Search

The purpose of this chapter is to examine the participation of Arctic Indigenous peoples’ organizations (IPOs) in the policy and law making of Arctic governance. By focusing on the importance of the status of Permanent Participants in the Arctic Council, the chapter describes how Arctic IPOs have cemented their unique status as non-state actors in the Arctic Council and also emerged as important players in the development of Arctic policy outside this forum. Although there remain important challenges that still limit the influence of Arctic IPOs, their contribution in shaping Arctic policy has helped over the years to integrate and acknowledge the values and rights of Indigenous peoples in the governance of the Arctic. In this chapter, the Sami Council and Inuit Circumpolar Council are also singled out to illustrate their specific role in this context.

The development of an Internationally Binding Legal Instrument (ILBI) for the conservation and sustainable management of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ) has profound implications for the future regulatory activities of a host of regional governance structures exercising competence over these waters. In the rather stilted vernacular of the BBNJ Process, the ILBI aspires to “not undermine” the work of preexisting institutions and initiatives. Inevitably, given the emphasis upon future institutional symbiosis, a key challenge facing the ILBI is to promote its four thematic priorities—marine genetic resources, area-based management tools, environmental assessment, and capacity building and technology transfer—in a manner that can be effectively harnessed by current regional and sectoral frameworks. One region in which the intriguing set of challenges and opportunities presented by the ILBI are strikingly manifested is the Arctic. Some have argued for a regional treaty or clearer recognition of the “special” nature of Arctic conditions. However, we view the ILBI as a potential milestone in Arctic governance that can provide a firm platform to build on current cooperative arrangements for these vulnerable and rapidly changing marine ecosystems. Moreover, we argue that the present legal and institutional framework for the Arctic need not be revisited at this juncture, as it provides a strong regime through which to implement the core objectives of the ILBI. Its ability to do so, however, will depend on whether the ILBI (1) is effectively designed to work with preexisting machinery and (2) succeeds in clarifying and advancing universally-agreed methodological requirements for its four priority areas.

Climate change makes the Arctic ocean accessible for a range of human activities, such as shipping or hydrocarbon extraction, which can severely damage the fragile natural environment. The emergence of a ‘new ocean’ raises the question whether existing international legal norms are sufficient to adequately govern the Arctic ocean in light of this changing situation. Looking at the work of existing institutions, initiatives by Arctic States and applicable legal norms, the authors investigate the suitability of the current international legal framework for the governance of the Arctic ocean in general and the protection of the marine environment in particular. In the absence of a regional seas agreement for the Arctic ocean, particular attention will be given to the work of the Arctic Council and to potential future developments of the international legal framework governing in particular the high seas part of the central Arctic ocean.

The Arctic is undergoing unprecedented and large-scale changes that impact communities as well as the natural environment. Climate change, globalization and a rush for resources provide a unique mix of challenges also from the perspective of governance. This leads to the question how the Arctic states can react to this fundamentally new situation, a question that becomes urgent in light of the reactive nature of international law and the speed and scope of the changes experienced in the North. This issue appears under-researched from a legal perspective, just as there is a relative absence of hard law, in particular relating to the central Arctic ocean, with which this chapter is primarily concerned. The text aims at showing existing reactions to these challenges by expanding the scope of the investigation to soft law and to the role of the Arctic Council, which is not an international organization in the proper sense of the term. It is shown that there are indeed international efforts to govern the central Arctic ocean. While these efforts are currently still fragmented, their existence holds the promise of a reactive capacity of the international Arctic community even in the face of massive changes.

Finland became the Chair of the Arctic Council in May of 2017. It has now passed the halfway point in its leadership term with its program of “Exploring Common Solutions” to Arctic needs. This chapter focuses its attention on how and why the specific elements of this thematic program were chosen and the progress that the Finnish Chairmanship has made, thus far, in advancing its objectives. The specific sponsored initiatives of the program are discussed as a reflection of both Finnish priorities and current institutional efforts. Finland’s leadership goals, methods, and roles are examined within the context of providing the Arctic Council with the necessary direction to achieve its long-term objectives. Consideration is given to the particularly challenging international environment in which the Finnish Chairmanship operates.

Immigrant women and their social adaptation in the north need academic discussion. Immigrant women face continuous challenges in balancing their life in a new environment, and their challenges are as diverse as their backgrounds. Despite this variation in background, the obstacles to integration are remarkably similar across the board. The objective of this research is to find a dialectical relationship between the human ecology of immigrant women with the socio-ecological trend of the Arctic. This study analyses human ecology and social-ecological resilience in the context of the integration of immigrant women in a small Arctic territory, and the objective is to understand the interrelationships between these immigrant women and their surroundings. This study broadens our knowledge on how human actions influence and are influenced by social-ecological system (SES).

The Arctic Ocean is the smallest and shallowest of Earth’s oceans, covering an area of some 14 million square kilometres, of which 2.8 million square kilometres is beyond areas of national jurisdiction – as part of the high seas.

This chapter outlines changes in the Arctic Council, these have been built on the foundations that were laid down already at the beginning of the period of Arctic-wide co-operation, with the initiation of the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS) in 1991. Most analysis of the Arctic Council starts from the premise that it can develop - and needs to develop, because of the enormous challenges the region faces - and move towards whatever direction is desirable. The activities of the AEPS, which were carried out under the auspices of working groups concerned with conservation, pollution issues, and protection of the Arctic environment, were subsumed by the Arctic Council in 1996. AEPS outlines international environmental protection treaties that apply in the Arctic and specified additional actions to counter the identified environmental threats. It establishes four working groups: Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna, Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment, Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response and the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme.

This article examines moments of opportunity when non-governmental organisations (NGOS), inter-governmental organisations (IGOS), the European Union or nation-states have shown interest in discussing or commissioning studies on a comprehensive Arctic Treaty as a way to govern the region.These ‘windows of opportunity’ moments will be studied chronologically, starting from the end of the Cold War and progressing to the present day. It is also interesting to examine these proposals and their positioning against the current landscape of Arctic and global governance. The article will then examine how the region’s nation-states and other actors have actually opted to meet the challenges of this intensely transforming region, asking whether the states or other authoritative actors have been in favour of a comprehensive Arctic Treaty or if they have preferred to adopt some other solutions in respect to Arctic policy and law. Finally, it is of interest to examine the possible ways forward in governing a region that is undergoing dramatic transformation due to climate change and economic globalisation.

As a consequence of the growing global need for minerals, extractive industries are continuously expanding. In the North, together with several environmental problems such as climate change, this poses a real threat to the traditional livelihoods of Sami people. The article examines how the rights of Sami indigenous people are protected against adverse impacts of mining activities. The relevant national legislation is analyzed in all the four countries where Sami are present. It is specifically examined how the main mining act in each country protects the right of Sami people to their traditional livelihoods. Finally, the article sheds light on the actual effectiveness of the legal regulation. This is done by analyzing the results of interviews conducted with relevant actors and stakeholders in the mining industry.Keywords: indigenous peoples; Sami rights; mining(Published: March 2015)Citation: T. Koivurova et al. “Legal Protection of Sami Traditional Livelihoods from the Adverse Impacts of Mining: A Comparison of the Level of Protection Enjoyed by Sami in Their Four Home States.” Arctic Review on Law and Politics, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2015, pp. 11-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/arctic.v6.76

The Arctic was one of the main theatres for strategic military confrontation during the Cold War between the blocs led by the United States and the Soviet Union. There was no place for multilateral cooperation, other than for very limited issue areas, such as the 1973 Agreement on Conservation of Polar Bears between the five states with polar bear populations. Yet, the warming of relations by the end of the Cold War changed all this. Inspired by Secretary-General Mikhail Gorbachev’s speech in 1987, in which the Soviet leader pro-posed various possible areas for Arctic cooperation, differing ideas for international cooperation were advanced. Canadians, in particular, were trying to advance international treaty-based general cooperation for the Arctic, but this never came to pass and it was eventually Finland who was able to broker soft-law collaboration between the Cold War rivals.

