Is the Arctic heating up? Complicating the picture of regional security

Abstract

Why do states maintain policy continuity towards unsettled spaces, even in the absence of intersubjective agreement? In this dissertation, I develop the concept of unsettledness to describe geographic spaces where the intersubjective understandings of the status, governance, and territorial meaning of a space remains unresolved. This results in persistent flux in the norms, rules, and behaviors that states adopt towards that space. Unsettledness differs from conventional notions of territorial disputes, ungoverned spaces, or undefined spaces in that it does not necessarily provoke security dilemmas or institutional resolution. Instead, states often respond to these conditions with low-tension narratives and low-key approaches rather than securitization or increased governance to avoid potential risks. The Arctic provides an ideal case study for understanding unsettledness under conditions of strong institutional norms, given its long history as a frontier space where geopolitical, environmental, and institutional forces have converged. Although the region has been framed in different ways over time—from a Cold War missile pathway to a zone of exceptional peace to an arena of renewed great power competition—its unsettled spaces remain resistant to intersubjective agreement. This dissertation explores three Arctic cases: Svalbard, Greenland, and Arctic maritime routes (the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage). These cases exhibit both continuous flux and an enduring lack of consensus, making them key examples of unsettled spaces. In analyzing state responses to unsettledness, I assess three potential explanations for policy continuity: (1) states aligning unsettled spaces with broader geopolitical narratives, (2) states varying their security framings might shift how states could sustain continuity, and (3) states relying on expert communities to reinforce policy positions. Through a discourse analysis of policy documents and interviews with experts and policymakers, I find that states neither explicitly integrate unsettled spaces into great power competition nor adjust their security framings to suit different strategic needs. Rather, my findings suggest that states deliberately avoid securitizing unsettled spaces, opting instead for low-tension narratives and restrained policy approaches to sustain the status quo. These low-tension narratives are adopted as part of a broader strategy of risk aversion. States wish to avoid potential future militarization and thus keeping these areas unsettled is part of a broader agenda to avoid risk. This research challenges conventional wisdom in International Relations that would expect unsettledness to result in interstate competition or institutional stabilization. Instead, it highlights how, under conditions of strong institutional norms, ambiguity can be a strategic asset for states seeking to avoid political costs associated with either escalation or institutional resolution. While this norm may be changing with Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, low-tension narratives continue to be the norm at least in the Arctic cases under examination. By theorizing low-tension narratives and low-key approaches, I also contribute to debates in securitization and desecuritization studies, demonstrating how states manage security ambiguity in spaces of persistent flux. Additionally, my findings shed light on the limited influence of expert communities in shaping policy on unsettled spaces. Rather than seeking expert input to resolve uncertainty, states tend to treat these issues as politically settled despite ongoing intersubjective disagreement. However, my work does highlight the importance of studying knowledge ecosystems in which experts operate and offers some practical strategies that policy-minded IR scholars could adopt. The implications of this research extend beyond the Arctic. Other regions with characteristics of unsettledness—such as the high seas and outer space—may exhibit similar dynamics. Understanding how states respond to unsettledness can offer scholars nuance in thinking through spaces that neither fit the mold of a settled territory nor a contested space. By conceptualizing unsettledness as a persistent condition rather than a transitional phase, this dissertation offers a new framework for analyzing spaces where governance and intersubjective agreement remain elusive.