, using critical geopolitics to explore how the Arctic is framed in Chinese and Finnish Discourses. He agrees with the other writers that China is trying to build trust in the Arctic, seeking to present itself as a constructive partner (137). He analyses China\u2019s position as a self-declared \u2018near-Arctic state\u2019, pointing out that geographically, it is extremely far from the Arctic Circle but arguing that instead it is geocritically<\/em> close (140). Nyk\u00e4nen recognises China\u2019s contributions to Arctic science but sees a political undercurrent to this: science is a \u2018door\u2019 through which China can claim a legitimate interest in Arctic governance (140).<\/p>\n

Chapter Eight (Timo Koivurova, Waliul Hasanat, Piotr Graczyk and Tuuli Kuusama) is based on interviews with participants in the Arctic Council system, Chinese officials and scholars. It produces original, qualitative research on China\u2019s position within the Arctic Council and identifies issues that would be unlikely to be uncovered by looking only at official publications. For example, the authors report that some Chinese officials are unhappy with the Nuuk criteria on observers (169)). They also identify a problem in the delegations which both lack continuity and do not always match the mandates of the working groups (175-177).<\/p>\n

On fisheries, S\u00e9bastien Duyck sees shared interests in China and the EU \u2013 both being major fisheries jurisdictions and being outsiders seeking to ensure that their industries are considered in any new regime for the Central Arctic Ocean (Chapter IX). China, Duyck points out, is a \u2018developing country\u2019 and positions itself as a \u2018leader\u2019 of the G77 (196). Its policies on fisheries differ from the EU, being more defensive of High Seas freedoms and rational use, compared to a more conservationist (or even preservationist) orientated EU (197-198).<\/p>\n

Adam Stepien considers China\u2019s and the EU\u2019s respective engagement with indigenous peoples. China maintains the questionable position that it has no <\/em>indigenous peoples inside of China (222). \u00a0On the one hand, this means that China is not unnecessarily concerned with establishing precedents that could complicate matters at home (cf<\/em> its position on international straits and Arctic shipping) but on the other hand, means that it has no experience and limited understanding of the stakes for indigenous people. China talks the talk (for example supporting indigenous rights in the UN \u2013 as long as it is clear that they don\u2019t apply to or in China! (223)) but its engagement is uncoordinated and inconsistent (216). Environmental impacts are once more brought to the fore as Stepien explains that European and Chinese emissions are a major threat to indigenous communities (210-211). The EU, recognising the S\u00e1mi as the only indigenous people within the EU itself, has a more proactive stance on Arctic indigenous peoples and is, in theory, supportive of indigenous rights (218). That does not mean, however, that the EU always gets things right.<\/p>\n

Nengye Liu and Kamrul Hossain address navigation in the Arctic and highlight the dependence of China\u2019s economic strategy on shipping (243). The Northern Sea Route (less so the Northwest Passage) holds the promise of faster, cheaper shipping untroubled by the politics of alternative routes but, for now, this is still only a promise. While the shipping companies take things cautiously, the government has published the first Chinese guidelines on Arctic shipping (244). Like Xiaoyi Jiang and Xiaoguang Zhou, they note that China did not get involved in the development of the Polar Code and wonder if Chinese delegates to the IMO could take a more active role (247). They also suggest that China work alongside Japan and South Korea to promote (and defend) its shipping interests at the Arctic Council (249).<\/p>\n

The concluding chapter by the four editors draws together the main findings of the contributions, reiterating the centrality of climate change and the consequent expectations of a natural resources boom (253-254). They note the resistance of the Arctic Eight to (too much) non-Arctic State involvement and how the Arctic Council system keeps the most powerful outsiders \u2013 like the EU and China \u2013 relatively subdued (261). Like most recent academic work on the Arctic, the final conclusion is that the answers are there and can be reached peacefully. International law has the answer to most questions; and for the others, it has processes by which to find, peacefully, those answers.<\/p>\n

Although a number of writers call for a Chinese Arctic policy or strategy, this book gives us much more than any state policy every could. The original research and analysis by both Chinese and European scholars helps readers understand the dragon and, hopefully, fear it less. Nevertheless, there are subtle differences in approaches, with the Chinese authors tending to play down China\u2019s resource ambitions and emphasise science and environmental concerns with some of the European contributors implying that China\u2019s scientific contributions are driven by those very resource ambitions. I would wholeheartedly recommend this collection to anyone working on international law, international relations or economic development in the Arctic. Well edited, it is an accessible read for students as well as more seasoned academics. Even were the Chinese government to respond to the call to publish a formal strategy, it will not replace the excellent scholarship in this book.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A review of the book: \u00a0Arctic Law and Governance: The Role of China and Finland<\/em>, edited by Timo Koivurova, QIN Tianbao, S\u00e9bastien Duyck and Tapio Nyk\u00e4nen (Hart Publishing, 2017) pp 288 & xviii, 120 USD (hardback)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":255,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1432],"tags":[239,1331,439,631,660,728,959,958,457],"coauthors":[1002],"class_list":["post-1754","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-book-review-volume-13-no-1-2018","tag-arctic","tag-arctic-council","tag-china","tag-environmental-law","tag-finland","tag-international-environmental-law","tag-international-law","tag-law-of-the-sea","tag-trade-law"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nome.unak.is\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1754","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nome.unak.is\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nome.unak.is\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nome.unak.is\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/255"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nome.unak.is\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1754"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/nome.unak.is\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1754\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2030,"href":"https:\/\/nome.unak.is\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1754\/revisions\/2030"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nome.unak.is\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1754"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nome.unak.is\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1754"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nome.unak.is\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1754"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nome.unak.is\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=1754"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}