MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2072011879 · doi:10.1353/asp.2014.0020

The Nordic Embrace: Why the Nordic Countries Welcome Asia to the Arctic Table

2014· article· en· W2072011879 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Leiv Lunde

Notice bibliographique

RevueAsia policy · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésArcticPoliticsPolitical scienceChinaGeographyEconomyEconomic growthDevelopment economicsLawEconomicsOceanography

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The Nordic Embrace:Why the Nordic Countries Welcome Asia to the Arctic Table Leiv Lunde (bio) A range of Asian countries—China, India, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea—were welcomed by the Arctic countries as observers to the Arctic Council in May 2013. This was a controversial decision long resisted by Arctic powers Russia and Canada, with the United States undecided until right before the final decision. The Nordic countries, on the other hand, led by Norway, emphasized the positive aspects of Asia’s interest and saw the region’s greater participation in Arctic affairs as strengthening governance and making the Arctic Council a more relevant and future-oriented forum. This essay examines the Nordic countries—Denmark (including Greenland), Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden—as Arctic nations and describes their Arctic geography, identity, and economic, political, and security interests. It then seeks to explain the Nordic countries’ basically positive attitude toward Asian involvement in the Arctic, while also identifying the limits and elements of skepticism that still exist. In concluding, the essay looks into the future and discusses challenges and opportunities for the Nordic countries arising from increased Asian ventures into Arctic lands and waters. Nordic Arctic Interests There are commonalities as well as differences in the Nordic countries’ Arctic interests. The commonalities among the Nordic states are most striking: history, geography, culture, trade, and politics today knit them closely together such that they cooperate intimately in Nordic as well as international institutions. Sweden and Norway fought a brief war in 1814 and were on the verge of war as recently as 1905. Yet despite this history, as well as their different experiences during World War II and varying security alliances to date, the Nordic countries enjoy strong and peaceful cooperation along virtually every thinkable dimension. Yet one of the surprises meeting the Asian countries in their quest for Nordic support for their participation in the Arctic Council was the relative lack of a formal Arctic identity in the Nordic region. Arctic politics [End Page 39] is decided in the capitals located far south of the Arctic, and there are no Arctic budgets or regional planning units in national ministries. Even the small minority of indigenous peoples in the high north (mainly the Saami people) pay their taxes to the national governments, and the majority of the Arctic Nordic populations view themselves primarily as national citizens rather than Arctic citizens in any significant sense. Nevertheless, the Arctic matters a lot to the Nordic countries, and increasingly so in the wake of growing global attention to the region’s affairs. A potentially important difference between these states stems from Norway and Iceland not being members of the European Union (EU). Back in May 2013, for example, the admittance of the five Asian countries to the Arctic Council hung in the balance partly due to a spat between the EU (also an applicant for a formal observer role) and Canada over seal hunting. Canada is furious at the EU for boycotting Canadian sealskin production, which is seen as a traditional custom and important business opportunity in Canada’s Arctic region. Although the Nordic EU members found this spat frustratingly difficult and were skeptical of some of the EU’s reasoning, they had to align with Brussels. For this and other reasons, Norway became a major broker in Kiruna, ensuring that a decision was made. The Asian countries, along with Italy, were accepted as formal observers, while the EU still must wait in the wings for some hard-won concessions from intransigent Canada—the current Arctic Council president. The differences among the Nordic countries—which again are moderate and should be seen in a holistic context—are mainly due to three factors: • Geography. Some Nordic countries are Arctic coastal states, while others are not. • Economy. The level of economic activity and interest in the Arctic differs significantly among the Nordic countries. • Political and security alliances. Norway and Iceland are outside the EU, while Finland and Sweden remain outside NATO. Norway is by most definitions the most important Nordic Arctic country, trailing only Russia in global Arctic significance. Mainland Norway includes considerable land, coast, and ocean areas that reside north of the Arctic Circle...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,942
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0080,002
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,014
Tête enseignante GPT0,306
Écart entre enseignants0,292 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations7
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAsia policyMême sujetArctic and Russian Policy StudiesTravaux en français237 207