Suchergebnisse

The article is devoted to the analysis of the Arctic Council's activities as a forum of international cooperation in the northern polar region. The establishment of the above-mentioned regional international organization in 1996 initiated cooperation of states on topical issues in the Arctic, especially in the field of environmental protection. The Arctic Council united eight states of the northern polar region, Arctic indigenous organizations which have the status of «permanent participants» and international organizations (intergovernmental, inter-parliamentary, non-governmental) which have received the status of observer. Like any organization, it has both advantages and disadvantages. In general, during the existence of the Arctic Council, states under its auspices have been able to adopt three important regional international treaties governing relations between them, as well as a number of «soft law» acts which have political weight. Ukraine has all chances to deepen cooperation with arctic states, having received the status of observer in the Arctic Council. Key words: the Arctic; regional international organization; «soft law»; permanent participant; «Rovaniemi рrocess»; observer.

While a long-term decrease in overall Arctic sea ice extent has been recorded by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (2014) since the late 1970s, the unprecedented levels of ice melting and thinning experienced in the region in 2007, and subsequently in 2012, have brought the Arctic once again to the forefront of international affairs. Much popular and academic attention has focused on whether the Arctic is likely to remain a zone of cooperation, or descend into conflict. However, less attention has been paid to examining the evolution and role of fora in the region, such as the Arctic Council. In this paper, it is argued that three visions are presently shaping ways of thinking about the Council: the first envisages the Council as a society for Arctic states; the second sees the Council as a steward for the Arctic; and the third imagines the Council as a fully-fledged security actor. The extent to which each vision is manifested in the practices of the Council and its members is also examined. Finally, the paper considers what the ongoing tensions within and among these three ways of conceptualising the Council means for its future prospects, and for Arctic politics more generally.

Abstract This paper examines the influence of democratic institutions on environmental policy stringency and the degree to which it is affected by membership in the Arctic Council. We hypothesize that, relative to countries with no Arctic presence, countries present in the Arctic given their territorial, trade, and touristic interests are more pro-environmentally inclined as they experience the effects of global warming first-hand, and the quality of democratic institutions may reinforce this effect. Our empirical analysis based on global macroeconomic data suggests that countries with democratic institutional environments are associated with more response to Arctic status and more stringent environmental policies. Moreover, the presence of democratic governments in the Arctic increases the stringency of both market- and non-market-based environmental regulations. The suggestive estimated monetary value associated with the impact of democratic institutions in the Arctic is about 101,000 international dollars per capita. These findings underscore that the development of democratic institutions may lead to strong welfare improvements and can be used in the design of international environmental agreements for Arctic area protection.

Numerous scientific investigations and multilateral efforts have contributed to our understanding of environmental challenges and how to deal with them; yet little effective and coordinated action has been taken. We review existing literature on climate clubs and on international society in the English School of international relations in order to assess how environmental and security risks can result in the formation of international institutions that seek to transcend the free-rider problem. We then ask what factors explain the emergence of the International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar Code) adopted in 2014, and how powerful states worked through the Arctic Council (AC) and International Maritime Organization (IMO) to establish it. We identify three parameters with respect to the shipping industry and Arctic region that made this advance possible at the nexus of environment and security: the identification of culprits, great power interest, and the socio-economic context. We find a degree of success even when substantive differences exist both inside and outside of the region and industry. Thus, the case study points to important applications of these parameters for future environmental peacebuilding.

AbstractAt a time when the world faces a number of complex problems that transcend national borders and which individual states appear unable to address on their own, multilateralism ought to matter more than ever. All too often, however, attempts to encourage collaborative and effective responses to transnational problems are unable to overcome national interests, or lack the capacity to address novel challenges that defy easy resolution. Despite the urgent need for international cooperation, it is often conspicuous by its absence and it is not unreasonable to ask, does multilateralism really matter anymore? We argue that it does, if only because, there is no alternative. To illustrate multilateralism's weaknesses and potential strengths we provide a novel comparison of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Arctic Council, which reveals the importance of history, diplomatic styles, the significance of issue areas, and the motivations of members. The two bodies literally and metaphorically illustrate developments in the North and South, and provide a novel and revealing benchmark for measuring the success of multilateral bodies at different moments in history.

The study of Indigenous People is a vast subject and it is continuously growing. Indigenous Peoples often lack formal recognition over their lands, rights, and at worst, their identities hence they are often undermined by the government and international law. Such things were possible since the recognition of Indigenous Peoples is varied and depends on each national or regional perspective. Within Southeast Asia's regional organization, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), no reference to the Indigenous Peoples was made on its founding document. This paper focuses on the issue of Indigenous Peoples by comparing the position of Indigenous Peoples within the framework of ASEAN to Arctic Council. By qualitatively analyzing relevant references on ASEAN, Arctic Council, and Indigenous Peoples, this article aims to understand the stark differences of how ASEAN and Arctic Council recognize the Indigenous Peoples within each region. Such understanding is necessary to drives ASEAN and its member states to accommodate broader rights to Indigenous Peoples.

This study aims to examine Russia's policy priorities for its chairmanship in the Arctic Council and the possible implications thereof for the region. The author argues that Russia's Arctic Council presidential agenda will likely include the following priorities: climate change action; sustainable development; social cohesiveness and connectivity in the region; indigenous peoples; conservation of biodiversity; science diplomacy; and partial institutional reform of the Council. Moscow will not, however, renew its earlier efforts to transform the Council from an intergovernmental forum into a full-fledged international organization and introduce military security issues to the Council's agenda. Russia's chairmanship will likely strengthen the Arctic Council's role in asserting regional stewardship by responding to the challenges of a rapidly changing Arctic.