Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T18:43:36.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The present and future competence of the European Union in the Arctic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2011

Timo Koivurova ,
Kai Kokko ,
Sebastien Duyck ,
Nikolas Sellheim  and
Adam Stepien
Timo Koivurova
Affiliation:
University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland (timo.koivurova@ulapland.fi)
Kai Kokko
Affiliation:
University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland (timo.koivurova@ulapland.fi)
Sebastien Duyck
Affiliation:
University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland (timo.koivurova@ulapland.fi)
Nikolas Sellheim
Affiliation:
University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland (timo.koivurova@ulapland.fi)
Adam Stepien
Affiliation:
University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland (timo.koivurova@ulapland.fi)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The European Union's (EU's) intention of becoming a permanent observer in the Arctic Council and the reluctance of Arctic actors to grant it that status have made the union's aspirations in the Arctic the subject of a continuing debate. The discussion appears to be dominated by geographical considerations and the EU's gradually emerging Arctic policy. This article puts forward a different view of the EU's presence in the region, one drawing on an analysis of relevant EU competences. As a complex international actor, the EU has acquired a broad array of decision-making powers from its member states, powers that partly extend to Iceland and Norway via the EEA Agreement. Moreover, the EU has in many cases become a relevant actor in international negotiations and treaty making processes the outcomes of which are of crucial importance for the governance of the Arctic. Our argument in the third and concluding section is that only by including the EU in Arctic governance can the international community provide better prospects for the union to sensitise its policies and discourses to the Arctic realities and for other Arctic actors to understand how the union functions. This argument is supported by an analysis of the EU's restrictions on the import of seal products and the ensuing litigation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Polar Record , Volume 48 , Issue 4 , October 2012 , pp. 361 - 371
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

The present article is based on an extensive report completed by the authors for the European Parliament when it was revising its Arctic policy (see European Parliament website; URL: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/studies/download.do?language=sv&file=33381, (accessed 19 April 2011). The report (The EU competences affecting the Arctic) is mentioned in the exploratory statement to the motion for a European Parliament resolution; URL: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A7-2010-0377+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN#title2 (accessed 14 February 2011).Google Scholar
ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment). 2004. Impacts of a warming Arctic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (ACIA overview report).Google Scholar
Arctic Council. 2009. Seal ban violates the WTO guidelines. News release; URL: http://arctic-council.org/article/2009/7/seal_ban_violates_the_wto_guidelines (accessed 14 February 2011).Google Scholar
AMAP (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme). 2007. Oil and gas assessment overview report (final 1 May 2008). Oslo: AMAP.Google Scholar
Berthiaume, L. 2011. Norway to join Canada in challenging seal ban. Embassy Magazine 17 March 2011. URL: http://www.embassymag.ca/dailyupdate/view/33 (accessed 18 March 2011).Google Scholar
Craig, P. 2009. Competence and member state autonomy: causality, consequence and legitimacy. In: Micklitz, H.W., and de Witte, B., (editors). in press. The European Court of Justice and the autonomy of the member states. Oxford (Oxford legal studies research paper 57).Google Scholar
Craig, P., and de Búrga, G.. 2008. EU law: texts, cases and materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press(4th edition).Google Scholar
De Schoutheete, P., and Andoura, S.. 2007. The legal personality of the European Union. Studia Diplomatica 60 (1). URL: http://aei.pitt.edu/9083/1/Legal.Personality.EU-PDS-SA.pdf (accessed 10 February 2011).Google Scholar
DG (Directorate General for Internal Policies of the Union). 2010. The role and impact of the European Social Fund. (IP/A/EMPL/NT/2009-13, EMPL Committee – 9 November 2010).Google Scholar
Duyck, S., Koivurova, T., and Kokko, K.. 2009. Report. Assessment of possible implications of LBA content options 2 and 3 on selected international forest related agreements and on the EC/EU competence. Rovaniemi: Faculty of Law together with the Northern Institute for Environmental and Minority Law. (Executive summary; URL: http://www.foresteurope.org/filestore/foresteurope/Meetings/2009/3rd_WG_LBA_Rome_September_2009/BP5implicationanalysis..pdf (accessed 13 February 2011)).Google Scholar
ECJ (European Court of Justice). 1971. Case 22/70, Commission v. Council (ERTA) [1971]. European Court Reports 273.Google Scholar
ECJ (European Court of Justice). 1977. Opinion 1/76 on the draft agreement establishing a European laying-up fund for inland waterway vessels. European Court Reports 741.Google Scholar
ECJ (European Court of Justice). 1987. Case 45/86, Commission v Council, 26 March 1987. European Court Reports 1493.Google Scholar
