Search results

The introduction of a new species to the Barents Sea raises questions as to the rights and duties of states under the law of the sea to exploit, manage and conserve the species. This paper discusses three of them. The first question is whether the snow crab qualifies as a sedentary species. The entitlements and competence of states in respect of living marine resources depend on the location and the characteristics of the species. If it qualifies as a sedentary species under the law of the sea, it is subject to the sovereign rights of the coastal States. Otherwise, it is subject to the sovereign right of the coastal States as well as the freedom of fishing, dependent on its distribution. The second question is what, if any, obligations Norway as a coastal State has in respect of conservation and management of the snow crab and how Norway is complying with these obligations. This includes a discussion of whether the snow crab qualifies as an introduced, alien species and the possible implications for the obligations of the coastal State. The area of distribution of the snow crab includes waters within 200 nautical miles off Svalbard, raising a third question as to the implications of the 1920 Treaty concerning Spitsbergen (Svalbard Treaty) and in particular whether fishing vessels of Contracting parties have the right to participate in the harvest on an equal footing with Norwegian vessels. The Norwegian Snow Crab Regulations effectively reserves the harvest of snow crab for Norwegian fishing vessels. The paper discusses the implications of a recent decision by the Norwegian Supreme Court on dismissal of an appeal by a Latvian vessel and its captain convicted for illegal harvest of snow crab within 200 nautical miles off Svalbard.

The status of the marine Arctic as 'the last wilderness' may be challenged in future by increased activities provided by the melting of the sea ice. The fragile ecosystems and habitats may come under threat. In this article the international law on conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity is explored where the ecosystem approach has been developed, and these legal and semi-legal norms are related to the marine Arctic. Particularly challenging is to implement the ecosystem approach within the maritime jurisdiction. Although still a wilderness, state practice indicates that implementation will not be any easier in the Arctic, and that it will not become a laboratory for new legal regimes. Most likely sectoral regulatory regimes will be extended or developed as different threats materialize. One of the main challenges will be to ensure proper coordination between these to apply the ecosystem approach.Keywords: Arctic, international environmental law, biodiversity, law of the seaCitation: Arctic Review on Law and Politics, vol. 1, 2/2010 p. 249-278. ISSN 1891-6252

The objective of both international and national fisheries management legislation has traditionally been to optimize utilization of individual fish stocks. Recently the environmental effects of fishing, including overfishing, by-catches, and destruction of habitat, have come into focus. International instruments (binding and non-binding) have been adopted to accommodate these concerns through introducing environmental principles (e.g. the precautionary approach and ecosystem approach) to supplement international fisheries law and international environmental law. In 2009 new legislation came into force in Norway to introduce these obligations. The legislation is investigated to assess how environmental considerations are implemented and weighted against other considerations, such as settlement and employment, traditionally important interests in fisheries management. The new legislation means fisheries management must apply objectives and principles across sectors to include utilization of all natural resources. The conclusion is that although the fisheries management agencies still enjoy wide discretion, the implementation of these principles and their integration with other sectors will require a more holistic approach to fisheries management in the future.Keywords: Implementation of international fisheries and international environmental law, Norwegian fisheries law, Norwegian environmental and natural resources law, Norwegian administrative law.Citation: Arctic Review on Law and Politics, vol. 1, 1/2010 p. 131–157. ISSN 1891-6252

(Published: November 2016)Citation: T. Henriksen and Ø. Ravna. ''Stewardship, Transformational Change, and Regime Shifts in the Arctic.'' Arctic Review on Law and Politics, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2016, pp. 109–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.17585/arctic.v7.580