Introduction
This chapter addresses what theories of justice may help further our understanding of injustices in the Arctic. The purpose is to critically discuss the baseline for a Forstian transnational theory of justice and its applicability to the Arctic, primarily the Arctic Council. This will take into account the regional, political, Indigenous and environmental aspects of this specific region. The account suggested here draws primarily on Critical Theory, and the suggested approach proposes that there are normative criteria required for a comprehensive theory of Arctic justice and that these are of general, rather than regional, character. Hence, the chapter tests to what extent a transnational theory of Arctic justice is reasonable and posits scepticism towards a theory based on Arctic exceptionalism. It instead argues for a critical theory grounded in universal principles that embraces breadth and contextual sensitivity. The chapter contributes a discussion on the normative principles necessary for developing justice theorizing applicable to the Arctic region, as well as a discussion of the implications of assessing justice in a transnational context.
The chapter contributes a critical assessment of a few aspects of justice, which are relevant for approaching the concept of justice in the context of the Arctic. Such an assessment could be done in numerous ways, but one promising and underexplored avenue concerning the Arctic is an assessment of a Forstian notion of justice as the right to justification in Rainer Forst’s transnational account of justice. The existing literature contributing to understandings of justice and injustices in the Arctic seems to primarily do so from a development or energy perspective, often adopting versions of
After this introduction, and before turning to a presentation, discussion and assessment of the Forstian theory of transnational justice, this chapter will highlight some of the aspects of justice and injustice that appear central to the Arctic. This is done through the lens of transnational relations, and with social justice in mind. The chapter then ends with a few concluding remarks and a set of study questions.
Issues of justice – and injustice – in the Arctic
The Arctic is a topical region for several reasons, not the least when it comes to issues related to justice. Issues of justice are of crucial importance in this region, yet on different scales covering the interaction between states, within states, as well as within and between groups and local communities. However, issues of justice in the Arctic have, up until now, received relatively scarce scholarly and policy interest. A few aspects which seem to be of primary importance are related to the distribution of power, influence and issues of recognition.
Concerning interstate relationships, some scholars have predicted that the region will be the new hotspot for international conflicts and great power struggles. These predictions have been made as tensions between Russia and the United States, which are separated by less than three miles in the Arctic, continue to grow (Crawford, 2021). Potential incompatibilities also concern access to, and distribution of, natural resources such as oil and gas (Keil, 2014), as well as conflicting interests between different economic sectors, such as mining and tourism (Similä and Jokinen, 2018). Other examples include conflicts between extractive industry and primary livelihood (fisheries, herding, hunting), and tensions around resources in the North Atlantic (Greenland, Svalbard and so on). Yet, at the same time, scholars have also argued that the Arctic is a region with high geopolitical stability (Heininen, 2018), where a changing Arctic would not be a realistic trigger for Great Power conflicts (Tunsjø, 2020). Additionally, the Arctic has been one of few areas in the world where the most powerful states have had continuous dialogue, and where the US and Russia have had a strong track record of cooperation (Pincus and the Foreign Policy Research Institute, 2021). For instance, in January 2021, the US and Russian coastguards carried out joint maritime border controls in the Bering Sea, indicating, supporting and demonstrating mutual agreements
Issues of justice in the Arctic could mean a lot of different things and needs to be addressed on different levels. For instance, justice concerns will be understood and perceived differently depending on whether an international institutional approach or a local or Indigenous approach is at the centre of analysis. For instance, potential conflicts between interests and rights are identifiable in relations between industry and livelihood. This becomes particularly apparent if we differentiate between scales in, for instance, social, legal or political justice. This chapter will detail how justice in the Arctic could be understood on an international, primarily transnational, level. It discusses issues related to social and political justice through concepts such as recognition and representation. Here, principles such as generality, reciprocity as well as sovereignty and the ‘all affected’ principle play a central role. The reasoning here is positioned within the Critical Theory tradition, following Frankfurt School scholar Rainer Forst, who understands justice as a concept of non-domination and emancipation, deeply connected to the right to justification (Forst, 2014, pp 2–9, Forst 2001, p 120).
