Suchergebnisse

THE ARCTIC IS EMERGING TODAY AS AN INTERNATIONAL REGION WHOSE IMPORTANCE IN POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL TERMS RIVALS THAT OF THE WORLD'S OTHER MAJOR REGIONS. WHAT REMAINS IN DOUBT, AT THIS JUNCTURE, IS HOW THE ARCTIC STATES NOT TO MENTION OTHERS - WILL RESPOND TO THIS DEVELOPMENT IN POLICY TERMS. ARE THESE STATES LIKELY TO UPGRADE THEIR CAPACITY TO HANDLE ARCTIC ISSUES BY ADDING SUBSTANTIAL ARCTIC EXPERTISE TO THEIR POLICY PLANNING STAFFS; CREATING BUREAUX OF ARCTIC OR NORTHERN AFFAIRS IN THEIR FOREIGN MINISTRIES; ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE INTERAGENCY COORDINATING MECHANISMS TO HANDLE COMPLEX ARCTIC ISSUES, OR DEVISING NEW ARCTIC POLICIES TO REPLACE THE POLICIES OF BENIGN NEGLECT THEY HAVE LONG RELIED ON IN DEALING WITH ARCTIC MATTERS? THESE ARE SERIOUS CONCERNS WHOSE RESOLUTION WILL TAKE TIME AND MAY DIFFER FROM STATE TO STATE. JUST AS THE RECOGNITION OF THE ARCTIC AS A DISTINCTIVE INTERNATIONAL REGION HAS BEEN A MAJOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE 1980S, THE FORMULATION OF APPROPRIATE PUBLIC RESPONSES TO THIS DEVELOPMENT SEEMS LIKELY TO BECOME A CENTRAL ARCTIC CONCERN OF THE 1990S. NOTE: ARTICLE IS PRINTED IN FRENCH

Leadership is a critical determinant of success or failure in the process of institutional bargaining that dominate efforts to form institutional arrangements in international society. Seeks to elucidate the nature of leadership in institutional bargaining and to deepen understanding of the politics of regime formation at the international level. (SJK)

Identifies the principal models in the literature. Articulates on alternative model, called institutional bargaining. Employs this alternative model hypothesis about the determinants of success in institutional bargaining and illuminates the process of regime formation in international society. (SJO)

In September 2018, following over a decade of informal discussions, the United Nations General Assembly launched an intergovernmental conference to address the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction. This process is scheduled to take two years and is structured around four themes: marine genetic resources, area-based management tools (including marine protected areas), environmental impact assessments, and capacity building and marine technology transfer. This Perspective draws on the earth system governance literature and the authors' own experience of and views on the BBNJ process to provide insights and recommendations for the ongoing negotiations. It highlights three areas of concern: (i) the politicization of science and coping with scientific uncertainty, (ii) institutional fragmentation; and (iii) the need for a new agreement to respond to the complex set of multiple, multilevel, and systemic threats to marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction.