DOCSLIB.ORG

SWP Comments 2008/C 18, July 2008, 4 Pages

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SWP Comments 2008/C 18, July 2008, 4 Pages Introduction Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik German Institute for International and Security Affairs Fixed Rules of Play for Dividing Up the Arctic Ocean SWP Comments The Ilulissat Declaration of the Arctic Coastal States Ingo Winkelmann At the end of May 2008 the five countries bordering on the Arctic—Denmark, Canada, Norway, the Russian Federation and the United States of America (known as the “A5”)— adopted a carefully-worded declaration. Known as the Ilulissat Declaration after the place in Greenland where the conference was held, it outlines the kind of co-operation the A5 is considering. From the text one can also glean what principles will be applied regarding legal arrangements, research, managing natural resources and the ecosystem of the Arctic Ocean. In the declaration the A5 emphasise their supremacy in this area. They speak in favour of applying the international law of the sea to the Arctic but against the conclusion of a specific Arctic agreement. This sends an important signal to other potential Arctic players and to the international community, and is therefore also of interest to Germany, which for environmental, research and economic reasons cannot be indifferent to the Arctic region. The A5 attended the Arctic Ocean Conference at establish common principles for how to the invitation of the Danish Minister for treat the Arctic’s resources in the future Foreign Affairs and the Premier of Green- and to signal to the rest of the community land from 27 to 29 May 2008 in Ilulissat of states how the states directly bordering (Greenland). The United States was repre- on the Arctic Ocean perceive forthcoming sented by its deputy secretary of state and developments. the other A5 states by their foreign minis- ters (or in the case of Canada, the minister of natural resources). The conference The Main Points of the Declaration resulted in a declaration consisting of seven paragraphs adopted unanimously on Commitment to the Law of the Sea 29 May 2008. Although this declaration is The A5 expressly declare their commitment merely a political document and as such to the law of the sea with explicit reference not legally binding, it testifies to the wish to legal issues pertaining to the Arctic such of those participating in the conference to as the delineation of the outer limits of the Dr. Ingo Winkelmann was Visiting Fellow at the Global Issues Division of SWP until July 2008. SWP Comments 18 This contribution reflects solely the Author’s view. July 2008 1 continental shelf, protection of the marine Cooperation Regarding environment, freedom of navigation and Shipping Accidents marine scientific research. This commit- The declaration of the A5 merely states ment to the law of the sea is connected their “intent” to engage in co-operation above all with the intention of all the A5 with the International Maritime Organiza- states to extend the outer limits of their tion on issues concerning Arctic navigation. national continental shelf as far as possible The A5 recognise the increased risk of into the Arctic Ocean. According to the accidents through tourism, shipping, provisions of the United Nations Conven- research and resource development. They tion of the Law of the Sea of 1982, it is support bilateral and multilateral arrange- possible to extend this beyond 200 sea ments among “relevant states” for im- miles. The fact that the declaration avoids proved rescue measures in the event of mentioning the Convention is probably accidents. due to the fact that the United States has yet to ratify it. This is probably also the reason why the US administration, which Research and Regional Co-operation supports ratification against the US Senate, Finally research co-operation is to be inten- avoided sending a high-level delegation to sified: data and analyses are, for example, the Arctic Conference. to be exchanged among the A5 states and with other interested parties. The declara- tion concludes by describing the activities Rejection of an Arctic Treaty of the Arctic Council and the Barents Euro- The A5 emphasise that there is no reason to Arctic Council as “relevant for the Arctic develop a new comprehensive legal regime Ocean”. for the Arctic. They thus reject efforts to create a legal order for the Arctic analogous with the Antarctic Treaty conceived for the The Status of the Declaration South Pole. In the view of the A5, who In the Ilulissat Declaration the A5 make earlier in the document referred to their three things clear: sovereignty and sovereign rights, this atti- First: They wish to lead the way in resolv- tude makes sense, for further international ing issues concerning the future of the regulation would, for the time being, con- Arctic Ocean: the use of mineral resources, strain their handling of the Arctic, in par- new shipping routes, and