Globalization of International Politics

Globalization via the digital age is upon us, demanding a new ethics and an intercultural awareness while the dialectics of globalism and cyberspace mandate a committed reflection on what the synthesis between the digital realm and global citizenship entails. In many ways, the borders that previously separated us as citizens physically and culturally have begun to dissipate, replaced by a call for an intercultural accountability and a form of global citizenship that, on one hand, surpasses borders, patriotism, and nationalism alike, but while on the other, demands an understanding and respect for the cultural idiosyncrasies among us, acknowledging the unique existential paradox of universal citizenship that posits each of us as both stranger and citizen on a commonly shared globe.

What is cosmopolitan in the digital age? Is a global digital citizen the same as merely a digital citizen? While talk of digital citizenship has increased in recent years, usually centered on a capitalist drive, encouraging a full electronic participation in society and a responsibility to digital commerce, many questions remain unanswered.  Is the netizen the citizen of a democratic state, and of digital democracy? As a citizen of the world interacting online, how will one’s “rights” and “duties” be determined? And are these “rights” universal, and in such a case, what does “universal” mean? What are the legal parameters of netizenship, and what will they be as globalization further takes hold? Is democracy critical to citizenship, or is it not? What are the political landscapes of global citizenship in the digital age? And last of all, is the concept of digital citizenship even tangible? Is it real?

Amongst Arctic states, national governments have each presented unique platforms for domestic Indigenous representation and consultation in Arctic policy and projects. However, these have proven to have largely been hindered by two main factors: the structure of domestic politics and its emphasis on majority support for and prioritization of policy initiatives, and the high level of state interest in lucrative Arctic resource projects driven by profit-oriented actors to the detriment of indigenous rights. This article provides evidence to support this assertion and examines how theories of globalization’s effect on citizen influence within states and at the global level can be used to explain this phenomenon. At the same time, state reliance on actors bound by the common purpose of achieving knowledge to be used for the purpose of resource extraction is considered to constitute a lack of diversity in the epistemic communities considered to be substantively influential for state-led Arctic policy. It is further contended that for Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations (IPOs), working through international bodies has historically proven to be more advantageous in terms of achieving expressed objectives and meaningful consultation on Arctic policy.