Search results

Analysis of detailed statistics shows remarkable fluctuations in the volume and composition of voyages on the Northern Sea Route (NSR) along the northern coast of Russia since international use began in 2010. There has been strong growth in destination shipping between the Arctic and ports outside the region, but transit shipping between the Pacific and the Atlantic has not experienced the growth many had anticipated. Explanations are found in international market conditions as well as in the management of the NSR, with important lessons for the future development of different shipping segments. Shipping companies from several countries took part in the period up to 2019, but they seem to have become less central in the current phase of NSR shipping, which is dominated by the transport of hydrocarbons out of the Arctic. Russia expects international transit to pick up later. However, Russia alone cannot determine the volume of international traffic: it is the international shipping industry that will assess the balance of factors and conditions, and conclude if and when the shorter Arctic routes are safe, efficient, reliable, environmentally sound and economically viable in comparison with other routes.

The year 2019 was "the international year of the salmon" (IYS). The overarching aim was "to inform and stimulate outreach and research that aspires to establish the conditions necessary to ensure the resilience of salmon and people throughout the Northern Hemisphere;" further, to bring people together, share and develop knowledge, raise awareness and take action. This article is intended as a contribution to this goal. The article discusses how international law: the Law of the Sea Convention, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention for the Conservation of Salmon in the North Atlantic Ocean relate to conservation and management of wild salmon. The article has a special focus on bilateral cooperation on salmon stocks in boundary/transboundary rivers, and using as a case study the Tana river in Norway and Finland.

The Minamata Convention, which entered into force on 16 August 2017, is a global, legally binding instrument on mercury. The initiative on the Minamata Convention was mainly driven by research showing negative effects on human health and the environment in the Arctic. The Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum promoting cooperation on Arctic issues, and its Working Group, AMAP, played an important role in the process leading up to international negotiations on the Minamata Convention. This paper elucidates the evolutionary process in which scientific knowledge, herded by an intergovernmental, regional forum, is involved and forms the basis for a legally binding agreement. The paper provides new insight on multilevel governance of the mercury issue and unravels the role that AMAP has played in this dynamic process.

Negotiations are ongoing to develop an international legally binding instrument (ILBI) under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ). If adopted, the ILBI will likely apply to parts of the Arctic Ocean where the Arctic Council has played an important role for ocean governance. This begs the question of what role the Arctic Council will play vis-à-vis a future ILBI, which is envisioned to "not undermine existing relevant legal instruments and frameworks and relevant global, regional and sectoral bodies" (UN General Assembly Resolution 72/249). Against this backdrop, this article reflects on the future relationship between the Arctic Council and the ILBI. In so doing, the article initially discusses possible meanings of the notion of not undermining and, more broadly, how the ILBI will likely determine its institutional relationship with relevant bodies for BBNJ. Based on that, the article provides a short overview of the role of the Arctic Council in Arctic Ocean governance and explores whether the Arctic Council would qualify as a relevant regional body that shall not be undermined by the future ILBI.

This article discusses how the war in Ukraine, started by Russia, impacts the lives of Russian Indigenous small-numbered peoples. First, one can observe Russia's growing disregard for its international legal obligations. Second, the Russian State is continuously introducing new sanctions against persons and organizations who do not support the Russian regime. Third, the pressure on Indigenous peoples' representatives is increasing. Fourth, a significant number of members of Indigenous small-numbered peoples actively participate in the war due to, inter alia, socio-economic problems and lack of reliable and objective information about it. Fifth, there is a decline in international cooperation with the Indigenous small-numbered peoples of Russia. Finally, it is visible that the role of Indigenous peoples, including Russian Indigenous peoples, in international decision-making changes.

The Arctic has been home to Indigenous peoples since long before the international legal system of sovereign states came into existence. International law has increasingly recognized the rights of Indigenous peoples, who also have status as Permanent Participants in the Arctic Council. In northern Canada, the majority of those who live in the Arctic are recognized as Indigenous. However, in northern Russia, a much smaller percentage of the population is identified as Indigenous, as legal recognition is only accorded to groups with a small population size. This article will compare Russian and Canadian approaches to recognition of Indigenous peoples and Indigenous rights in the Arctic with attention to the implications for Arctic Ocean governance.
The article first introduces international legal instruments of importance to Indigenous peoples and their rights in the Arctic. Then it considers the domestic legal and policy frameworks that define Indigenous rights and interests in Russia and Canada. Despite both states being members of the Arctic Council and parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, there are many differences in their treatment of Indigenous peoples with implications for Arctic Ocean governance.

This article examines current Russian expert and official narratives on the Arctic, situating them in the broader context of the debate on Russia's role in the international system. Combining a critical geopolitics approach to the study of international relations with content analysis tools, we map how structural geopolitical changes in the wider region have shaped narratives on the Arctic in Russia today. Two types of Russian narratives on the Arctic are explored—the one put forward by members of the Russian expert community, and the one that emerges from official documents and statements by members of the Russian policymaking community. With the expert narratives, we pay particular attention to the Arctic topics featured and how they are informed by various mainstream approaches to the study of international relations (IR). In examining policy practitioners' narrative approaches, we trace the overlaps and differences between these and the expert narratives. Current expert and official Russian narratives on the Arctic appear to be influenced mostly by neorealist and neoliberal ideas in IR, without substantial modifications after the 2014 conflict, thus showing relatively high ideational continuity.

This article deals with the duty to consult indigenous peoples and the obligation to involve these peoples in decision-making processes in matters that concern them. After a general review of international legislation and obligations, particularly the ILO Convention no. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, the article focuses on how these obligations are implemented towards the indigenous Sámi in Norwegian law. Here, the consultation agreement from 2005 and the Sámi Rights Committee's 2007 draft are still central. The review includes an analysis of the extent to which these duties meet international law requirements, and a deliberation on the concept of free, prior and informed consent.

The Arctic region has attracted the interest of Arctic and non-Arctic states, as well as non-state actors, for decades. Corresponding with the growing attraction towards the region, the number of conferences attending to Arctic issues has expanded. This article provides an historical mapping of the Arctic conference sphere, and demonstrates how the establishment of Arctic conferences has both paralleled central events in Arctic affairs and can be linked to important international developments. Firstly, there is a notable peak conforming with the "second state change" in 2005, brought about by developments opening the Arctic to global concerns: the impacts of climate change and the spread of the socio-economic effects from globalization to the Arctic. Secondly, the expanding number of conferences around 2013 can be seen in relation to the growing interest in the region from non-Arctic states. As such, this article builds the argument for conferences as a central element within the Arctic governance architecture, creating linkages among units in the regime complex. The article devotes particular attention towards the two largest international conferences on Arctic issues – Arctic Frontiers and Arctic Circle Assembly – to illustrate how the necessity for hybrid policy-science-business conferences arose from a more complex governance system, and challenges requiring cross-sectoral, interdisciplinary, and international collaboration.