Some of the issues of injustices in the Arctic brought forward by Coggins et al (2021) are centred on persons, while others are directed towards groups, peoples or states. These offer different units of analysis and sometimes overlap. Pronounced inequalities are challenges faced both between persons, peoples and states, as well as within groups of peoples and states. The issue of land dispossession is often disputed between groups, but perhaps primarily within states. Further, issues raised by colonialism and colonial legacies could be of interstate as well as intrastate character while simultaneously affecting peoples and persons. This indicates that there are several structural levels at play when discussing issues of justice and injustice. These could be interpersonal relations between groups as well as relations between states, yet they always have a relational grounding. Hence, one could argue that local, national and regional aspects cut across several issues of justice in the Arctic and that the scope and agency of political actors vary. The focus in this chapter is primarily on a transnational level, acknowledging states as central actors, yet it also acknowledges persons and peoples as subjects of justice. On this transnational level, one platform for collaboration seems to be of particular importance for issues of Arctic governance, but also for addressing issues of justice and injustice: the Arctic Council. Hence, this chapter focuses on the Arctic Council as a platform for justice in the Arctic
Forst’s theory of justice in transnational settings
The German political theorist and philosopher Rainer Forst offers a theory of justification where he argues that the two formal criteria of reciprocity and generality should be guiding the justness of any action, relationship or structure (Forst, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2020). His theory of justification is also his theory of justice. This theory seems to be primarily developed with the national context in mind, focusing on constitutional nation-states; however, Forst’s theory is extendable to a transnational context (Forst, 2001), which is why is relevant for a theory of justice in the Arctic. For Forst, justice is a notion of high political relevance. He argues that: ‘political and social justice is an autonomous collective process of producing social and political conditions that are not only susceptible of justification in reciprocal and general terms, but can themselves be established via justification and aim to realize a basic structure of justification’ (Forst, 2017, p 9).
Forst discusses normative orders in relation to societies, which appears to be an analogy for the nation-state, given that he often takes a constitutional perspective. Following the idea of the nation-state as a normative order, the members of that order are to be seen as normative authorities. However, he also explicitly addresses transnational (in)justice, and argues that this has a normative basis in a democratic conception of justice, which is yet realistic (speaking to the tradition of realism in International Relations scholarship). He critiques parochial or positivistic conceptions of justice, as these are insufficient when questioning empirical and normative premises as they tend to focus on state-centric approaches and therefore miss the forms of injustice beyond the state (Forst, 2020). This clearly shows the importance of taking non-state centric accounts, such as transnational injustice, seriously.
Forst, when discussing justice, talks about persons and the crucial aspect of individuals being free, equal (free from domination) and having the right to justification. This focus on persons is, as he seems to argue, extendable to groups of people. One interpretation of Forst is that he is a cosmopolitan constitutionalist, as one’s right to justification is important also in a transnationalist setting. The right to justification sets two normative criteria: reciprocity and generality. These are the baselines for how to understand and assess justification. In other words, an action is justified if this is done in a reciprocal and general way. He states that: ‘Reciprocity means that no one may make demands that he or she denies to others and no one may impose his or her non-generalizable views, interests or values on others. Generality means that all those for whom norms claim to be valid have to be equally involved’ (Forst, 2016, p 14).
Based on the reasoning of Forst, a transnationalist structure is developed based on the moral aspect of all persons, as well as the political aspects of the cooperation between peoples. Here, Forst builds his reasoning on the Rawlsian notion of peoples, yet argues that the moral status of all persons should be seen as the same – regardless of whether a national or international perspective is applied. What is different is the political solution. This makes Forst’s theory cosmopolitan. A common objection to the political ability to implement this universal human value (or principle of human dignity) is due to the fact that nation-states are still the main players in the international system, and that it is up to a nation-state’s will and ability to act according to this universal moral status. However, the system of states tends always to prioritize their own citizens rather than the interests of people in general. Forst argues that a theory of justice must be ‘realistic’ in the right way, in that it has to be receptive ‘when it comes to assessing the current world order as one of multiple forms of domination’ (Forst, 2020, p 451). I interpret this as an argument for the necessity of taking power relations seriously.