This article studies the role of observers under both the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS) and the Arctic Council (AC) before the Nuuk ministerial meeting that took place in May 2011. In this meeting, the AC actors were able to find consensus on criteria for admitting new observers, an issue that has received much media attention, given that China and the European Union, for example, are queuing to become observers in the AC. It is of importance to examine the content of these recently adopted Nuuk observer rules and their potential to impact decision-making on whether the external actors can be included as observers. Moreover, this article studies how, if at all, the Nuuk observer rules might affect the position of the AC in the broader setting of circumpolar cooperation.

In the past years, the Arctic states have developed a normative framework that outside actors have to adopt in order to be accepted as observers to the Arctic Council. This chapter scrutinises inasmuch three non-Arctic actors—the European Union, Poland, and China—as observers to the Arctic Council have been socialised into Arctic ways of thinking through the norms and rules promoted by Arctic Council member states and Permanent Participants. Using a socialisation concept, the authors compare to which degree the three observers have internalised the mechanisms of conditionality contained in the observer rules with a special focus on the requirements of observers to respect the rights, values, and traditions of Arctic indigenous peoples and their willingness to contribute to the work of Permanent Participants.

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.

The rapidly changing Arctic has received much media attention in recent years. The planting of a Russian flag underneath the North Pole in August 2007 raised concerns about the future of the region, with some even predicting military confrontation. Some scholars suggest that there is a race on to see who can stake the biggest claim to the continental shelf—and exploit the plentiful hydrocarbon resources under the seabed. For most international lawyers, such an explanation seems far-fetched given that the coastal states have behaved in keeping with the international law of the sea. Contrasting descriptions such as these call for a more nuanced understanding of what is unfolding in the region. This reflective article presents three scenarios describing the types of development that may ensue as coastal states proceed to draw the outer limits of their continental shelves in the Arctic Ocean.

The status of Arctic indigenous peoples’ organisations has been considered unique mainly within the Arctic governance. This article explores how the indigenous peoples’ organisations have been able to obtain the status of permanent participants in the Arctic Council and their achievements throughout that position; along with what type challenges that they may face in the future concerning maintaining their permanent participant status in the Arctic Council. The article also tries to examine the position and development of indigenous peoples with respect to the Barents Euro-Arctic Council.

In a very short time, discussions on Arctic governance have moved from being a topic of scholarly attention and NGO advocacy onto the agendas of states and of the European Union (EU). Increasingly, the various alternatives propounded by a diverse set of actors over what Arctic governance should look like appear as pre-negotiation tactics, a type of testing period before a regime change. The article examines whether the still predominant inter governmental forum, the Arctic Council, is facing a threat of being supplanted by other forms of governance. It will study how resistant the Arctic Council, and its predecessor the 1991 Arctic environmental protection strategy, are to change in order to understand whether the council could renew itself to meet future challenges. It will also examine the various proposals for Arctic governance set out by states, the EU and the region's indigenous peoples. All this will permit conclusions to be drawn on where the Arctic Council stands amid all these proposals and whether, and in what way, it should change to support more sustainable governance in the Arctic.

The main intent of this article is to examine the extent of applicable international treaties and other regulations that oblige the concerned states to perform transboundary environmental assessment (TEA) in the Arctic, and whether these have induced any state practice. Since the co-operation process between the eight Arctic states has adopted an instrument aiming to influence how TEA should be undertaken in the Arctic conditions, a closer examination of the development and content of these Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment is in order. One case in the Finnish Arctic is used to demonstrate what a quality TEA can mean in the Arctic context.

This article examines the alternative proposals for an Arctic treaty that have been put forward by scholars and international organizations. The numerous proposals on record draw their inspiration from various sources: chief among these is the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), but maritime regimes and even principles such as the common heritage of humankind are represented as well. The goal of the article is to examine the proposals in depth to ascertain what is viable and what is problematic in each. This analysis will help in outlining a new treaty that can accommodate both the political realities in the Arctic and the societal goals pursued in the region.

