Protecting the Arctic Environment: The Interplay of Global and Regional Regimes

Yearbook of Polar Law

Volumn 1, Issue , 2009, Pages 349-369

  Stokke, Olav Schram ^a  

^a FRIDTJOF NANSEN INSTITUTE   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85180986534     PISSN: 18768814     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1163/22116427-91000018     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. This article draws upon several previous works, including Olav Schram Stokke, “A Legal Regime for the Arctic? Interplay with the Law of the Sea Convention, ” Marine Policy 31 (2007), and Olav Schram Stokke, Geir Hønneland, and Peter Johan Schei, “Pollution and Conservation, ” in International Cooperation and Arctic Governance: Regime Effectiveness and Northern Region Building, ed. O.S. Stokke and G. Hønneland (London: Routledge, 2007).
2. As of January 2009, eight non-Arctic states have observer status; see http://www.arcticcouncil.org).
3. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UN Doc. A/Conf.62/122.
4. See section 2 C.
5. Robert O. Keohane, “Neoliberal Institutionalism: A Perspective on World Politics, ” in International Institutions and State Power. Essays in International Relations Theory, ed. R.O. Keohane (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1989), 3.
6. Oran R. Young, International Governance: Protecting the Environment in a Stateless Society. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1994): 3.
7. Peter M. Haas, Robert O. Keohane, and Marc A. Levy, eds., Institutions for the Earth: Sources of Effective International Environmental Protection (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993);
8. Olav Schram Stokke and Davor Vidas, eds., Governing the Antarctic: The Effectiveness and Legitimacy of the Antarctic Treaty System (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996);
9. D.G. Victor, K. Raustiala, and E.B. Skolnikoff, eds., The Implementation and Effectiveness of International Environmental Commitments: Theory and Practice (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998);
10. Oran R. Young, ed., The Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes: Causal Connections and Behavioural Mechanisms (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999);
11. Edward L. Miles et al., Environmental Regime Effectiveness: Confronting Theory with Evidence (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002).
12. Olav Schram Stokke, “The Study of Regime Interplay: Putting Effectiveness Theory to Work, ” FNI Report 4/01 (Lysaker: The Fridtjof Nansen Institute, 2001).
13. There can be various reasons for such compellingness. Franck pinpoints such ‘building blocks of due process’ as determinacy, coherence, and various types of procedural validation; see Thomas M. Franck, The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990).
14. James G. March and Johan P. Olsen, Rediscovering Institutions: The Organisational Basis of Politics (New York: The Free Press, 1989), 21–6.
15. Olav Schram Stokke, “Managing Straddling Stocks: The Interplay of Global and Regional Regimes, ” Ocean and Coastal Management 43 (2000): 205–34;
16. Sebastian Oberthür and Thomas Gehring, eds, Institutional Interaction in Global Environmental Governance: Synergy and Conflict among International and EU Policies (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006).
17. Jon Hovi, Olav Schram Stokke, and Geir Ulfstein, “Introduction and Main Findings, ” in International Compliance: Implementing the Climate Regime, ed. O. Stokke, J. Hovi, and G. Ulfstein (London: Earthscan, 2005), 1–14.
18. Olav Schram Stokke and Clare Coffey, “Precaution, ICES and the Common Fisheries Policy: A Study of Regime Interplay, ” Marine Policy 28 (2004): 117–26.
19. Sebastian Oberthür, “Linkages between the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols: Enhancing Synergies between Protecting the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate, ” International Environmental Agreements 1 (2001): 357–77.
20. Olav Schram Stokke, “Managing Straddling Stocks: The Interplay of Global and Regional Regimes, ” Ocean and Coastal Management 43 (2000): 205–34.
21. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Art. 3.5. 1771 UNTS 107.
22. Olav Schram Stokke, “Trade Measures and Climate Compliance: Institutional Interplay betweenWTOandtheMarrakeshAccords, ”InternationalEnvironmentalAgreements4(2004): 339–57.
