Respond to part I as well as part II. Part I counts 60%, part II counts 40%
Part I
Respond to one (1) of the tasks below:
- Describe and compare the extent to which, and how, various geopolitical and governance theories include national politics or non-state actors. Use such theories to evaluate the significance of non-state actors in influencing Arctic petroleum development decisions. Headline: National politics and non-state actors.
- In what ways have port state measures been important for improving compliance with international regulations in the Arctic? Describe and explain the co-evolution of such measures in the shipping and fisheries sectors. Headline: Port state measures.
Part II
Respond to three (3) of the tasks below:
-
What does it mean that an issue or an issue area has been “securitized”? What factors, according to the Copenhagen School of security studies, can explain variation in success among attempts to securitize an issue? Headline: Securitization
-
Describe the contents and evolution of EU policy documents on the Arctic region. How can this development be explained? Headline: EU Arctic policy
-
How does the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea allocate regulatory competence among different categories of states with respect to shipping and environmental protection? On this basis, review the institutional opportunities for Asian states such as China, India and Japan to influence Arctic governance in these issue areas. Headline: Asian states in Arctic governance
-
What are the main implications of the Arctic ice cover from a geopolitical and a governance perspective, respectively? Use examples from several issue areas of Arctic politics to illustrate your arguments. Headline: Ice