Arctic Yearbook 2014 - Page 459

459 Arctic Yearbook 2014 Thus, it would be wiser to re-manifest the dominance on, or even ‘ownership’ of, the North Pole by having an international delegation on board. Or, is this simply due to the fact that the current Arctic cooperation is both international and institutionalized, but in a new state due to globalization? Whatever the case, the acceptance of several major powers from Asia as observers of the Arctic Council has created a new geopolitical situation, as well as challenges, for the Arctic states, particularly the littoral states. Followed from this they consciously know that they share interests, would like to agree (as much as possible) on Arctic issues, management and governance, and would like to show that there are common ‘house rules’ in the Arctic, as well as the Arctic Council, which newcomers should also respect. Here the Russian Federation is an important actor, and thus the October 2013 voyage to the North Pole can be interpreted to play an important role in the cooperation. Third, the North Pole Torch Relay was even more: the strong representation of the international Arctic science community strongly shows, even manifests, the interplay between science, (higher) education and sports. This was supported by the series of lectures on the Arctic covering several fields, such as international maritime law, climate change, geopolitics, oceanography by the torchbearers (as a human interest, I was honoured to be the first political scientist having a lecture on geopolitics at the North Pole). This has not been the case earlier with Olympic torch relays. It is more a post-modern than traditional or national approach which reminds me about the niche of the Northern Research Forum and the main design of its Open Assemblies. This is the direction where international, multilateral cooperation in the globalized Arctic is going, or should go, into. Fourth, this was the first time that t H