“Autonomy” Versus “Cooperation”-The Debate Over Foreign Governance Models In The Arctic Domain

The Arctic is located at the northern extension of the three continents of Asia,Europe and North America,and is covered by vast ice sheets year-round.The rest of the Arctic is considered a global commons,except for some of the Arctic territories and territories owned by eight countries: Denmark,Canada,Russia,Norway,Sweden,Finland,Iceland and the United States.The Arctic region is very rich in natural resources.In recent years,global warming,the melting of Arctic ice and snow,and the accelerated development of Arctic resources and shipping lanes have attracted the attention of various countries around the world to the Arctic.As a result,disputes between various countries over Arctic resources and shipping lanes have become increasingly evident.The states with territories or territorial waters in the Arctic region are called intraterritorial states,while other states are called extraterritorial states.The different governance models advocated by intraterritorial states and extraterritorial states in the Arctic region have brought the competition for the governance of Arctic affairs to a fever pitch.While the intra-territorial states have adopted the autonomous Arctic governance model,which upholds the principle of "intra-territorial consultation and extra-territorial exclusion",the foreign states advocate the cooperative Arctic governance model,which emphasizes the need to strengthen cooperation among states and promote the globalization of Arctic governance.There are irreconcilable contradictions and competition between the two Arctic governance models.Regarding the causes of the two different Arctic governance models,domestic and foreign scholars have analyzed them from the perspectives of geography,interests,identity,and values,respectively.However,from the current state of research,scholars at home and abroad have explored the causes of the different Arctic governance models from a single perspective,and these scattered and single-angle discussions cannot fully explain the causes of the different Arctic governance models.In order to conduct a holistic study and theoretical overview of the causes of different Arctic governance models,based on rationalist theory,culturalism theory,constructivist theory and Joseph Nye’s soft power theory,this paper selects three variables,identity,interests and capabilities,and proposes an intention-capability analysis framework in an attempt to comprehensively analyze the The intention refers to the differences in identity and interests.Intentions refer to identity and interest differences,while capabilities refer to a country’s hard and soft power.In terms of identity,the difference between the "Arctic state" identity of the host state and the "nearArctic state" identity of the host state and the foreign state creates identity differences between the host state and the foreign state,and the identity differences create a sense of disagreement and mistrust between the host state and the foreign state.In terms of interests,the main claim of the domestic state is sovereign interests,while the main claim of the foreign state is development interests,and there is a difference in their interests in the Arctic region.In terms of capabilities,intraterritorial states have natural geopolitical advantages over foreign states,including intraterritorial resources,governance tools,development technologies,and military deterrence.These factors together have led to the adoption of an autonomy-focused Arctic governance model by the intra-territorial states,while the foreign states advocate a cooperative and equal rights-focused Arctic governance model.