Suchergebnisse

The interest in the Arctic has grown through the environmental issues and climate change that deeply altered the region, especially with the impact of the global warming. These changes bring many threats but also important opportunities, and require a deeper cooperation to respond to them. The protection of the environment, the management of Arctic resources (natural, fishery, etc.), the use of sea routes, the delimitation of maritime boundaries, the respect of human rights and of indigenous peoples rights, the strategic and military aspects are all examples of the issues that coexist in the Arctic. They highlight the challenges that the cooperation in the Arctic is facing. None of these issues could solely be managed by the cooperation between the Arctic States, as their consequences and the interests at stake are global. In addition to the multitude of areas of cooperation, there is a congruence of actors: Arctic and extra-Arctic ones such as international organizations, non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, but also regions, inter-parliamentary organizations, indigenous peoples or scientific associations. The complexity of the situation is perceptible in the way the Arctic cooperation is established. Tensions exist both among the Arctic actors and between Arctic and extra-Arctic actors. Two contradictory processes seem to structure the cooperation with the regionalization on the one hand, and the internationalization on the other hand. Thus, cooperation between Arctic stakeholders is built around many international institutions, which structures and roles will certainly evolve. The central structure of the Arctic cooperation is the Arctic Council – a regional institution. At the same time, the cooperation in the Arctic region is based on global international cooperations, with essential instruments as the Convention on the law of the sea of 1982. Arctic cooperation seems to be an interesting model based on flexibility that should enable adaptation, which is especially important in a ...

The interest in the Arctic has grown through the environmental issues and climate change that deeply altered the region, especially with the impact of the global warming. These changes bring many threats but also important opportunities, and require a deeper cooperation to respond to them. The protection of the environment, the management of Arctic resources (natural, fishery, etc.), the use of sea routes, the delimitation of maritime boundaries, the respect of human rights and of indigenous peoples rights, the strategic and military aspects are all examples of the issues that coexist in the Arctic. They highlight the challenges that the cooperation in the Arctic is facing. None of these issues could solely be managed by the cooperation between the Arctic States, as their consequences and the interests at stake are global. In addition to the multitude of areas of cooperation, there is a congruence of actors: Arctic and extra-Arctic ones such as international organizations, non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, but also regions, inter-parliamentary organizations, indigenous peoples or scientific associations. The complexity of the situation is perceptible in the way the Arctic cooperation is established. Tensions exist both among the Arctic actors and between Arctic and extra-Arctic actors. Two contradictory processes seem to structure the cooperation with the regionalization on the one hand, and the internationalization on the other hand. Thus, cooperation between Arctic stakeholders is built around many international institutions, which structures and roles will certainly evolve. The central structure of the Arctic cooperation is the Arctic Council – a regional institution. At the same time, the cooperation in the Arctic region is based on global international cooperations, with essential instruments as the Convention on the law of the sea of 1982. Arctic cooperation seems to be an interesting model based on flexibility that should enable adaptation, which is especially important in a ...

Since 1976, there have been twenty-five recorded epidemics of the Ebola virus. The 2014 outbreak is the most serious. Despite rapidly reaching an international level, Western states underestimated its effects. They were very slow to react and left non-governmental organizations to deal with the crisis alone for far too long. It was not until September that they finally recognized the need to mobilize significant means to tackle this exceptional epidemic. Adapted from the source document.

The approach in terms of the common good or the global public good is difficult to apply to biodiversity, as it is claimed by states on the basis of sovereignty over their territory and appropriate by industry in a globalised market logic. Moreover, biodiversity conservation/management policies do not have the same content at local and global level. The articulation between international regimes, national policies and local behaviours is at the heart of the definition of cross-sectoral biodiversity governance. ; International audience Notions like "global commons" and "global public goods" do not easily apply to biodiversity because the latter is claimed by the states in the name of sovereignty and apportioned to business companies in the context of a globalised market. Moreover conservation and management policies do not look alike at local, national and international levels. Therefore this coordination between international regimes and national and local levels is the main challenge of a truly transcalar biodiversity governance ; The approach in terms of the common good or the global public good is difficult to apply to biodiversity, as it is claimed by states on the basis of sovereignty over their territory and appropriate by industry in a globalised market logic. Moreover, biodiversity conservation/management policies do not have the same content at local and global level. The articulation between international regimes, national policies and local behaviours is at the heart of the definition of cross-sectoral biodiversity governance. ; L'approche en termes de bien commun ou de bien public mondial est difficilement applicable à la biodiversité, tant celle-ci est revendiquée par les Etats au titre de la souveraineté sur leur territoire et appropriée par l'industrie dans une logique de marché globalisé. En outre les politiques de conservation/gestion de la biodiversité n'ont pas le même contenu au plan local et au plan global. L'articulation entre régimes internationaux, politiques nationales et comportements ...