包邮法律与治理:极地议题的新进展 LAW AND GOVERNANCE:EMERGING ISSUES OF THE POL

　　《法律与治理：极地议题的新进展（英文版）》：　　In light of the track record of public research cooperation and the political and sustainability problems around natural resource-based economies, the next step in Sino-Arctic cooperation should be all round knowledge-based.I therefore encourage research and public and private policy-makers and decision-makers to strive for triple-helix knowledge-based cooperation between China and the Arctic countries as well as other stake-holders. Triple-helix cooperation （there are usually more than three helixes, but the triple-helix concept is well-known） entails cooperation between academia, business and government （Etzkowitz 2008）. Traditionally, triple-helix cooperation has been within a regional or national innovation system, as around Cambridge, MA, or Silicon Valley. However, there is every reason to increasingly consider transnational triple - helix coopeation both from a policy and a research perspective. Here the Arctic is an excellent venue to develop transnational triplehelix cooperation between China and the Arctic countries and third parties （Bertelsen 2016, 180-184） .　　There are important sustainability challenges in the Arctic conceming environment and society, where important lessons can be learned for local and outside parties. China is also facing important sustainability challenges and is vulnerable to climate change.The Arctic is therefore a good opportunity for China, Arctic countries and third parties to engage in research, development, innovation and entrepreneurship in a triple-helix setting between academia, business, civil society, government and others. Such triple-helix cooperation for sustainability offers the opportunity for all sides to pursue a number of important policy aims simultaneously.　　First of all, knowledge-based cooperation is an important practice to build epistemic communities and co-create knowledge and build trust between status quo powers and a rising power under power transition. Secondly, triple-helix cooperation for sustainable development helps all parties address important problems in their own comrmuuties and countries as well as on a global scale （especially climate change）.　　The other important systemic development affecting the Arctic is the ongoing post-post-Cold War geopolitical competition between Russia and NATO/EU, which is very acute in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus（Mearsheimer 2014, 77-89）.The problems at the root of this rivalry touch theoretically realist questions of national security and strategic depth for Russia, theoretically liberal questions of the domestic political economy and regime continuity within Russia, and theoreticaUy constructivist questions of language and identity in the post-Soviet space. Resolving this geopolitical crisis will require a deep understanding of the relative importance of these realist, liberal and constructivist factors. Ukraine as a realist problem will require NATO and EU being attentive to Russian concems about loss of conventional strategic depth. Such concems can be addressed through limitations on conventional forces in the region and sustaining Russian nuclear deterrence. Liberal threats to the domestic political economy of Russia and the political survival of current leadership from a successful, democratic Ukraine integrated into the EU is more difficult to handle, since the EU cannot guarantee a domestic political economic order and political continuity in Russia that cannot withstand civil society challenges.Constructivist fears about language and identity can be addressed by linguistic, cultural and educational rights and policies.　　Russia does not face a geopolitical threat in the Arctic as in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus, and therefore Russia is not threatening the Arctic order, which generally benefits Russia. Great powers have myriad points of interaction, geogaphically and functionally. Great powers therefore continuously consider whether to link or delink confficts in one region or functional area with other geographic areas or functional areas.The USA and the EU decided to link the Ukraine crisis and the Arctic through financial and technological sanctions on Russian Arctic offshore oil and gas activities. In contrast, Russia has consciously continued it Arctic institutional engagement in the Arctic Council and encouraging Arctic research dialogue, where the author was invited to represent Danish research at the annual high-level Arctic meeting of the Russian security council in 2014 and 2015 and the Arctic Dialogue of the Gorchakov Fund for Public Diplomacy in Moscow in 2017. Circumpolar Arctic research and educational cooperation continues despite the Ukraine crisis and illustrates how knowledge-based cooperation can maintain cooperation in one region or functional area despite deep political conflict in another.　　……