Arctic governance and transnational issues of justice
By mapping the most influential transnational actors in the region of the Arctic, it becomes clear that there are important international, regional, national and local dimensions at play and they each influence issues of justice in different ways. The Arctic is a region where several different nation-states and peoples share a connection and often share interests. The power dimensions in the region are, therefore, interwoven between states, state governments, transnational corporations, local businesses, and local and Indigenous communities. A complex web of stakeholders and actors emerges
The Arctic is also a region where non-Arctic states and organizations (such as the European Union) have interests and stakes, partly due to still-disputed sea jurisdictions (where the boundaries between national and international waters are debated), but also due to the potential natural resources in the region, as well as increased access to trade routes that open up as the ice melts. This creates asymmetries both between Arctic and non-Arctic states, but also within the group of Arctic states, as they have a variety of land that is understood as Arctic territory. However, the asymmetry between Arctic and non-Arctic states seems to be reasonable, particularly based on the principle of sovereignty, but not necessarily by the ‘all affected’ principle. These principles have different scopes, as the first is centred on international relations, whilst the second goes beyond a state-centric perspective. I will return to a discussion of these later.
Traditionally, a state-based perspective has been the dominant way of making sense of international relations as well as global justice. Realist reasoning, which argues that power is the most central force for action between states, has often driven the development of international relations theory. A transnationalist perspective, by challenging a realist international relations perspective while still taking states as central players, would allow taking the state-centric level seriously, but also expand on the agency of other influential actors. Forst argues that the first aspect to address when thinking about ‘issues of justice that transcend the normative boundaries of states is whether one is looking for principles of international or of global justice’, and he argues for a conception of transnational justice that provides an alternative to both globalist and statist views (Forst, 2001, p 120). The statist view focuses primarily on states, while a globalist view tends to focus on persons as subjects of justice. This implies that people and peoples are the units of analysis parallel to nation-states for a transnationalist theory of justice, while person refers to the individual. Forst’s theory is based on a universal, individual right to reciprocal and general justification, and he argues for justifiable social and political relations both within and between states (Forst, 2001, p 120). Given that the Arctic is a region with the previously stated
Let us return to the discussion of governance in the Arctic. One way of addressing and facilitating governance of the region was the creation of the Arctic Council, established by the 1996 Ottawa Declaration, which has proven to be a crucial platform for collaboration, coordination and interaction between the Arctic states and peoples. Scholars argue that the Council has achieved considerable success in identifying emerging issues in the region and transforming them into policy considerations (Kankaanpää and Young, 2012). However, taking states as a starting point for issues of interaction indicates a national or international state-centric perspective, which seems to be a common starting point when addressing different issues in the region. There are, commonly, issues focusing on political arrangements, tensions, conflict and collaboration between states. However, an important factor in creating the Arctic Council and a unique aspect of its structure is the status of permanent participants that six Indigenous groups have. The political solution of creating the Council, therefore, moves beyond the state-centric approach, allowing for non-state groups of central importance in the region to have a say in the debates taking place on the Council. The Aleut International Association, the Arctic Athabaskan Council, the Gwich’in Council International, the Inuit Circumpolar Council, the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North and the Sámi Council have the status as permanent participants which grants them some kind of participation in discussions that play an important role in forming the policy agenda of the Arctic. This novel way of organizing regional governance structures, combining international and transnational perspectives, offers new insights when it comes to questions of participation, representation and recognition – concepts that are central to understanding justice and injustice in the Arctic.
One of the primary reasons that the considerably broad representation at the Arctic Council is important is that it could have significant trickle-down effects on both international and national politics and policies. It is also crucial to acknowledge, particularly from a justice perspective, that actors other than states are recognized as formal members. This is important given that the ‘all affected’ principle is respected to a larger degree than in a pure state-centric organization. Further, it could be interpreted that a transnationalist approach to justice is already present in the Arctic, at least in Arctic governance structures by the formation of the Arctic Council. Importantly, though, acknowledging this as a crucial step for justice in the region is far from saying that the Arctic is a region governed justly. Here, it makes sense to differentiate between procedural justice and justice as recognition. The procedural setup seems to be more just than several
Arctic exceptionalism?
