Presidential Leadership and Institutional Constraints in Polar Regions: Navigating Security Threats and Strategic Competition

This paper explores how presidential leadership is shaped by institutional constraints in the polar regions, focusing on the Arctic and Antarctic as critical spaces of security threats and great power competition. The polar regions have emerged as strategic areas where shifting geopolitical dynamics—driven by climate change, resource competition, and growing military investment and presence —challenge traditional governance structures. Presidents in Arctic and Antarctic states must navigate complex institutional frameworks domestically and internationally to address these evolving threats while maintaining strategic alliances and protecting national interests. The paper examines three dimensions of presidential leadership in polar regions: 1. Institutional Constraints and Domestic Governance, addressing how domestic institutions, such as legislatures and courts, shape presidential decision-making on polar security issues. Case studies include U.S. Arctic policies under recent administrations and Russia’s centralized approach to Arctic governance 2. Geopolitical Competition and Strategic Alliances, exploring the role of international institutions like the Arctic Council and bilateral alliances in mediating presidential actions amid intensifying competition with Russia and China. This section evaluates how presidents leverage or are constrained by multilateral frameworks to address issues such as military buildup, resource extraction, and environmental governance. 3. Public Opinion and Non-Institutional Actors, consideting the influence of public opinion, indigenous communities, environmental advocacy groups, and private sector stakeholders on presidential leadership in polar policy-making. Comparative examples include indigenous rights advocacy in Canada’s Arctic policy and private sector influence on Antarctic resource management. By analyzing these dimensions through a comparative lens, the paper highlights the tensions between executive authority, institutional constraints, and the unique geopolitical realities of the polar regions. It argues that while institutional frameworks serve as critical checks on presidential power, they can also limit timely responses to emerging security threats. Conversely, weak institutional constraints may lead to unilateralism or exacerbate regional instability. This paper offers a focused analysis of how institutional dynamics influence presidential leadership in the polar regions—a critical but often overlooked aspect of global security governance. It provides comparative insights into how different political systems manage the intersection of executive power, institutional accountability, and great power competition in these strategically significant areas. It employs a comparative case study approach, drawing on primary documents, secondary literature on polar politics, and expert analyses of U.S., Russian, Canadian, and Nordic policies. It integrates interdisciplinary perspectives to contextualize findings within broader geopolitical trends. This paper examines how presidents operate within institutional constraints to address polar-specific challenges. It bridges theoretical debates on executive power with empirical evidence from the Arctic and Antarctic, offering unique insights into leadership in these contested regions. It concludes by emphasizing the importance of strengthening multilateral cooperation frameworks like the Arctic Council while addressing gaps in domestic institutional capacity to respond effectively to polar security challenges. It calls for a balanced approach that preserves democratic accountability while enhancing strategic agility in navigating great power competition in the polar regions.