Sea Ice
- About
- Imprint
- Scenarios
- Arctic Marine Transportation by 2030
- Introduction
- Aim of this Study
- Key Factor Classification
- Deļ¬nitions of Key Factors and Future Projections
- 1. Climate
- 2. Legal framework
- 3. Global Trade Dynamics – Global economic growth
- 4. Safety of other Routes
- 5. Socio-economic impact of global climate change
- 6. Oil Price
- 7. Major Arctic Shipping Disasters
- 8. Windows of Operation
- 9. Maritime Insurance Industry
- 10. Collaboration in resource extraction by China, Japan and Russia
- 11. Transit fees
- 12. Conflict between indigenous and commercial use
- 13. Arctic Enforcers
- 14. Energy sources for propulsion
- 15. New resource discovery
- 16. World Trade Patterns
- 17. Regulation in the Arctic
- Consistency matrix
- Scenarios
- Suggest Wild Cards
- Suggest Key Factors
- References
- Glossary
- Yakutat Community Energy Scenarios
- Introduction to Scenario-Management
- The Consistency and Robustness Analysis
- 1. Key Factors and their Future Projections
- 2. Assigning plausibility values to future projections
- 3. Projection Bundles
- 4. Assigning consistency values
- 5. Obtaining overall consistency values for the projection bundles
- 6. The combinatorial problem of the consistency analysis
- 7. The Robustness of a projection bundle
- Disruptive event analysis – Wild Cards
- ScenLab v1.7 Client download
- Arctic Marine Transportation by 2030
13. Arctic Enforcers
AMSA Evaluation: Importance: 5, Uncertainty: 5, Sum: 10
Classification: Politics
The policy for the Arctic will have to be enforced. Hence, with increasing
activity in the region there will be an increased demand for an executive force that
is properly equipped for the task.
13.1 Strong multilateral military presence
Plausibility: 0.15
Five of the eight littoral countries of the Arctic are NATO members (Source:
www.nato.int). And as NATO forces are (as of today) already patrolling international
waters in the Mediterranean (Operation Active Endeavor, www.nato.int)
this could be a template to control activities in the Arctic.
The littoral countries agree on a multilateral military force to control activities
in the Arctic. Each countries military supplies this force with parts of their troops,
but the command is held by the governing organization of the Arctic.
13.2 Strong multilateral police force
Plausibility: 0.2
A special police force comprised of nationals of all littoral states is founded and
funded to enforce policies in Arctic waters. This Arctic police is not part of any
military branch and reports only to the organization governing the Arctic.
13.3 Everyone protects their own waters – cooperatively
Plausibility: 0.35
Each littoral state protects their own waters in the Arctic with the forces meant
for this activity (e.g the US Coast Guard). Short-term endeavors into another
countries region are not considered a breach of sovereignty and the overall climate
is one of cooperation.
13.4 Conflicts (passive) between different enforcers
Plausibility: 0.25
Each littoral state protects their own waters in the Arctic with the forces meant
for this activity (e.g the US Coast Guard). Entering the waters of another littoral
country has to be avoided as this might be considered a breach of sovereignty and
can lead to diplomatic tension.
13.5 Arctic privateers – Wild West of the North
Plausibility: 0.05
Tension about rights in the Arctic is high and to put pressure on other littoral
countries it is common practice to ground their vessels and to confiscate cargo.
This is not necessarily done by official military forces, but by forces disguised as
fishing or cargo vessels.
#1 by Steinmueller on September 27, 2008 - 9:34 am
You could here consider a sub-option of 13.4 as a wild card: conflicts between enforcers lead to escalation of violence. Anyway, one wild card should cover an outright (military) conflict between Russia and other arctic nations.
#2 by Marc on December 2, 2008 - 3:45 pm
@Steinmueller
Such a wild card exists now.