One aspect alluded to earlier is the one of Arctic exceptionalism. This is a theme debated in Arctic scholarly discourses, primarily when it comes to international relations and security studies, even though it has been argued that this narrative is insufficient for understanding the complex security situation in the region (Hoogensen Gjørv and Hodgson, 2019). Questions in this debate are concerned about whether the Arctic is special and/or different from other regions. What is of primary relevance for this chapter and volume is whether or not the Arctic is that different when it comes to issues of justice (rather than security) – and why justice, as a critical notion, could be helpful for better understanding the societal, territorial and environmental aspects of the Arctic. This is driven by the questions of why and how the notion of justice could be understood in the Arctic. This set of questions governs this chapter, yet the Forstian perspective of transnational justice is at the centre of the analysis. I would argue that this transnational perspective has a generalist grounding, as Forst’s principles of generality and reciprocity are developed with a universalist approach in mind, yet allowing for context sensitivity. These principles could potentially challenge the argument of Arctic exceptionalism.
A common argument in regional research is the one of particularity, or exceptionalism, in that the region under study is exceptional, different or deviating in several ways. This kind of argument is common also for research in the Arctic (Käpylä and Mikkola, 2019; Hoogensen Gjørv and Hodgson, 2019). Some of the arguments for this Arctic exceptionalism build on factors such as the political setup, but also issues of climate and environmental challenges. The Arctic is the most heavily affected region by climate change in the world, as the average temperature rise has been shown to be higher and much more rapid in the Arctic than in other parts of the world (Vincent, 2020). Further, this rapid change heavily affects vulnerable and exposed populations which are often minorities and Indigenous peoples primarily living in remote regions who maintain strong links to the environment through their livelihoods (Coggins et al, 2021; Mattar et al, 2020). The developments related to climate change and the precarious situation of the Arctic have, in tandem with the increased economic activities in the Arctic, contributed to the issues of justice becoming increasingly important in the region. It seems to speak to the narrative of Arctic exceptionalism. However, it also seems clear that what happens in the Arctic affects the planet, due to issues like climate change. This adds to the argument of the
There seem to be at least two risks to adopting accounts of justice in the Arctic based on Arctic exceptionalism. The first one is the risk of limiting our understanding of the Arctic, while the second is the risk of limiting our understanding of justice. Therefore, it seems important to allow for theoretical flexibility, both in the conceptualization of the Arctic and in the conceptualization of justice in the Arctic. I argue that Arctic exceptionalism seems not to be theoretically reasonable and that this is more of an empirical question. However, in this chapter one account of justice is assessed for the region. This is not to state that other accounts of justice are not worth exploring, but rather to add to the complex puzzle of justice in the Arctic by exploring one corner of the puzzle.
Assessing a Forstian transnational theory of justice in the Arctic
What happens when we take Forst’s theory of justification and transnational injustice seriously while analysing the general conditions of governance in the Arctic? First, based on the reasoning noted earlier, it becomes clear that the theory of a right to justification is a cosmopolitan one, understanding people as having the same status regardless of where they are citizens. This could be a challenge when it comes to justice in the Arctic Council, if we consider the unit for analysis is not primarily persons, making the Council embedded in a statist-dominated structure.
Let us return to the principles mentioned earlier by beginning with the principle of sovereignty and the ’all affected’ principle, in relation to the Arctic. First, the principle of sovereignty could be seen as one approach to distributing power and voice between states, and as all Arctic states are recognized as sovereign parties with equal legal standing in international law, they have equal standing. This clearly has an international, state-based dimension. The ‘all affected’ principle, on the other hand, is not limited to nation-state borders but is instead rather transnational in character. In the context of the Arctic, and in light of discussions in climate justice debates, the effects of what is happening in the Arctic affect people across the globe. This would imply that the ‘all affected’ principle has a potentially wider
What seems important when it comes to transnational justice in the Arctic Council is that arguments are delivered in a reciprocal and general way. Meaning that any state or group representative must make claims that their own leaders and fellow representatives would allow in their own country or territory. You cannot make claims to others you would not accept yourself. Further, if all ‘those for whom the norms are valid’, then all of the members – regardless of their status – should be equally involved. This seems to indicate that the formal aspects of generality are accounted for when it comes to generality in the Arctic Council, but we need an empirical study to assess the viability of reciprocity on the Council.