protection of the ticular the resources of the Arctic Ocean. ecosystem. The A5 assert their supremacy as states directly bordering on the Arctic Ocean vis-à-vis the “normal” Arctic states Protection of the Marine Environment Iceland, Finland and Sweden together with in the Arctic whom they make up the Arctic Council Although the declaration emphasises the (the Arctic 8). The three so-called “normal” unique nature of the Arctic ecosystem, the Arctic states have no direct access to the A5 remain cautious when it comes to nam- Arctic Ocean. This also applies, mutatis ing concrete measures for preserving the mutandis, to Iceland, which is situated Arctic environment. Instead they talk in below the northern Polar Circle and is general terms about “steps to ensure the therefore “sub-Arctic”. preservation of the marine environment” Second: The A5 intend to respect the that will be undertaken nationally, in co- provisions of the international law of the operation among the A5 and with “inter- sea, which among other things includes ested parties”. procedures to extend the boundaries of the national continental shelf. Observers had been sceptical about this intention after a SWP Comments 18 July 2008 2 member of the Russian Duma planted a wording “interested parties”, but it men- Russian flag in the ocean floor near the tions neither the observer states in the North Pole as a publicity stunt in August Arctic Council nor the civil organisations 2007. There was also some uncertainty of indigenous peoples participating in it about the position of the United States, nor the European Union and the United which is not a signatory to the UN Con- Nations by name. Scientists fear that their vention on the Law of the Sea. A loophole research activities may be constrained if remains all the same: for in the event of large sections of the Arctic Ocean floor are conflicts involving overlapping claims to divided up among the A5. national extensions of the continental Whether the A5’s rejection of a specific shelf the declaration refers only in rather Arctic agreement will become a permanent vague terms to [the possibility of] an orderly stance is not yet apparent. The demands settlement. of important civil society players for an Third: The A5 do not want a specific “Arctic protected area” are likely to become multi-lateral Arctic agreement. They thus louder in the near future. This would keep oppose numerous demands voiced mainly up or even increase the political pressure by ecological interest groups. Advocates of on the A5. such an agreement believe that a standard Arctic agreement would bring together the existing numerous and fragmented regu- German Interests in the Arctic lations in a more binding form. According The Ilulissat Declaration confirms previous to press reports the Danish foreign minister evaluations of the situation—namely, that it proposed in the run-up to the conference will probably not be easy to persuade the that the A5 should impose a moratorium coastal states of the Arctic Ocean to become on the exploitation of Arctic mineral re- more open to participation by third parties sources. He failed to convince the other in addressing the coming challenges in the members, however. Arctic region. The official statement of the German and British foreign ministers of March 2008, according to which it is “of Open Questions decisive importance … to put in place A wedge seems to have been driven be- structures for the Arctic region, based on tween the members of the Arctic Council, international law, aimed at the co-operative with the A5 acquiring an image as a special and peaceful exploitation of resources and group among the “Arctic 8”. It remains to at preserving the ecological heritage of be seen whether this rift will continue or mankind”, remains valid. The Federal even deepen in the future. Republic of Germany must continue to be Another mystery is how the environ- active in asserting its own environmental, mental protection regime in the Arctic can energy, shipping and research interests in be made clearer, more binding and more the Arctic. Instruments that might be used effective. Even the Arctic Council (a body for this are: that has yet to acquire a clear institutional Germany’s status as an observer in the shape), which is responsible for this issue Arctic Council, which seems to have and has been trying since 1996 to get a potential for expansion. strategy put in place for the protection of Its position as a party to the Spitzbergen the Arctic environment, is mentioned only Treaty. This gives its signatories rights to in passing. the economic exploitation of the island How much latitude there will be for of Spitzbergen, which in principle also third parties in future cooperation—and extend to the continental shelf of Spitz- indeed who these third parties might be— bergen (this is disputed by Norway). In remains unclear.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Arctic, the Arctic Council, and the Law of the Sea