ECJ (European Court of Justice). 2001. Opinion 2/00 [2001]. European Court Reports I-9713 (Opinion of the Court of 6 December 2001. – Cartagena Protocol – Conclusion – Legal basis – Articles 133 EC, 174(4) EC and 175(1) EC – Living modified organisms – Environmental protection – Common commercial policy).Google Scholar
EComm (European Commission). 2007. Community implementation plan for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Commission staff working document SEC(2007)341, Brussels, 9 March 2007. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pops/pdf/sec_2007_341.pdf (accessed 20 February 2011).Google Scholar
EComm (European Commission). 2008. Communication COM/2008/0763 from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council – The European Union and the Arctic Region. URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0763:FIN:EN:PDF (accessed 9 February 2011).Google Scholar
EComm (European Commission). 2009. Adoption of the third maritime safety package. European Commission portal, URL: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/maritime/safety/third_maritime_safety_package_en.htm (accessed 14 February 2011).Google Scholar
EComm (European Commission). 2010a. Arctic dialogue workshop. Brussels: MARE.C1/EH/ZB/2010; URL: http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/pdf/arctic_workshop_090310_summary_en.pdf (accessed 14 February 2011).Google Scholar
EComm (European Commission). 2010b. Commission regulation no. 737/2010 of 10 August 2010 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on trade in seal products, Official Journal L 216/1, 17.08.2010.Google Scholar
EComm (European Commission). undated. Trade in seal products. European Commission website; URL: http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/trade_seals_products.pdf (accessed 14 February 2011).Google Scholar
EComm (European Commission Legal Service). 2009. Summaries of important judgments. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/legal_service/arrets/07c370_en.pdf (accessed 14 February 2011).Google Scholar
EC (European Community). 2001. Directive 2001/81/EC of 23 October 2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants, Official Journal L 309, 27.11.2001.Google Scholar
EC (European Community). 2002–2009. Directive 2002/59/EC of 27 June 2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a community vessel traffic monitoring and information system and repealing Council Directive 93/75/EEC (with amendments – Directive 2009/17/EC). Official Journal L 208, 5 August 2002, L131/101, 28 May 2009.Google Scholar
EC (European Community). 2005. Directive 2005/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur contents of marine fuels. Official Journal L 191/59, 22.07.2005.Google Scholar
EC (European Community). 2006. Council regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (with amendments). Official Journal L 210/25, 31.07.2006.Google Scholar
EC (European Community). 2007. Directive 2007/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 September 2007 amending Council directive 76/769/EEC relating to restrictions on the marketing of certain measuring devices containing mercury, Official Journal L 257, 03.10.2007.Google Scholar
EC (European Community). 2008. Council regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 of 29 September 2008 establishing a community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, amending Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1936/2001 and (EC) No 601/2004 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 1093/94 and (EC) No 1447/1999. Official Journal L 286/1, 29.10.2008.Google Scholar
EC (European Community). 2009. Regulation No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on trade in seal products. Official Journal L 286, 31.10.2009.Google Scholar
EEA Agreement (Agreement on the European Economic Area). 1993. Brussels, 17 March 1993. Official Journal L 1, 3.1.1994: 3.Google Scholar
EEC (European Economic Community). 1983. Council directive 83/129/EEC of 28 March 1983 concerning the importation into member states of skins of certain seal pups and products derived therefrom (with amendments), Official Journal L 091, 09/04/1983.Google Scholar
EP (European Parliament). 2008. Resolution of 9 October 2008 on Arctic governance, RC-B6-0523/2008, Official Journal 42: 15 January 2010, 2010/C 9 E/07: 41–43.Google Scholar
EP (European Parliament). 2011. Resolution of 20 January 2011 on a sustainable EU policy for the high North, A7-0377/2010. (Not yet published in the Official Journal). URL: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2011–0024&language=EN (accessed 20 March 2011).Google Scholar
EU Council (Council of the European Union). 2009. Council conclusions on Arctic issues. (2985th Foreign Affairs Council meeting, Brussels, 8 December 2009).Google Scholar
EU (European Union). 1957–2002. Treaty on European Community (TEC) (consolidated version as of 2002). Official Journal C 325. (24 December 2002).Google Scholar
EU (European Union). 1997. Protocol on the protection and welfare of animals to the Treaty of Amsterdam. Amsterdam, 2 October 1997. Official Journal C 340 (10 November 1997).Google Scholar
EU (European Union). 2002. Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC 1957–2002) (Consolidated version as of 2002). Official Journal C 325. (24 December 2002).Google Scholar
EU (European Union). 2007. Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality to the Treaty of Lisbon. Lisbon, 13 December 2007, Official Journal 50, C 306 (17 December 2007).Google Scholar
EU (European Union). 2010. Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union (TEU 1992–2007) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU 1957–2007) (as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon). Official Journal C 83 (30 March 2010).Google Scholar