Conclusion
This chapter has discussed different aspects of justice and it has stressed the need to pursue different types of justice theorizing in order to better understand what justice and injustice are in the Arctic. The reasoning has centred on issues of justice and injustice on a transnational level, even though the arguments are of general character. One of the takeaways of this chapter is that it is crucial to be sensitive to regional and local circumstances of justice and injustice. This is the case even though the chapter ends in a position favouring an application of general theories of justice in the context of the Arctic, utilizing the normative principles of reciprocity and generality, yet allowing for contextual differences. This further implies a humble scepticism towards the narrative of Arctic exceptionalism.
The chapter has been governed by a few questions. Firstly, I asked if it is reasonable to understand the Arctic as special or different from other regions when it comes to issues of justice. What has been argued throughout the chapter is that issues of justice in the Arctic are central to the peoples of the Arctic, but also to some extent to a global audience, as events in the Arctic affect people across the globe due to climate change. This makes a discussion of who is affected a central one. A second question was how and why justice, as a critical notion, could be helpful for better understanding the societal, territorial and environmental aspects of the Arctic? This seems to be the case, and a Forstian notion of transnational justice has been helpful but
The third question, which covers two aspects, asks how and why the notion of justice can be understood in the Arctic. Throughout the chapter, I have demonstrated that a transnationalist account of justice seems plausible and applicable to the Arctic region. However, this has also brought a few new questions, as the focus in this chapter has been on an international and transnational level, primarily focusing on governance structures in the Arctic. I used the Arctic Council as an example, which arguably has proven to be useful for thinking about transnational justice in practice. As stated earlier, numerous different aspects could be raised when it comes to issues of justice, or injustices, in the Arctic. These could be seen as located on different levels, yet often connecting more than one level to another. Novel accounts in previous research, including several chapters in this volume, offer innovative insights on different aspects of justice – or rather injustices – from various sectors across the Arctic. For instance, reindeer herders’ struggles for access to land, the placement of windmills in traditional land areas or the unevenly distributed consequences of climate change that present severe and concrete challenges for several people and peoples in the Arctic. These examples include issues of what is the right or wrong thing to do, but also to what extent the approaches or actions trying to address these are just. This indicates that there are moral aspects intertwined into the issues of justice, which are clearly also of legal and political character. Identifying these moral aspects is crucial and strengthens a normative approach if the aim is to discuss the issues through the lens of ethics.
However, seeing issues of justice and injustice in the Arctic as only moral problems (issues of right and wrong) risks providing a simplified understanding, even though elements of right and wrong are necessary for understanding issues of justice and injustice. As this volume shows, these issues are much more complex, intertwined and multi-layered, and commonly have moral implications. Justice theorists have shown that an action, which is seen to be right, could be unjust, while an action that seems wrong could be just, depending on perspective or starting point. This is largely a matter of which perspective is taken as a starting point, which proves that paying attention to different aspects of justice is crucial for better understanding the potential justness of developments in the Arctic.
Study questions
- 1.What are the pros and cons of focusing on justice versus injustice?
- 2.What are the strengths and weaknesses of a statist, globalist and transnationalist account concerning justice?
- 3.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of a transnational approach to justice in the Arctic?
Acknowledgements
This chapter has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 869327.
The author wishes to thank fellow contributors, in particular Berit Skorstad and Aaron Cooper, for helpful comments in revising this chapter, and Michael Shirley for language and copyedits.
References
Coggins, S., J.D. Ford, L. Berrang-Ford, S. Harper, K. Hyams, J. Paavola, I. Arotoma-Rojas, and P. Satyal (2021) ‘Indigenous peoples and climate justice in the Arctic’, Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, February. Available from: https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2021/02/23/indigenous-peoples-and-climate-justice-in-the-arctic/ [Accessed 25 October 2021].
Crawford, B.K. (2021) ‘Explaining Arctic peace: a human heritage perspective’, International Relations, 35(3): 469–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178211036782.
