Who Can Make the Regime in the Arctic Region? Game Theory Analysis on the EU-China Leadership Battle of International Regime Making in the Arctic between EU’s Liberalism or China’s Regional Multilateralism?

Mr Jiangtian Xu1

1University Of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom

The ultimate ambition of the project is to explore whether EU can be the new international regime maker by initiating the liberalism through its effort to negotiate, contract as well as sustainably adjust the agreements with third countries based on the externalization of Normative Power Europe. Or China will play a more important role to make the regimes in the Arctic region by using its Regional Multilateralism under the One Belt One Road Grand National Strategy to deal with EU’s liberalism. Can the EU’s liberalism or China’s regional multilateralism be winning the battle of regime making?

The research will be conducted by the case study on the regime making of natural resource governance in the Arctic region

Game Theory analysis will be used as the method to explore whether EU or China can make a new model of international regimes in the Arctic region The exploratory study of my research approached by Game Theory analysis can contribute a new dimension to both academic discussions as well as practical operations of international politics. The research finds out that EU and China all have potentials of being the new international regime maker with the ideologies of liberalism or regional multilateralism.


I was one of the four UACES Scholar 2017 granted by the University Association of Contemporary European Studies in London.

I got the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC) Travel Grant for 2019 Arctic Science Summit Week (ASSW),

Development of the UK-Russia Arctic Research and Collaboration Network Arctic Research Conference Grant, Scott Polar Institute, Cambridge University, 2017

I also got grants from Yale University, United Nations University, DAAD of Germany, Sasakawa and Santander Award, etc. Under these grants, I was visiting researcher at National University of Singapore, Tokyo Institute of Technology and Tohoku University in Japan respectively in 2017 and 2018.

The Spitsbergen proto-condominium treaty of 1920: Russian or American roots – or Norwegian ones?

Prof. Roald Berg1

1University Of Stavanger, Bru, Norway

During the nationalist 19th century, “occupation came largely to be understood in terms of sovereignty” (Fitzmaurice 2014). That is the general background for the Norwegian-Swedish diplomatic explore for bringing the terra nullius Spitsbergen under Norwegian sovereignty in the 1870s. Russia vetoed and launched the idea of a “proto-condominium” as a “soft-law” arrangement to one-state rule, an idea that the American lawyer and Secretary of State, Lansing, forged into the Spitsbergen treaty in 1920 to solve this “unique international problem” (Rossi 2017). The paper shows, contrary, that the development from Russian veto to American-dictated combination of political sovereignty and economic community resulted from the close relationship between American and Norwegian international lawyers and the international orientation of Swedish polar researchers and industrialists in the guano age. The genesis of the Spitsbergen treaty must be hunt out in the alliance between the American and Norwegian peace- and arbitration policies and the Swedish industrial internationalism. The Russian 1870-veto was only a disguise for an international scepticism to Norwegian sovereignty at the beginning of European colonialism. The “gentle civilizers” of international law (Koskenniemi 2002) solved the self-contradiction of sovereignty, condominium and resistance against Norwegian polar expansionism by splitting political and territorial sovereignty (Berg 2017).


Roald Berg, professor of history, University of Stavanger, Norway, visiting fellow at Scott Polar Institute, University of Cambridge, 2015. Main publications: Norsk utanrikspolitikk etter 1814 [Norwegian foreign politics], Oslo 2016; co-writer: Into the Ice. The History of Norway and the Polar Regions, Oslo 2006; “Norway, Spitsbergen, and America, 1905-1920”, Diplomacy & Statecraft, 28:1 (2017); “From “Spitsbergen” to “Svalbard”. Norwegianization in Norway and in the “Norwegian Sea”, 1820-1925, Acta Borealia, Vol. 30 (2013), “Cooperation of the Scandinavian countries 1914-1918” (in Russian), in Barents Miscellany 1 (2013), “A Norwegian policy for the north before World War I?”,  Acta Borealia, Vol. 11-12 (1994/95).