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. 2011. Harper government moves forward to establish WTO panel on European Union seal ban. URL: http://www.international.gc.ca/media_commerce/comm/news-communiques/2011/123.aspx?lang=eng (accessed 27 March 2011).Google Scholar
Franckx, E., Van Den Bossche, K., and VanderZwaag, D.L.. 2009. Canada, the European Union and regional fisheries management in the North Atlantic: conflict, cooperation and challenges. In: Koivurova, T., Chircop, A., Franckx, E., Molenaar, E.J., and VanderZwaag, D.L. (editors). Understanding and strengthening European Union-Canada relations in law of the sea and ocean governance. Rovaniemi: University of Lapland (Juridica Lapponica 35).Google Scholar
Gahler, M. 2010. Report on a sustainable EU policy for the high North. European Parliament 2009/2214(INI). URL: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A7-2010-0377&language=EN (accessed 10 February 2011).Google Scholar
GC (General Court). 2010. Action brought on 11 January 2010 — Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami e.a. v Parliament and Council, Case T-18/10 2010/C 100/64. Official Journal C 100/41 (17 April 2010).Google Scholar
Government of Greenland. 2008. The European Union and Greenland. Government of Greenland website; URL: http://eu.nanoq.gl/Emner/EuGl/The%20Greenland%20Treaty.aspx (accessed 15 February 2011).Google Scholar
Graczyk, P. 2011. Observers in the Arctic Council – evolution and prospects. The Yearbook of Polar Law 3 (2011).Google Scholar
Humane Society International. 2011. Protect seals. URL: http://www.hsi.org/issues/protect_seals/ (accessed 14 February 2011).Google Scholar
IMO (International Maritime Organization). 2010. Sub-committee on ship design and equipment (DE). 53rd session: 22 –26 February 2010. Meeting summary; URL: http://www.imo.org/MediaCentre/MeetingSummaries/DE/Pages/DE-53rd-Session.aspx (accessed 15 February 2011).Google Scholar
IMO (International Maritime Organization). Undated. Ships operating in polar regions; URL: http://www.imo.org/ourwork/safety/safetytopics/pages/polarshippingsafety.aspx (accessed 14 February 2011).Google Scholar
SOLAS (International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea). 1974. London 1 November 1974. 1184 UNTS 2.Google Scholar
Kakar, A. 2011. WTO grants Canada request for hearing on EU seal products ban. URL: jurist.com (accessed 27 March 2011).Google Scholar
Kokko, K., Toivonen, R., Pelkonen, P., Mäki-Hakola, M., Letto-Vanamo, P., Enroth, R-R., Ojanen, T., and Tahvanainen, L.. 2006. EU competences in forestry policy. Helsinki: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. URL: <http://www.mmm.fi/attachments/mmm/julkaisut/julkaisusarja/5gKXVcqW5/2006_6_EU_Comp_net.pdf (accessed 13 February 2011).Google Scholar
Lester, S. 2010. The WTO seal products dispute: a preview of the key legal issues. American Society of International Law Insight 14 (2). URL: http://www.asil.org/insights100113.cfm (accessed 5 January 2011).Google Scholar
MARPOL 73/78. 1973–1978. International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, London, 2 November 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 17 February 1978. 1340 UNTS 184.Google Scholar
Molenaar, E., Hodgson, S., VanderZwaag, D., Hallsson, H. H., Henriksen, T., Holm-Peterson, L., Vladimirovich, M., Kraska, Kolrel'skiy, J., Magnússon, B. M., Rolston, S., and Serdy, A.. 2010. Legal aspects of Arctic shipping; summary report. Luxembourg: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (Publications office of the European Union).Google Scholar
Neumann, A., and Rudloff, B.. 2010. EU policy in the Arctic – The cases of climate policy and fisheries. Briefing. Brussels: EU Parliament/TEPSA.Google Scholar
Rudloff, B. 2010. The EU as fishing actor in the Arctic. Working paper. FG 2. Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik. URL: http://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/arbeitspapiere/Rff_WP_2010_02_ks.pdf (accessed 20 March 2011).Google Scholar
Statsministeriet (Denmark). 2009. Act on Greenland Self-Government, No. 473 of 12 June 2009; URL: http://www.stm.dk/multimedia/GR_Self-Government_UK.doc, (accessed 12 February 2011).Google Scholar
United Nations. 1995. The United Nations agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the law of the sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks (in force from 11 December 2001). 2167 UNTS 3.Google Scholar
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2011. The negotiating process. UNEP website; URL: http://www.unep.org/hazardoussubstances/Mercury/Negotiations/tabid/3320/Default.aspx (accessed 13 February 2011).Google Scholar
United States Congress. 2007. S.J. RES. 17, 110th CONGRESS, 1st Session. Washington. URL: http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/current_issues/Arctic/SJRes17%20as%20of%20Oct%202007.htm (accessed 14 February 2011).Google Scholar
Wallis, D. 2010. Observations by Timo Koivurova during the NATO Advanced Research Workshop (ARW) on ‘Environmental security in the Arctic Ocean’. Cambridge (13 –15 October 2010) (unpublished, on file with the authors).Google Scholar
WTO (World Trade Organization). Undated. Dispute settlement gateway, case DS400. URL: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds400_e.htm, (accessed 28 March 2011) (and associated cases DS 369, DS 401).Google Scholar
Yanovich, A., and Zdouc, W.. 2009. Procedural and evidentiary issues. In: Bethlehem, D., McRae, R., Neufeld, , and Van Damme, I. (editors). The Oxford handbook of international trade law. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar