Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-vt8vv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-08-18T09:06:39.591Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

If an Arctic Ocean treaty is not the solution, what is the alternative?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2011

Oran R. Young
Oran R. Young*
Affiliation:
Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California (Santa Barbara), Santa Barbara, CA 93106-5131, USA (oran.young@gmail.com)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many analysts argue that responding effectively to the transformative changes occurring in the Arctic will require the creation of an Arctic Ocean treaty or even a more comprehensive treaty covering the whole Arctic. This article explores this line of thinking critically. In doing so, it addresses three distinct but related questions: 1) Is there a need for an Arctic Ocean framework agreement? 2) Where should we focus our attention along the integration-fragmentation spectrum? 3) Would it help to make arrangements for Arctic governance legally binding? The conclusion is that the case for spending political capital on an effort to negotiate the terms of an Arctic Ocean treaty is weak. But this need not be regarded as a cause for pessimism. A more multidimensional Arctic governance complex is emerging and is likely to continue to develop during the coming years.

Type
Research Article
Information
Polar Record , Volume 47 , Issue 4 , October 2011 , pp. 327 - 334
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arctic Governance Project. 2010. Arctic governance in an era of transformative change: critical questions, governance principles, ways forward. (Available in the Arctic Governance Compendium. URL: www.arcticgovernance.org).Google Scholar
Barrett, S. 2003. Environment and statecraft: the strategy of environmental treaty making. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, S., and Stavins, R.. 2003. Increasing participation and compliance in international climate change agreements. International Environmental Agreements 3: 349–376.Google Scholar
Berkes, F. 2008. Sacred ecology. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Berkman, P.A., Lang, M., Walton, D.W.H., and Young, O.R. (editors). in press. Science diplomacy: Antarctic science and the governance of international spaces. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press.Google Scholar
Breitmeier, H., Young, O.R., and Zürn, M.. 2006. Analyzing international environmental regimes: from case study to database. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breitmeier, H., Underdal, A., and Young, O.R.. In press. The effectiveness of international environmental regimes: comparing and contrasting findings from quantitative research. International Studies Review.Google Scholar
Chapin, F., III, S., Kofinas, G.P., and Folke, C.. (editors). 2009. Principles of ecosystem stewardship: resilience-based natural resource management in a changing world. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Dai, X. 2007. International institutions and national policies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Parliament 2008 Resolution of 9 October 2008 on Arctic Governance (available in the Arctic Governance Compendium at www.arcticgovernance.org).Google Scholar
Ilulisaat Declaration 2008 Declaration of 28 May 2008 adopted by the representatives of Canada, Denmark, Norway, the Russian Federation, and the United States (available in the Arctic Governance Compendium at www.arcticgovernance.org).Google Scholar
Joyner, C.C. 1998. Governing the frozen south: the Antarctic regime and environmental protection. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, R.O., and Victor, D.G.. in press. The regime complex for climate change, Perspectives on Politics.Google Scholar
Koivurova, T., and Molenaar, E.J.. 2010. International governance and the regulation of the marine Arctic: a proposal for a legally binding agreement. Oslo: WWF International Arctic Programme.Google Scholar
Lipson, C. 1991. Why are some international agreements informal? International Organization 45: 495–538.Google Scholar
McLeod, K., and Leslie, H. (editors). 2009. Ecosystem-based management for the oceans. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Miles, E.L., Underdal, A., Andresen, S., Wettestad, J., Skjaerseth, J.B., and Carlin, E.M.. 2002. Environmental regime effectiveness: confronting theory with evidence. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Petersen, H., and Poppel, B. (editors). 1999. Dependency, autonomy, and sustainability in the Arctic. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Peterson, D.L., and Johnson, D.R. (editors). 1995. Human ecology and climate change: people and resources in the far north. Washington, DC: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Putin, V. 2010. Speech at the International Arctic Conference organised by the Russian Geographical Society, Moscow, 23 September 2010. (available in the Arctic Governance Compendium. URL: www.arcticgovernance.org).Google Scholar
Raustiala, K., and Victor, D.G.. 2004. The regime complex for plant genetic resources. International Organization 58: 277–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underdal, A., and Young, O.R.. 2004. Research strategies for the future. In: Underdal, A., and Young, O.R. (editors). Regime consequences: methodological challenges and research strategies. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
United Nations. 1983. The law of the sea: United Nations convention on the law of the sea. New York: United Nations Publications.Google Scholar
Zaelke, D., Stilwell, M., and Young, O.R.. 2005. What reason demands: making law work for sustainable development. In: Zaelke, D., Kaniaru, D., and Kruzikova, E. (editors). Making law work: environmental compliance and sustainable development. London: Cameron May: 29–51.Google Scholar