Atom-Free Antarctica: Its Origins and Lessons for the Arctic

Mr Ryan Musto1

1The George Washington University, Washington, United States

The 1959 Antarctic Treaty made Antarctica the first “atom-free zone” in the world. My presentation explores the origins of that arrangement. It argues that the United States only agreed to regional denuclearization after Antarctica’s neighboring nations, and especially Argentina, pressured the United States to forego the right to “peaceful nuclear explosions” in the continent. I reveal that domestic politics played a large role in the Argentine posture, as did broader southern hemispheric concern over nuclear testing. Meanwhile, Western nations looked warily upon the volatile behavior of the Soviet Union on the matter. As the last issue to be resolved, the contentious nuclear question threatened the existence of the draft Antarctic Treaty. Looking to reap numerous Cold War benefits from an international agreement over Antarctica, the United States reversed course and rallied nations to support Antarctic denuclearization.

In looking at the origins of Antarctica’s atom-free zone, my presentation also seeks to understand the lessons that could be applied to Antarctica’s polar opposite: The Arctic. This question is particularly important as geostrategic competition over the high north heats up. While I will highlight the enormous differences between the two regions, I will also identify constructive similarities that could emerge.


I am currently a sixth year PhD candidate in history at The George Washington University. During the 2019-2020 academic year, I will be a Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). I hold master’s degrees in international and world history from Columbia University and the London School of Economics, and a BA (hons.) in history from New York University (NYU). My work has been published by Diplomatic History, Diplomacy & Statecraft, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Americas Quarterly, and more.

Peopling the Future: Applying an Interpretive Methodology to Highlight Solutions for Global Inequality, or Conflict in the Pre-Colonization Stage of Polar Regions Development and Outer Space Development

Prof. Edythe Weeks1

1Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff , United States, 2Fulbright Specialist Program, Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America, 3Webster University, St. Louis, United States of America, 4Washington University, St. Louis, United States of America

The fundamentals of polar law can be advanced by borrowing insights from outer space law. Outer space is further away that Earth’s nearby polar regions. Yet, international space law is extensively developed and detailed compared to polar law. The first phase of outer space development included the creation of a satellite telecommunications infrastructure in the geostationary orbit. It also resulted in the globalization of new high tech products and services – widespread global use of cell phones, the Internet, social networks, and wireless financial transactions. A myriad of United Nations declarations, resolutions and international treaties along with dozens of domestic commercial space legislation and policies accompanied the development of an outer space based satellite global economy. A pattern exists whereby forces of globalization and U.S. domestic space law exhibited a tendency of setting commercialization and privatization trends. Over time, commercialization and privatization processes became the norm for satellite telecommunications, remote sensing, space transportation & launch services, space stations and spaceports. As commercial asteroid mining, spaceship development, missions to Mars and other outer space activities advance, international space law is being politicized. This pattern carries an important lesson for lawmaking practices concerning the now rapidly melting polar regions.


Dr. Edythe E. Weeks. Esq. is an author, professor and Fulbright Specialist, promoting the study of Antarctica, the Arctic and Outer Space.

Weeks earned her PhD in political science from Northern Arizona University in 2006 and a Juris Doctors from the University of Missouri – Columbia, School of Law in 1987. Weeks was named as a space law subject matter expert in a Pentagon white paper in 2018 and she co-authored the ground breaking International Study on Global Space Governance, organized by the Institute of Air & Space Law, Faculty of Law, McGill University.

About conferences.com.au

conferences.com.au provides delegate registration, website and app solutions, and financial management for conferences, conventions and scientific meetings.

Terms & Conditions

All registrations and bookings are subject to our standard term and conditions.

Contact Us

Please contact the team at conferences.com.au with any questions regarding the conference.
© 2017 - 2020 Conference Design Pty Ltd. conferences.com.au is a division of Conference Design Pty Ltd.