The chapter provides overview of the Arctic sociocultural landscape, highlighting innovative and growing Arctic cities, thinnig-out rural areas, demographic challenges, and dependence on extractive and primary industries. Indigenous peoples often experience these elements in distinct manners. The EU has a number of programmes that support socioeconomic development and co-operation in the North, as well as relevant transport policies and environmental regulations. When designing and carrying out actions affecting socioeconomic and cultural development, the EU decision-makers should take into account: the region's intra-regional and core-periphery connectivity; power structures, social conflicts and cultural diversity; human-nature interactions; as well as the state of innovation, entrepreneurship and education. The EU's focus on entrepreneurship and innovation within co-operation and cohension programmes is likely to continue in the future, although greater attention to gender issues and indigenous peoples is recommended. Intra-regional accessibility and connectivity must not be neglected. The special characteristics and needs of Arctic cities need to be taken into account in EU policies and programmes.

Events shape and in turn are shaped by developments in Arctic ocean policy. Nowhere is this truer than of the ever-changing Arctic environment, which is in turn shaping and being shaped by a global demand for secure sources of future oil and natural gas supplies. As the polar ice cap progressively shrinks, and industry interest in the Arctic quickens, Canadians are confronting the challenges of developing their Arctic hydrocarbon resources. In Canada these conflicting objectives have led to innovative regulatory policies accommodating stakeholder desires on the one hand and environmental and economic considerations on the other. The European Union (EU) similarly has multiple objectives intersecting with its Arctic interests.

There has been increasing dissatisfaction with the way Arctic-wide cooperation under the Arctic Council operates. Scholars and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have taken up the idea of finding a new direction for the work of the Council by drawing on the experience of the other pole, the Antarctic, and its well-established structures of governance. At first sight, this may seem like a misdirected idea, given that the two poles show more differences than similarities: the Arctic consists of ocean surrounded by continents, whereas the Antarctic is a continent surrounded by ocean; the Antarctic has no permanent human habitation, while the Arctic is inhabited by indigenous peoples and other local communities. Yet, the two polar areas also resemble each other in many respects. Both have extreme climatic conditions, receiving less radiation from the sun than other parts of the globe, and the ecosystems have had to adapt to very cold and dark environments with short and light-filled growing seasons. In such conditions, the ecosystems are simple, containing only a few key species, and are thus more vulnerable to human-induced pollution than those of more temperate areas.

This article examines how we have progressed in our understanding of what is unfolding in the Arctic in regard to non-renewable natural resource exploitation. It first demonstrates how the Arctic expert community developed its understanding of what is happening in the offshore Arctic, as regards oil and gas exploitation. The aim is to enquire over the way the expert community has progressed in its analysis of what is driving natural resource development, and in what manner. It is shown that because of this learning process taking place in the expert community, we can nowadays ask more nuanced questions in regard to the operation of extractive industries in the Arctic. The final part of the article focuses especially on the main drivers of mining activity in the Arctic, and studies the kind of questions we can ask about how mining can be undertaken in a sustainable manner.

This chapter discusses impact assessment on both sides of the Atlantic, focusing on its current use in, and potential for, the Arctic region. There is a large body of information regarding the use of impact assessments, primarily as a tool for environmental analysis, but also in a lesser capacity for multinational collaboration. As a result of climate change, regardless of whether impact assessment as a regulatory mechanism becomes legally enforceable, this instrument has an opportunity for an increasingly useful role in pan-Arctic cooperation. The chapter concludes with a discussion on how impact assessments can be used as a mechanism to view the Arctic and address environmental problems in a new ‘geo-environmental’ context.

Climate change is occurring rapidly in the Arctic, bringing new economic opportunities alongside challenges for environmental governance in the region. Evaluating these changes, and options for effectively addressing them, requires an understanding of existing institutions and frameworks. This chapter provides a foundation for the book and an introduction to Arctic marine governance and transatlantic cooperation, setting the scene with sections on the spatial scope of the Arctic marine area, the law of the sea in the Arctic marine area, the Arctic Council, and the respective Arctic and marine policies of the European Union and the United States.

