Suchergebnisse

The U.S. Department of the Navy released A Strategic Blueprint for the Arctic on 5 January 2021. The Navy is focused on preparing for an Alaskan and "Blue" Arctic. Recognizing the changing landscape of the Arctic, the US Navy seeks to maintain a competitive edge, freedom of the seas, and deterrent effect. For the Marine Corps, both the 2021 document and the previous Advantage at Sea: Prevailing with Integrated All-Domain Naval Power, highlight the Marines' mission to assist the Navy in sea control and sea denial. These strategic documents reflect the direction both the Navy and Marine Corps are taking to better engage in the Arctic, and, therefore on NATO's northern flank and elsewhere in the world. The Marine Corps' new concept for warfighting, represented in The Tentative Manual for Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO) presumes that Marines are a "stand-in" force, i.e., they are already in areas within an adversary's weapon's engagement zone (WEZ). However, this is not the case on NATO's northern flank, where Marines conduct training with NATO and under bilateral agreements. In order to better understand how these new concepts and strategic documents influence the USMC's engagement on NATO's northern flank, it is important to relate them to the overall strategic context in this region, as well as the possible gaps that exist down to include operational and some tactical levels implications.

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.

As the Earth's changing climate has deepened into a climate crisis, the Arctic region has emerged as one of the clearest indicators of the scale and pace of that change. As the ice melts, opportunities are expanding to exploit the Arctic's oil and gas reserves, precious metals, fish stocks and maritime routes. Increased access and development will inevitably generate "system-wide environmental impacts" and will pose novel management challenges for the Arctic states. In the quest to find an effective balance between competing ocean activities and actors, marine protected areas (MPAs) and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) have emerged as indispensable tools to achieve ocean health, including in the Arctic. After first introducing these concepts, this article will discuss the Canadian and Russian domestic regimes for the establishment of MPAs and OECMs. The conclusion will then offer some insights into the key challenges confronting both states in the creation of effective networks of MPAs and OECMs in their Arctic regions.

Certification according to private sustainability standards (ecolabelling) has become an important addition to public fisheries management in recent years. The major global ecolabel in terms of comprehensiveness and coverage is the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Fisheries Standard. Under the MSC Standard, the status of the fishery's target stocks, its impact on the wider ecosystem and the effectiveness of its management system are assessed. Becoming and remaining certified requires continuous behavioural adaptation from fisheries through a fine-meshed system of conditions attached to certification. In this article, MSC certification of two clusters of fisheries in Arctic waters is discussed, one large- and one small-scale. In the Barents Sea cod and haddock fisheries, the main obstacle to certification has been the fisheries' impact on endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species and bottom habitats, and in order to remain certified beyond the first five-year certification period, the fishing companies have had to introduce a number of voluntary measures beyond what is required by law. In the local lumpfish fisheries in Greenland, Iceland and Norway, conditions attached to certification have been related to the effects of these fisheries on seabirds and marine mammals. Here essential parts of a management regime, such as biological reference points and harvest control rules, have come about as a direct result of MSC certification. MSC certification is no panacea, but it seems to have found a niche as a supplement to national legislation and international agreements.

The inter-connectedness of marine ecosystems has been repeatedly acknowledged in the relevant literature as well as in policy briefs. Against this backdrop, this article aims at further reflecting on the question of to what extent the law of the sea takes account of or disregards ocean connectivity. In order to address this question, this article starts by providing a brief overview of the notion of ocean connectivity from a marine science perspective, before taking a closer look at the extent to which the law of the sea incorporates the scientific imperative of ocean connectivity in the context of four examples: (i) straits, (ii) climate change and ocean acidification, (iii) salmon and (iv) the ecosystem approach to fisheries. Tying the findings of the different examples together, this study concludes by stressing the need of accommodating ocean connectivity not only in the interpretation and implementation of the existing law (of the sea) but also in its further development.

The impacts of climate change on marine resources are well known and demand mitigation and adaptation measures in order to protect the ecosystems. This entails more than simply altering management practices; it requires altering goal setting and managing transitions to new ecosystemic conditions. In the European Union, the main legal tool for protection of the marine environment is the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Greece, as a member state of the European Union, has transposed the Marine Strategy Framework Directive into its national legal order and has developed legal structures to protect its marine resources from various threats, including climate change.
The present paper aims to present the legal and policy management tools in Greece, relevant to implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and climate change adaptation. For methodological reasons, the paper is divided into two parts: The first part deals with those legal tools that apply to an initial assessment of the environmental quality of Greek marine waters, while the second part analyzes legislative activities pertinent to the design and implementation of programs and measures. The aim of the national legislation is to maintain the ecosystemic integrity of the marine waters of Greece and to preserve the unique characteristics of the aquatic environment with respect to present and future generations. However, the analysis shows that a holistic legal framework demands explicit provisions for climate change impacts, while the existing framework focuses primarily on anthropogenic pressures on the marine environment.

The distribution of legal authority to protect biodiversity in marine areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) between the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the UN Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) has been a contentious issue. In practice, main responsibility has been allocated to LOSC, under which a new implementing agreement on conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ) is currently being negotiated. CBD was allocated responsibility for providing scientific information and advice on marine biodiversity, which has resulted in the identification and description of 321 Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs) worldwide, within and beyond national jurisdiction. These could provide important scientific backing for a coming BBNJ instrument under LOSC, especially as regards the designation of marine protected areas and the conduct of environmental impact assessments in ABNJ. However, the process of modifying EBSAs and identifying new ones has recently been challenged by the CBD Conference of the Parties, harking back to previous disputes over the legal mandate and thereby threatening the entire mechanism that has been established. In the context of international environmental law and law of the sea, this article discusses the potential importance of EBSAs for the expected BBNJ instrument, using the Central Arctic Ocean EBSA as an example.