23. Olav Schram Stokke, “Nuclear Dumping in Arctic Seas: Russian Implementation of the London Convention, ” in The Implementation and Effectiveness of International Environmental Commitments: Theory and Practice, ed. D.G. Victor, K. Raustiala, and E.B. Skolnikoff (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998), 475–517.
24. Olav Schram Stokke, “The Northern Environment: Is Cooperation Coming?” Annals of the American Academy for Political and Social Science 512 (1990): 58–69.
25. Olav Schram Stokke, Lee G. Anderson, and Natalia Mirovitskaya, “The Barents Sea Fisheries, ” in The Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes: Causal Connections and Behavioural Mechanisms, ed. O.R. Young (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 1999), 91–154.
26. Stokke 1998, op. cit.
27. Stokke, Hønneland, and Schei, op. cit.
28. Olav Schram Stokke and Ola Tunander, eds., The Barents Region: Cooperation in Arctic Europe (London: SAGE, 1994).
29. Ilulissat Declaration, 28 May 2008; on reactions by Arctic Council members that do not border on the Arctic Ocean, see Rayfuse’s article in this issue.
30. European Parliament Resolution of 9 October 2008, items 5 and 15.
31. Commission of the European Communities, COM 763(2008) final, The European Union and the Arctic Region.
32. See ILM 37 (1998), 22–43.
33. Scott G. Borgerson, “Arctic Meltdown: The Economic and Security Implications of Global Warming, ” Foreign Affairs 87 (2008).
34. Law of the Sea Convention, Arts. 58 and 87; among other high-seas freedoms retained is the laying of submarine cables and pipelines.
35. Stokke 2007, op. cit.
36. This status is as of December 19, 2008; see http://www.un.org/depts/los.
37. Stokke, Hønneland and Schei 2007, op. cit.
38. Alf Håkon Hoel, “Climate Change, ” in International Cooperation and Arctic Governance: Regime Effectiveness and Northern Region Building, ed. O.S. Stokke and G. Hønneland (London: Routledge, 2007), 112–137. The ACIA was coordinated jointly with the International Arctic Science Committee, a non-governmental Organisation of leading scientific institutions, established in 1991.
39. Hoel 2007, op. cit.
40. Hoel 2007, op. cit.
41. Hoel 2007, op. cit.
42. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Arctic Pollution 2002, (Oslo: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, 2002). www.amap.no.
43. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Persistent Toxic Substances: Food Security and Indigenous Peoples in the Russian North. (Oslo: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, 2004), 4.
44. On nesting, see Vinod K. Aggarwal. “The Unraveling of the Multi-Fiber Arrangement, 1981: An Examination of International Regime Change, ” International Organisation 37 (1983): 617–45;
45. also Oran R. Young, “Institutional Linkages in International Society: Polar Perspectives, ” Global Governance 2 (1996): 1–24.
46. Stokke, Hønneland, and Schei 2007, op. cit.
47. Eric Dewailly and Christopher Furgal, “POPs, the Environment, and Public Health, ” in Northern Lights Against POPs: Combatting Toxic Threats in the Arctic, ed. D.L. Downie and T. Fenge (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press), 3–21.
48. On impacts on immune systems, see Lars-Otto Reiersen, Simon Wilson, and Vitaly Kimstach, “Circumpolar Perspectives on Persistent Organic Pollutants: The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, ” in Northern Lights Against POPs: Combatting Toxic Threats in the Arctic, ed. D.L. Downie and T. Fenge (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2003), 60–86.
49. Reiersen, Wilson, and Kimstach 1993, op. cit., 61.
50. Henrik Selin, Towards International Chemical Safety: Taking Action on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) (Linköping: Department of Water and Environmental Studies, Linköping University, 2000), 142.
51. Reiersen, Wilson, and Kimstach 1993, op. cit., 68.
52. Terry Fenge, “POPs and Inuit: Influencing the Global Agenda, ” in Northern Lights Against POPs: Combatting Toxic Threats in the Arctic, ed. D.L. Downie and T. Fenge, (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2003), 192–213.