This Chapter focuses on how the Inuit and their international organisation, the Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC), have been able to participate in this “battle of wards”. The ICC represents the Inuit in four Arctic states – Russia, USA, Canada and Greenland-Denmark. It is known as the most influential of all the indigenous organisations in the Arctic. The ICC and national Inuit leaders have also taken strict position on how Arctic governance should be organised. What is particularly interesting is how they have been able to advance their claims by redefining state sovereignty and the self-determination of peoples mean in the present day international reality, in particular that in the Arctic.

The overarching goal of this paper is to highlight the importance of considering the climate change implications of oil development in the Arctic. The current global climate change regime lacks universal emissions controls, thereby creating an opportunity for “carbon leakage.” Fossil fuels, no matter where extracted, find their way to countries that are not subject to mandatory emissions reductions. The recent rush to explore vast hydrocarbon resources in the Arctic may significantly contribute to the existing carbon lock-in. To illustrate the dangers of the Arctic carbon lock-in, this paper explores the development of new oil production capacity in the South Kara Sea in Russia.

This chapter offers an overview of how Arctic-wide co-operation has developed from its early beginnings to the current Norwegian chaired Arctic Council. Since the Arctic Council is the only inter-governmental organisation managing Arctic issues, it is important to give the reader a sense of how the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS) was adopted in 1991, how the Arctic Council came into being in 1996, how the AC’s various working groups have undertaken their activities and how programmes and scientific assessments in the co-operation have progressed to date. This historical review of Arctic-wide co-operation will serve to introduce the reader to the co-operation process. The special focus of the chapter will be on how climate change policy has developed in this context. The final part of the chapter offers an evaluation of how Arctic wide co-operation has developed in general and especially how its climate policy has progressed.

1. Climate Governance in the Arctic: Introduction and Theoretical Framework.- Part I: Climate Change in the Arctic.- 2. The Climate Change Regime and the Arctic Region.- 3. The Climate Policy of the Arctic Council.- 4. A Changing Arctic Climate: Science and Policy in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.- 5. 'New governance' in the Arctic and its Role for Supporting Climate Change Adaptation.- Part II: Looking Outwards.- 6. Should the Law Governing Maritime Areas in the Arctic Adapt to Changing Climatic Circumstances?- 7. Climate Change and Arctic Fisheries.- 8. World Heritage Convention, Climate Change and the Arctic.- 9. Rethinking the Status of Indigenous Peoples in International Environmental Decision-Making Pondering the Role of Arctic Indigenous Peoples and the Challenge of Climate Change.- 10. The Potential of the Convention on Biological Diversity to Address the Effects of Climate Change in the Arctic.- Part III: Looking Inwards.- 11. Is Adaptation Governable in the Arctic? National and Regional Approaches to Arctic Adaptation Governance.- 12. Mitigation Possibilities in the Energy Sector - an Arctic Perspective.- 13. Climate Change Policy in the Arctic: the Cases of Greenland and Nunavut.- 14. Climate Change and the Regime for the Conservation of Polar Bears.- 15. Subjective Environmentalism: The Barents Euro-Arctic Council and Its Climate Change Policy.- 16. Climate Change and the Future of Arctic Governance: A Slushy Seascape and Hard Questions.- 17. Conclusions on Climate Governance in the Arctic.- Index.

This chapter examines how the guidelines for environmental impact assessment in the Arctic were adopted, what their basic content is and whether and how they have made a difference in EIA practice in the region. It takes up the future of the Guidelines with particular reference to how they should be developed. The chapter presents a brief account of the history of international Arctic cooperation is in order. With the increasing EIA decision-making power transferred to the Arctic region, it would be important to engage persons who have experience of dealing with Arctic EIA in the work of the project. It is this element of learning by exchanging good practices - an approach by which the guidelines was drawn up - which makes it possible to also improve the quality and update the instrument, provided that the political will to do so exists. Keywords:Arctic region; environmental impact assessment; international Arctic cooperation