Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

The eight recognized Arctic states—Canada, Denmark (via Greenland), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States—have long cooperated in the Arctic region, even when their respective interests, especially those between Russia and the United States, have clashed on other matters. They have done so because each state perceives that it benefits from the current state of cooperation, which occurs through a set of international, regional, and subregional governance mechanisms. But conditions in the Arctic are evolving—driven by such factors as climate change, economics, and geopolitics—and thus its governance mechanisms must also evolve in order to mitigate new risks before they potentially escalate into conflict. What are these risks? How should existing governance mechanisms evolve to mitigate those risks? In this report, researchers propose and implement an adaptive, four-stage approach to identify potential Arctic conflict catalysts; determine, confirm, and prioritize the catalysts that cannot be solved through existing Arctic governance mechanisms; and identify potential governance mechanisms that can evolve to mitigate identified risks. The researchers conclude that, to decrease the risk of unraveling cooperation by 2030, Arctic stakeholders should work toward resolving gaps in Arctic governance in three ways: improving currently limited dialogue and transparency on military issues, updating and providing new capabilities to implement existing governance agreements, and enabling more inclusivity in Arctic-relevant decisionmaking without challenging the sovereignty of Arctic states.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

The Antarctic is becoming a zone of contested governance. Leveraging open-source literature and a tabletop exercise (TTX), the authors examine the possible implications that geostrategic manoeuvring and competition in the Antarctic in the coming decades might have on the longevity and resilience of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), a governance regime that seems increasingly ill-fitted to modern strategic dynamics. The authors develop a portrait of the Antarctic as a potential point of geostrategic tension by conducting a review of the history of the ATS, highlighting existing challenges with governance, and setting the stage for possible friction points between nations. The authors explore the interested parties, the nature of their interests and their existing positions as reflected in their policies and activities. This analysis was used to design and develop a TTX that challenged, tested and stretched thinking and identified potential geostrategic friction points for the Antarctic. The authors provide empirically driven projections of future dynamics to expose uncertainty, expand understanding and provide a stronger basis for policy and decisionmaking for the region.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Climate-driven natural hazards will continue to affect Department of the Air Force (DAF) installations and missions for the foreseeable future. There is a need for the DAF to consider how installation infrastructure projects that improve hazard resilience may be prioritized. This report provides the DAF with a structured framework for evaluating infrastructure projects based on their potential climate resilience value so that investment decisions may credibly and systematically consider climate-related risk and resilience at the enterprise level.