Search

The Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) has governed the Antarctic for the last six decades ensuring it to be a place of peace and scientific cooperation. Like any institution, the ATS exists in order to solve collective action problems through coordination and the creation of norms. But how do we know if a particular institution is the right one to solve a specific problem or address issues regarding the governance of a region? And when is it time to replace or reform such an institution? To answer these questions, we need an account of institutional legitimacy. An assessment of the legitimacy of the ATS is necessary in order to determine whether it is worthy of being empowered through support, or if it is time to reform some aspects of it. Building on the account of legitimacy of global governance institutions proposed by Buchanan and Keohane, the paper assesses the legitimacy of the ATS and argues that it is time to reform some components of it. Specifically, the paper assesses the legitimacy of the ATS based on the following criteria: minimal moral acceptability; comparative benefit; institutional integrity; and accountability. The paper highlights the ATS’ shortcomings based on these criteria and suggests reforms that will strengthen the legitimacy of the ATS

The changing situation in the Arctic due to global warming has prompted media coverage of a supposed “scramble for the Arctic,” an “Arctic boom,” or an “Arctic Bonanza.” Some even go further, deploying the rhetoric of a “New Cold War,” predicting an inevitable clash between the United States and Russia over interests in the region. The press coverage in both countries over the past decade reflects this new sensationalism. The academic literature unequivocally confirms that the press exerts substantial influence on governmental policy makers, and vice versa. However, while scholars agree that international organizations (IOs) are essential to shaping policies, the existing literature lacks research on media’s relationship with IOs, which often struggle to obtain the coverage and publicity they deserve. The Arctic Council has provided an effective platform for constructive dialogue and decision making involving the USA and Russia. Accordingly, despite disagreements in other regions of the world, the two global powers have managed to cooperate in the Arctic – notwithstanding recent media coverage painting a different and incomplete picture. This project surveys the media coverage of the Arctic over the past decade in Russia and the USA and its correlation with the Arctic Council’s activities. The analysis draws upon two prominent news organizations in Russia (Kommersant and Izvestiya) and two in the USA (the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal), as well as the Arctic Council’s press releases from June 2006 to June 2017. The paper finds that there is a clear disconnect between media coverage of the region and the Arctic Council’s activities. It recommends that the media pay more attention to the organization, particularly since it is the only prominent platform for international cooperation in the Arctic.