Suchergebnisse

Most studies of Asian state involvement in Arctic affairs assume that shorter sea-lanes to Europe are a major driver of interest, so this article begins by examining the prominence of shipping concerns in Arctic policy statements made by major Asian states. Using a bottom-up approach, we consider the advantages of Arctic sea routes over the Suez and Panama alternatives in light of the political, bureaucratic and economic conditions surrounding shipping and shipbuilding in China, Japan and the Republic of Korea. Especially Japanese and Korean policy documents indicate soberness rather than optimism concerning Arctic sea routes, noting the remaining limitations and the need for in-depth feasibility studies. That policymakers show greater caution than analysts, links in with our second finding: in Japan and Korea, maritime-sector bureaucracies responsible for industries with Arctic experience have been closely involved in policy development, more so than in China. Thirdly, we find a clear tendency towards rising industry-level caution and restraint in all three countries, reflecting financial difficulties in several major companies as well as growing sensitivity to the economic and political risks associated with the Arctic routes. Finally, our examination of bilateral and multilateral Chinese, Japanese and Korean diplomatic activity concerning Arctic shipping exhibits a lower profile than indicated by earlier studies.

The Arctic is saturated with nuclear facilities bringing both benefits for regional economic and social development and risks of nuclear and radiological accidents and concerns about radioactive wastes. There is every reason to expect the Arctic will remain a nuclearized region during the foreseeable future. This makes it important to direct attention to issues of nuclear safety and security in the region. We identify several clusters of these issues in the Arctic, including the challenges of potential nuclear accidents, the handling of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste, the cleanup of radiological contaminants, and concerns about nuclear security. An analysis of international conventions and voluntary codes of conduct shows that they are applicable to Arctic nuclear safety and security, but only in general terms. This suggests a need for an Arctic-specific agreement on nuclear and radiological safety, emergency preparedness and response, and cleanup of radiological contaminants. The outbreak of military hostilities in Ukraine in February 2022 has disrupted normal procedures for addressing issues of common concern in the Arctic. But the need for co-operation regarding matters like nuclear safety and security will not go away. Assuming it is possible to devise "necessary modalities" for restarting the work of the Arctic Council following the acute phase of the Ukraine crisis, an Arctic-specific agreement on nuclear safety and security could be developed under the auspices of the Arctic Council, which already has taken an interest in nuclear safety through the activities of its Working Group on Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response. Once such an agreement is in place, it will become important to consider the infrastructure needed to ensure that its provisions are implemented effectively.

The article addresses the issue of indigenous agency and its influence on the contestation of indigenous rights norms in an extractive context from the perspective of organizations representing people, whose recognition as 'indigenous' is withheld by the Russian authorities. The article argues that a governance perspective and approach to recognition from 'below' provides a useful lens for comprehensively exploring strategies on norms contestation applied by these groups in the authoritarian normative context of Russia. Based on findings from a case study of Izhma-Komi organizations in the northwest Russian Arctic, the article identifies three strategies utilized by these organizations. By mobilizing inter-indigenous recognition, forging alliances with environmentalists and negotiating with an oil company, Izhma-Komi organizations have managed to extend certain rights and power previously not granted to them in an extractive context locally.

Climate change has become one of the most pressing problems for both nature and human lives. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are part of a "natural solution" to climate change. Most of existing MPAs are governed by government agencies rather than private stakeholders such as NGOs, local communities and for-profit enterprises. Nevertheless, with the global push to create MPAs, the number of privately governed MPAs is expected to increase. In this context, this paper aims to investigate the role of private stakeholders in enhancing the governance effectiveness of MPAs so as to improve their capability to counter any adverse impact brought by the changing climate. After analysis, the strengths and weaknesses of the practice of each category of private stakeholders are uncovered and specific recommendations are proposed to promote the future practice. With the increasing number of privately governed MPAs in the future, this paper serves as a starting point and contributes to the literature on the study of the private governance of MPAs in the context of the changing climate.

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.

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.

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.