    CHAPTER 2 The Arctic, the Arctic Council, and the Law of the Sea Erik J Molenaar* 1 Introduction The international community’s interest in the Arctic increased spectacularly in the period between 2004 and 2008. Prior to that, international coopera- tion on the (marine) Arctic mainly involved Arctic States, and regional coop- eration occurred largely by means of non-legally binding instruments and informal fora, rather than through legally binding instruments and intergov- ernmental organisations. The launch of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA)1 in 2004 contributed to broadening recognition within the internation- al community that climate change is largely driven by anthropogenic pollu- tion. This recognition grew even more after the dramatic Arctic sea-ice loss in 2007,2 which spread a sense of alarm and urgency within the international community. Another game changer was the Russian Federation’s planting of its flag on the geographical North Pole’s deep seabed in 2007, during the gathering of data on the outer limits of its continental shelf. The Russian Federation’s flag plant- ing triggered a number of reactions and counter-reactions. The first of these was the incorrect perception by many—e.g., media, academics, environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the European Parliament—that the flag planting heralded the last land-grab on earth and a resource bonanza that was unchecked due to an international law vacuum. This incorrect per- ception was then followed by the incorrect assumption that it would be logical * Email: [email protected]. The author is very grateful for assistance and/or comments re- ceived from Bob Beckman, Tore Henriksen, Henning Dobson Fugleberg Knudsen, Amy Merten, Alex Oude Elferink, Ashley Roach, Jan Solski and Jorden Splinter on an earlier ver- sion.
    [Show full text]
  • Arctic Sovereignty Annotated Bibliography
    Arctic Sovereignty Annotated Bibliography The Arctic Sovereignty bibliography is organized by topic and, within each topic, the articles and books are organized chronologically. Many of the articles are available on IngentaConnect, accessible by University of Washington faculty and students. The page was initially prepared by the course instructors and maintained and updated by the 2009 Arctic Sovereignty Research Team. Climate Change 2004 - Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, project by the Arctic Council and the International Arctic Science Committee, Cambridge University Press, 2004. (The report that startled the world regarding the impact of climate change on the Arctic in particular. This is the "plain language guide" to the report for policymakers and the general public, 140 pgs.) http://www.acia.uaf.edu/ Natural Resources in the Arctic and the Race for Ownership / Access 2008 - Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal, US Geological Survey, US Department of the Interior, (To improve understanding of petroleum resources in the Arctic. The USGS is the scientific agency of the US government that studies, in part, natural resources. Arctic assessment is within its Energy Resources Program. See 2008 "Fact Sheet" and slide presentation.) http://energy.usgs.gov/arctic/ 2008 - Zellen, Barry, "As Climate Change Thins Polar Ice, a New Race for Arctic Resources Begins," Strategic Insights, Center for Contemporary Conflict, February 2008. http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2008/Feb/zellenFeb08.asp 2005 - Nordquist, Myron, John
    [Show full text]
  • Arctic Policy &
    Arctic Policy & Law References to Selected Documents Edited by Wolfgang E. Burhenne Prepared by Jennifer Kelleher and Aaron Laur Published by the International Council of Environmental Law – toward sustainable development – (ICEL) for the Arctic Task Force of the IUCN Commission on Environmental Law (IUCN-CEL) Arctic Policy & Law References to Selected Documents Edited by Wolfgang E. Burhenne Prepared by Jennifer Kelleher and Aaron Laur Published by The International Council of Environmental Law – toward sustainable development – (ICEL) for the Arctic Task Force of the IUCN Commission on Environmental Law The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of ICEL or the Arctic Task Force of the IUCN Commission on Environmental Law concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers and boundaries. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of ICEL or the Arctic Task Force. The preparation of Arctic Policy & Law: References to Selected Documents was a project of ICEL with the support of the Elizabeth Haub Foundations (Germany, USA, Canada). Published by: International Council of Environmental Law (ICEL), Bonn, Germany Copyright: © 2011 International Council of Environmental Law (ICEL) Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non- commercial purposes is authorized without prior permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. Citation: International Council of Environmental Law (ICEL) (2011).
