Desecuritization as Displacement of Controversy: geopolitics, law and sovereign rights in the Arctic

TY - JOUR

T1 - Desecuritization as Displacement of Controversy

T2 - geopolitics, law and sovereign rights in the Arctic

AU - Jacobsen, Marc

AU - Strandsbjerg, Jeppe

PY - 2017/10/1

Y1 - 2017/10/1

N2 - By signing the Ilulissat Declaration of May 2008, the five littoral states of the Arctic Ocean pre-emptively desecuritized potential geopolitical controversies in the Arctic Ocean by confirming that international law and geo-science are the defining factors underlying the future delimitation. This happened in response to a rising securitization discourse fueled by commentators and the media in the wake of the 2007 Russian flag planting on the geographical North Pole seabed, which also triggered harder interstate rhetoric and dramatic headlines. This case, however, challenges some established conventions within securitization theory. It was state elites that initiated desecuritization and they did so by shifting issues in danger of being securitized from security to other techniques of government. Contrary to the democratic ethos of the theory, these shifts do not necessarily represent more democratic procedures. Instead, each of these techniques are populated by their own experts and technocrats operating according to logics of right (law) and accuracy (science). While shifting techniques of government might diminish the danger of securitized relations between states, the shift generates a displacement of controversy. Within international law we have seen controversy over its ontological foundations and within science we have seen controversy over standards of science. Each of these are amplified and take a particularly political significance when an issue is securitized via relocation to another technique. While the Ilulissat Declaration has been successful in minimizing the horizontal conflict potential between states it has simultaneously given way for vertical disputes between the signatory states on the one hand and the Indigenous peoples of the Arctic on the other.

AB - By signing the Ilulissat Declaration of May 2008, the five littoral states of the Arctic Ocean pre-emptively desecuritized potential geopolitical controversies in the Arctic Ocean by confirming that international law and geo-science are the defining factors underlying the future delimitation. This happened in response to a rising securitization discourse fueled by commentators and the media in the wake of the 2007 Russian flag planting on the geographical North Pole seabed, which also triggered harder interstate rhetoric and dramatic headlines. This case, however, challenges some established conventions within securitization theory. It was state elites that initiated desecuritization and they did so by shifting issues in danger of being securitized from security to other techniques of government. Contrary to the democratic ethos of the theory, these shifts do not necessarily represent more democratic procedures. Instead, each of these techniques are populated by their own experts and technocrats operating according to logics of right (law) and accuracy (science). While shifting techniques of government might diminish the danger of securitized relations between states, the shift generates a displacement of controversy. Within international law we have seen controversy over its ontological foundations and within science we have seen controversy over standards of science. Each of these are amplified and take a particularly political significance when an issue is securitized via relocation to another technique. While the Ilulissat Declaration has been successful in minimizing the horizontal conflict potential between states it has simultaneously given way for vertical disputes between the signatory states on the one hand and the Indigenous peoples of the Arctic on the other.

KW - Faculty of Social Sciences

KW - Arctic

KW - Greenland

KW - International Relations

KW - International Politics

KW - Geopolitics

KW - Postcoloniality

KW - Arctic Ocean

KW - Hans Island

KW - Desecuritization

KW - Securitization

KW - Arktis

KW - Grønland

KW - Geopolitik

KW - Postkolonialitet

KW - Hans Ø

KW - Arktisk Ocean

U2 - https://doi.org/10.7146/politik.v20i3.97151

DO - https://doi.org/10.7146/politik.v20i3.97151

M3 - Journal article

SN - 1604-0058

VL - 20

SP - 15

EP - 30

JO - Politik

JF - Politik

IS - 3

M1 - 2

ER -