53. Henry P. Huntington and Michelle Sparck, “POPs in Alaska: Engaging the USA, ” in Northern Lights Against POPs: Combatting Toxic Threats in the Arctic, ed. D.L. Downie and T. Fenge (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2003), 214–23.
54. On the Arctic Council’s specializing in monitoring, see Peter Stenlund, “Lessons in Regional Cooperation from the Arctic, ” Ocean and Coastal Management 45 (2002): 835–9.
55. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Arctic Pollution Issues: A State of the Arctic Environment Report, (Oslo: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, 1997). www.amap.no.
56. Stokke, Hønneland, and Schei 2007, op. cit.
57. Arctic Council Action Plan to Eliminate Pollution in the Arctic 2006, “ACAP Progress Report to Senior Arctic Officials, ” www.arctic-council.org.
58. Arctic Contaminants Action Program 2008, “ACAP Progress Report to Senior Arctic Officials, ” www.arctic-council.org.
59. Stokke 2007, op. cit.
60. Arctic Contaminants Action Program 2006, op. cit.
61. Stokke 2008, op. cit.
62. Law of the Sea Convention, Art. 210, paras 4 and 6. The London Convention was re-organized through a 1996 Protocol which strengthened the precautionary approach by prohibiting the dumping of material unless explicitly permitted. See also Alan E. Boyle, “Globalism and Regionalism in the Protection of the Marine Environment, ” in Protecting the Polar Marine Environment: Law and Policy for Pollution Prevention, ed. D. Vidas (Cambridge University Press, 2000), 19–33.
63. Stokke 1998, op. cit.
64. IMO (International Maritime Organisation), ‘Russian Federation Accepts Ban on Dumping of Radioactive Wastes under 1972 London Convention. IMO Briefing 2005: 26. Dumping of high-level waste was banned in the Convention but provisions on low-level waste had been voluntary.
65. Kristine Offerdal, “Oil, Gas and the Arctic Environment, ” in International Cooperation and Arctic Governance: Regime Effectiveness and Northern Region Building, ed. O.S. Stokke and G. Hønneland (London: Routledge, 2007), 138–63.
66. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Arctic Oil and Gas 2007. (Oslo: Arctic Monitoring and Assesssment Programme, 2008). www.amap.no.
67. Offerdal 2007, op. cit.
68. The resources found on the deep sea bed beyond the continental shelves – notably nodules containing such strategic minerals as cobalt and copper – are defined in the LOSC as the “common heritage of mankind” and made subject to a specific regime. See Berhand H. Oxman, “The 1994 Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, ” in Order for the Oceans at the Turn of the Century, ed. D. Vidas and W. Østreng (Dordrecht: Kluwer Law International, 1999), 15–35.
69. Law of the Sea Convention, Arts. 207, para 3 (land-based activities) and Art. 208, para 4 (sea-bed activities).
70. Arctic Council Working Group on Protection of the Marine Environment 1996, “Report to the Third Ministerial Conference on the Protection of the Arctic Environment.” www.arctic.council.org.
71. Stokke, Hønneland, and Schei 2007, op. cit.
72. Offerdal 2007, op. cit.
73. Law of the Sea Convention, Art. 211, para 3.
74. Law of the Sea Convention, Art. 211, para 4. Passage is “innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State;” among the acts considered as prejudicial in those respects are “wilful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention.” See Art. 19, paras 1 and 2(h).
75. Law of the Sea Convention, Art. 211, para 5.
76. Law of the Sea Convention, Art. 211, para 6. Such requirements may indeed be agreed upon, as in the 2004 International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water, and Sediments (IMO Doc BWM/CONF/36(E/F/S)).
77. See Law of the Sea Convention, Arts. 34–36 (straits), 122–123 (enclosed and semi-enclosed seas), and 234 (ice-covered areas).
78. The Canadian government recently introduced legislation to extend the area of application to 200 miles.
79. The assessment is available at the PAME website (www.pame.is); Canada, Finland, and the USA are lead countries.
80. Stokke, Hønneland, and Schei 2007, op. cit.
81. Stokke 2007, op. cit.