    [Show full text]
  • Avoiding the New Cold War: Environmental Conflict Resolution and the Need for an International Legal Regime in the High Arctic
    Avoiding the New Cold War: Environmental Conflict Resolution and the Need for an International Legal Regime in the High Arctic By Sam Mulopulos Grinnell Peace Studies Conference 2012 It is an indisputable axiom of science that the planet is warming.1 And while experts can debate the radix of such increase in earthly temperatures, this paper believes the origins of the coming planetary catastrophe irrelevant. Rather it is the results of such climatic change, particularly in the Arctic, that this paper finds to be of unique interest. While global warming will engender a variety of environmental misfortunes, nowhere in the world will the effects of a modified climate be as acute and amplified as in the Arctic. Already the region is experiencing the effects of global warming.2 Thus the High Arctic is the frontline in the fight for the planet, and how nations respond to the concomitant results of climate change there will dictate the global response to future situations. Currently two unique predicaments face the five Arctic coastal states.3 Both problems are consequences of melting sea ice resulting from the escalation of global temperatures. The deliquescence of sea ice has precipitated greater resource exploration of the Arctic Ocean basin and the subsequent discovery of a potential 400 billion barrels of oil beneath the sea floor.4 The unearthing of vast reserves of subsea hydrocarbons has transformed the perception of the Arctic from an inhospitable wasteland to a cornucopia of mineral wealth. Already Russia, Canada, and Denmark have begun to maneuver to secure a piece of the potential windfall.
    [Show full text]
  • English Pageslowres
    CANADIAN POLAR COMMISSION IN THIS ISSUE THE LAW OF THE SEA AND MARINE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH The Law of the Sea and Marine Scientific IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN Research in the Arctic Ocean 1 Ron Macnab, Olav Loken and Arvind Anand FALL/WINTER 2007 Contemporary events and circumstances, ration with other states, and by driving the Global Warming: Arctic Shipping 6 such as melting ice, the International Polar need to define maritime boundaries, these Year, and the UN Convention on the Law of developments touch upon Canada’s interests PEARL – A Canadian Success Story 11 the Sea are providing an unprecedented at the national and international levels. boost to Marine Scientific Research in the Melting ice is facilitating access to ex- The Centre d’études nordiques and central Arctic Ocean. This felicitous situa- panded oceanic regions that historically have the Qaujisarvik Network 15 tion could be short-lived, however, as Arctic remained inaccessible to scientific research coastal states apply the provisions of the on account of their widespread and persis- Social Housing North 17 Law of the Sea to extend their sovereign tent ice cover. The IPY, meanwhile, is mobi- rights beyond 200 nautical miles, enhanc- lizing legions of investigators for an inten- Oral History in Nunavut: ing their entitlement to regulate a range of sive two-year campaign of data gathering An Overview of its Past and scientific activities. This is in marked con- and analysis across a broad range of disci- Present Vitality 20 trast to the Antarctic regime, where freedom plines. Finally, UNCLOS has prompted all five of research is protected under the terms of coastal states that front upon the Arctic Book Review: the Antarctic Treaty.
    [Show full text]
  • Asian Countries and Arctic Shipping
    Arctic Review on Law and Politics Peer-reviewed article Vol. 10, 2019, pp. 24–52 Asian Countries and Arctic Shipping: Policies, Interests and Footprints on Governance Arild Moe* Fridtjof Nansen Institute Olav Schram Stokke University of Oslo, Department of Political Science, and Fridtjof Nansen Institute Abstract 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 con- cerns 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 exam- ination of bilateral and multilateral Chinese, Japanese and Korean diplomatic activity concerning Arctic shipping exhibits a lower profile than indicated by earlier studies.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Arctic Security the Geopolitical Pressure Cooker and the Consequences for the Netherlands
    The future of Arctic security The geopolitical pressure cooker and the consequences for the Netherlands Dick Zandee Clingendael Report Kimberley Kruijver Adája Stoetman The future of Arctic security The geopolitical pressure cooker and the consequences for the Netherlands Dick Zandee Kimberley Kruijver Adája Stoetman Clingendael Report April 2020 April 2020 Cover photo: © The Arctic Institue Unauthorized use of any materials violates copyright, trademark and / or other laws. Should a user download material from the website or any other source related to the Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’, or the Clingendael Institute, for personal or non-commercial use, the user must retain all copyright, trademark or other similar notices contained in the original material or on any copies of this material. Material on the website of the Clingendael Institute may be reproduced or publicly displayed, distributed or used for any public and non-commercial purposes, but only by mentioning the Clingendael Institute as its source. Permission is required to use the logo of the Clingendael Institute. This can be obtained by contacting the Communication desk of the Clingendael Institute ([email protected]). The following web link activities are prohibited by the Clingendael Institute and may present trademark and copyright infringement issues: links that involve unauthorized use of our logo, framing, inline links, or metatags, as well as hyperlinks or a form of link disguising the URL. About the authors Dick Zandee is Head of the Security Unit at the Clingendael Institute. His research focuses on security and defence issues, including policies, defence capability development, research and technology, armaments cooperation and defence industrial aspects.
    [Show full text]
  • Changing the Role of Non-Indigenous Research Partners in Practice to Support Inuit Self-Determination in Research1
    127 ARTICLE Changing the role of non-Indigenous research partners in practice to support Inuit self-determination in research1 K.J. Wilson, T. Bell, A. Arreak, B. Koonoo, D. Angnatsiak, and G.J. Ljubicic Abstract: Efforts to date have not advanced Indigenous participation, capacity building and knowledge in Arctic environmental science in Canada because Arctic environmental science has yet to acknowledge, or truly practice decolonizing research. The expanding liter- ature on decolonizing and Indigenous research provides guidance towards these alternative research approaches, but less has been written about how you do this in practice and the potential role for non-Indigenous research partners in supporting Inuit self-determination in research. This paper describes the decolonizing methodology of a non-Indigenous researcher partner and presents a co-developed approach, called the Sikumiut model, for Inuit and non-Indigenous researchers interested in supporting Inuit self-determination. In this model the roles of Inuit and non-Indigenous research partners were redefined, with Inuit governing the research and non-Indigenous research partners training and mentoring Inuit youth to conduct the research themselves. The Sikumiut model shows how having Inuit in decision-making positions ensured Inuit data ownership, accessibility, and control over how their Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit is documented, communicated, and respected for its own scientific merit. It examines the benefits and potential to build on the existing research capacity of Inuit youth and describes the guidance and lessons learned from a non-Indigenous researcher in supporting Inuit self-determination in research. Pinasuktaujut maannamut pivaallirtittisimangimmata nunaqarqaarsimajunik ilautitaunin- ginnik, pijunnarsivallianirmik ammalu qaujimajaujunik ukiurtartumi avatilirinikkut kikli- siniarnikkut kanata pijjutigillugu ukiurtartumi avatilirinikkut kiklisiniarnikkut ilisarsisimangimmata, uvaluunniit piliringimmata issaktausimangittunik silataanit qauji- sarnirmut.
    [Show full text]
  • Maintaining Arctic Cooperation with Russia Planning for Regional Change in the Far North
    Maintaining Arctic Cooperation with Russia Planning for Regional Change in the Far North Stephanie Pezard, Abbie Tingstad, Kristin Van Abel, Scott Stephenson C O R P O R A T I O N For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR1731 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-0-8330-9745-3 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2017 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover: NASA/Operation Ice Bridge. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface Despite a period of generally heightened tensions between Russia and the West, cooperation on Arctic affairs—particularly through the Arctic Council—has remained largely intact, with the exception of direct mil- itary-to-military cooperation in the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Transatlantic Policy Options for Supporting Adaptation in the Marine Arctic
    Transatlantic Policy Options for Supporting Adaptation in the Marine Arctic Lead authors: Aaron Best, Ecologic Sandra Cavalieri, Ecologic Mark Jariabka, Ecologic Timo Koivurova, Arctic Centre Michael Mehling, Ecologic Erik J. Molenaar, NILOS 15 June 2009 Arctic TRANSFORM is funded through the European Commission Directorate General for External Relations as a pilot project for transatlantic methods for handling common global challenges with Grant Agreement No. SI2.484596. Best, Aaron, Sandra Cavalieri, Mark Jariabka, Timo Koivurova, Michael Mehling, and Erik J. Molenaar, Transatlantic Policy Options for Supporting Adaptations in the Marine Arctic. 15 June 2009. Table of Contents Table of Contents .................................................................................................................. 3 List of Abbreviations .............................................................................................................. 4 1 Introduction: The Adaptation Challenge and the Need for Policy Action ......................... 6 2 Current Policy Framework for Environmental Governance and Adaptation in the Marine Arctic ..................................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 International Agreements ........................................................................................ 7 2.2 Arctic Institutions ..................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Shortcomings of the Current
    [Show full text]
  • Nation-Building at Home, Vigilance Beyond: Preparing for the Coming Decades in the Arctic
    NATION-BUILDING AT HOME, VIGILANCE BEYOND: PREPARING FOR THE COMING DECADES IN THE ARCTIC Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development Michael Levitt, Chair APRIL 2019 42nd PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons SPEAKER’S PERMISSION The proceedings of the House of Commons and its Committees are hereby made available to provide greater public access. The parliamentary privilege of the House of Commons to control the publication and broadcast of the proceedings of the House of Commons and its Committees is nonetheless reserved. All copyrights therein are also reserved. Reproduction of the proceedings of the House of Commons and its Committees, in whole or in part and in any medium, is hereby permitted provided that the reproduction is accurate and is not presented as official. This permission does not extend to reproduction, distribution or use for commercial purpose of financial gain. Reproduction or use outside this permission or without authorization may be treated as copyright infringement in accordance with the Copyright Act. Authorization may be obtained on written application to the Office of the Speaker of the House of Commons. Reproduction in accordance with this permission does not constitute publication under the authority of the House of Commons. The absolute privilege that applies to the proceedings of the House of Commons does not extend to these permitted reproductions. Where a reproduction includes briefs to a Standing Committee of the House of Commons, authorization for reproduction may be required from the authors in accordance with the Copyright Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Is It Time for a Reset in Arctic Governance?
    sustainability Article Is It Time for a Reset in Arctic Governance? Oran R. Young Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California (Santa Barbara), Santa Barbara, CA 93103, USA; [email protected] or [email protected] Received: 2 August 2019; Accepted: 15 August 2019; Published: 20 August 2019 Abstract: Conditions in the Arctic today differ from those prevailing during the 1990s in ways that have far-reaching implications for the architecture of Arctic governance. What was once a peripheral region regarded as a zone of peace has turned into ground zero for climate change on a global scale and a scene of geopolitical maneuvering in which Russia is flexing its muscles as a resurgent great power, China is launching economic initiatives, and the United States is reacting defensively as an embattled but still potent hegemon. This article explores the consequences of these developments for Arctic governance and specifically for the role of the Arctic Council. The article canvasses options for adjusting the council’s membership and its substantive remit. It pays particular attention to opportunities for the council to play a role in managing the increasingly complex Arctic regime complex. Keywords: climate change; geopolitics; governance; regime complex 1. Introduction The architecture of Arctic governance, centered on the role of the Arctic Council treated as a “high-level forum” designed to promote “cooperation, coordination and interaction among the Arctic states,” reflects conditions prevailing in the 1990s, a period marked by the end of the cold war, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the reduction in tension in the High North that followed these events [1].
    [Show full text]