Forst, R. (2001) ‘Towards a critical theory of transnational justice’, Metaphilosophy, 32: 160–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9973.00180.
Forst, R. (2014) The Right to Justification: Elements of a Constructivist Theory of Justice, New York: Columbia University Press.
Forst, R. (2016) ‘The justification of basic rights: a discourse-theoretical approach’, Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, 3: 7–28.
Forst, R. (2017) Normativity and Power: Analyzing Social Orders of Justification, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Forst, R. (2020) ‘A critical theory of transnational (in-)justice: realistic in the right way’, in T. Brooks (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Global Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 451–72.
Heininen, L. (2018) ‘Arctic geopolitics from classical to critical approach – importance of immaterial factors’, Geography, Environment, Sustainability, 11(1): 171–86. https://doi.org/10.24057/2071-9388-2018-11-1-171-186
Hoogensen Gjørv, G., and K.K. Hodgson (2019) ‘“Arctic exceptionalism” or “comprehensive security”? Understanding security in the Arctic’, in L. Heininen, H. Exner-Pirot and J. Barnes (eds) The Arctic Yearbook 2019: Redefining Arctic Security, Akureyri, Iceland: Arctic Portal, pp 218–30.
Kankaanpää, P., and O.R. Young (2012) ‘The effectiveness of the Arctic Council’, Polar Research, 31. https://doi.org/10.3402/polar.v31i0.17176
Käpylä, J., and H. Mikkola (2019) ‘Contemporary Arctic meets world politics: rethinking Arctic exceptionalism in the Age of Uncertainty’, in M. Finger and L. Heininen (eds) The Global Arctic Handbook, Cham: Springer, pp 153–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91995-9_10
Keil, K. (2014) ‘The Arctic: a new region of conflict? The case of oil and gas’, Cooperation and Conflict, 49(2): 162–90.
Kortetmäki, T. (2018) ‘Can species have capabilities, and what if they can?’, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 31: 307–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-018-9726-7.
Mattar, S.D., M. Mikulewicz, and D. McCauley (2020) ‘Climate justice in the Arctic: a critical and interdisciplinary climate research agenda’, in L. Heininen, H. Exner-Pirot and J. Barnes (eds) The Arctic Yearbook 2020: Climate Change and the Arctic: Global Origins, Regional Responsibilities?, Akureyri, Iceland: Arctic Portal, pp 260–85.
Pincus, R., and the Foreign Policy Research Institute (2021, April 6) Braving the Cold: Climate, Competition, and Collaboration in the Arctic Sea Lanes [video] YouTube. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYqbxVnq6I4 [Accessed 25 October 2021].
Rauschmayer, F., T. Bauler, and N. Schäpke (2015) ‘Towards a thick understanding of sustainability transitions – linking transition management, capabilities and social practices’, Ecological Economics, 109: 211–21.
SeaPower (2021, January 28) ‘U.S. coast guard, Russian border guard patrolled maritime boundary line’, [online], Available from: https://seapowermagazine.org/u-s-coast-guard-russian-border-guard-patrolled-maritime-boundary-line/ [Accessed 25 October 2021].
Sidortsov, R., and A. Badyina (2023, in this volume) ‘Expanding collective capabilities to conceptualize and assess the impact of oil and gas activities on the energy transition in the Arctic’, in C. Wood-Donnelly and J. Ohlsson (eds) Arctic Justice: Environment, Society and Governance. Bristol: Bristol University Press.
Similä, J., and M. Jokinen (2018) ‘Governing conflicts between mining and tourism in the Arctic’, Arctic Review, 9: 148–73. https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v9.1068.
Tunsjø, Ø. (2020) ‘The great hype: false visions of conflict and opportunity in the Arctic’, Survival, 62(5): 139–56. doi: 10.1080/00396338.2020.1819649.
Vincent, W.F. (2020) ‘Arctic climate change: local impacts, global consequences, and policy implications’, in K. Coates and C. Holroydc (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Arctic Policy and Politics, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp 507–26.
Willand, N., and R. Horne (2018) ‘“They are grinding us into the ground” – the lived experience of (in)energy justice amongst low-income older households’, Applied Energy, 226: 61–70.
