United States Arctic Interests: Background for Policy

  • William E. Westermeyer
Conference paper


The polar regions have been of interest primarily to adventurers and scientists until relatively recent times. The growing importance of the Arctic to a wider range of people stems largely from the search for nonrenewable resources. Resources such as oil and gas have become more difficult to find in temperate climates, while the means of exploring for and extracting resources once considered impossible to reach is improving. Of all the potentially important frontier areas for resource development, the Arctic is emerging as that area likely to receive greatest attention in the next two decades. The question is no longer whether to develop, but how, when, and with what precautionary measures. John Muir observed that “when we try to pick up anything by itself, we find it attached to everything in the universe.”1 Such is the case in the Arctic.


Polar Region National Interest Bowhead Whale Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Arctic Research 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. John Muir, John M. Armstrong and Peter C. Ryner, Ocean Management: A New Perspective (Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., 1981), p. x.Google Scholar
  2. E. F. Roots, “Environmental Aspects of Arctic Marine Transportation and Development,” in Marine Transportation and High Arctic Development: Policy Framework and Priorities (Ottawa: Canadian Arctic Resources Committee, 1979), p. 69.Google Scholar
  3. National Foreign Assessment Center, Central Intelligence Agency, Polar Regions Atlas (Washington, DC: CIA, May 1978), p. 4.Google Scholar
  4. Douglas M. Johnston, ed., Arctic Ocean Issues in the 1980s (University of Hawaii, 1982).Google Scholar
  5. Cynthia Carlson, “U.S. Arctic Policy Issues: Towards an Analytic Framework.” Term paper, University of Virginia, Center for Ocean Law and Policy (January 1983), p. 20.Google Scholar
  6. John G. Gissberg, “Alaska’s Role in Arctic Development: Legal and Political Considerations.” Proceedings preprints to the Arctic Technology and Policy Conference, held at MIT, Cambridge, MA, March 2–4, 1983, p. 1.Google Scholar
  7. Lincoln P. Bloomfield, “The Arctic: Last Unmanaged Frontier,” Foreign Affairs, Fall 1981, pp. 103–104.Google Scholar
  8. R. Tucker Scully, “Arctic Policy—Opportunities and Perspectives.” Proceedings of Arctic Technology and Policy Conference, March 2–4, 1983, p. 5.Google Scholar
  9. Brian D. Smith, United States Arctic Policy, Ocean Policy Study 1:1 (Charlottesville, VA: Center for Oceans Law and Policy, University of Virginia, January 1978), pp. 39–40.Google Scholar
  10. Biliana Cicin-Sain and Robert W. Knecht, “The Problem of Governance of U.S. Ocean Resources and the New Exclusive Economic Zone.” Paper presented at the First Meeting of the National Ocean Policy Roundtable, Airlie House, VA, November 28–30, 1983, p. 30.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • William E. Westermeyer
    • 1
  1. 1.United States Congress Office of Technology AssessmentUniversity of CaliforniaWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations