Search

In 2017, the Polar Code, negotiated under the auspices of the IMO, came into force. Later that same year, Canada issued new regulations applicable to navigation in the Canadian Arctic. In this paper, we investigate how this new legal environment is perceived by shipping companies. We conducted a survey, asking companies, both active and not active in the Arctic, how they assess the impact of the legal changes on their operations. Using a qualitative methodology, we coded and analysed 99 questionnaires. Our research shows that companies not active in the Arctic are, as could be expected, largely unaware of the Polar Code and often unwilling to respond to our survey, showing a limited interest in the Arctic shipping market. Companies active in the Arctic and well aware of the issues of safety of navigation and environmental protection generally welcomed the Polar Code. Respondents were less familiar with the new Canadian regulations, arguably corroborating findings according to which the Northwest Passage is not currently considered a potential regular shipping route

This article examines the so-called “Arctic exception,” Article 234 of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Article 234 is intended to give the coastal state of ice-covered sea areas the necessary powers to prevent, reduce, and control vessel source pollution, which poses a particular risk to the highly sensitive Arctic marine environment. The aim of this article is to present a thorough interpretation of Article 234 in order to eventually evaluate the provision’s significance for Arctic navigation, specifically in the Canadian Arctic and the Northwest Passage.

In 2017, the Polar Code, negotiated under the auspices of the IMO, came into force. Later that same year, Canada issued new regulations applicable to navigation in the Canadian Arctic. In this paper, we investigate how this new legal environment is perceived by shipping companies. We conducted a survey, asking companies, both active and not active in the Arctic, how they assess the impact of the legal changes on their operations. Using a qualitative methodology, we coded and analysed 99 questionnaires. Our research shows that companies not active in the Arctic are, as could be expected, largely unaware of the Polar Code and often unwilling to respond to our survey, showing a limited interest in the Arctic shipping market. Companies active in the Arctic and well aware of the issues of safety of navigation and environmental protection generally welcomed the Polar Code. Respondents were less familiar with the new Canadian regulations, arguably corroborating findings according to which the Northwest Passage is not currently considered a potential regular shipping route.

Human activity is increasing in the Arctic due to several factors, not least of which is global warming, which particularly affects the region. It is against this backdrop that the development of the legal framework for the protection of the marine Arctic is unfolding. Even though it is in its infancy, several problems may already be noted and deserve closer attention. The latest example is the Canadian decision to make NORDREG mandatory. Consequently, vessels going through the Canadian Arctic are required to report to the Canadian authorities and may be denied access if they do not conform to Canadian standards. Several States recently objected to this decision. The main objective of the present paper is to examine the consistency of the compulsory NORDREG regulation with international law not without placing it in its factual and larger legal context. Its secondary objective is then to put such unilateral actions into perspective by highlighting the unavoidability of international standard setting with respect to navigation, referring to the example of the Polar Code, and by exploring the advantages of regional cooperation for the safe development of human activities in the Arctic.

This paper takes a closer look at the references to commonality, which are a salient, albeit ambiguous feature of the current discussion on Arctic governance. It does so from a legal perspective and with the purpose to unveil a twofold divide in the discussion. Legal and political purposes intersect and they vary depending on whether they are made from an Arctic or a non-Arctic perspective. Despite similar rhetoric, intentions may differ greatly and it is not unusual that different players refer to the law in irreconcilable or controversial ways. In a first step, the variety of references to commonality is charted and the underlying rhetorical strategies are carved out. In a second step, the references’ legal accuracy and their conceptual contribution to the development of a legal framework for Arctic cooperation are analysed. This should enable a better understanding of the diverging intentions and strategies at play in the discussion and the difficulties to reach a common understanding of how to govern the Arctic region.

In January 2017, the Polar Code entered into force and prompted the adoption, in Canada, of the Arctic Shipping Safety and Pollution Prevention Regulations (ASSPPR). The latter incorporate the Polar Code with a view to maintaining or increasing the preexisting level of protection. Consequently, a balancing act plays out in the ASSPPR, which are partly based on the Polar Code and partly on an alternative jurisdictional basis, arguably Article 234 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The objective of this article is to map out and put into historic perspective the balance chosen by Canada in the ASSPPR.

In January 2017, the Polar Code entered into force and prompted the adoption, in Canada, of the Arctic Shipping Safety and Pollution Prevention Regulations (ASSPPR). The latter incorporate the Polar Code with a view to maintaining or increasing the preexisting level of protection. Consequently, a balancing act plays out in the ASSPPR, which are partly based on the Polar Code and partly on an alternative jurisdictional basis, arguably Article 234 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The objective of this article is to map out and put into historic perspective the balance chosen by Canada in the ASSPPR.

This paper takes a closer look at the references to commonality, which are a salient, albeit ambiguous feature of the current discussion on Arctic governance. It does so from a legal perspective and with the purpose to unveil a twofold divide in the discussion. Legal and political purposes intersect and they vary depending on whether they are made from an Arctic or a non-Arctic perspective. Despite similar rhetoric, intentions may differ greatly and it is not unusual that different players refer to the law in irreconcilable or controversial ways. In a first step, the variety of references to commonality is charted and the underlying rhetorical strategies are carved out. In a second step, the references’ legal accuracy and their conceptual contribution to the development of a legal framework for Arctic cooperation are analysed. This should enable a better understanding of the diverging intentions and strategies at play in the discussion and the difficulties to reach a common understanding of how to govern the Arctic region.

Human activity is increasing in the Arctic due to several factors, not least of which is global warming, which particularly affects the region. It is against this backdrop that the development of the legal framework for the protection of the marine Arctic is unfolding. Even though it is in its infancy, several problems may already be noted and deserve closer attention. The latest example is the Canadian decision to make NORDREG mandatory. Consequently, vessels going through the Canadian Arctic are required to report to the Canadian authorities and may be denied access if they do not conform to Canadian standards. Several States recently objected to this decision. The main objective of the present paper is to examine the consistency of the compulsory NORDREG regulation with international law not without placing it in its factual and larger legal context. Its secondary objective is then to put such unilateral actions into perspective by highlighting the unavoidability of international standard setting with respect to navigation, referring to the example of the Polar Code, and by exploring the advantages of regional cooperation for the safe development of human activities in the Arctic.

This article examines the so-called “Arctic exception,” Article 234 of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Article 234 is intended to give the coastal state of ice-covered sea areas the necessary powers to prevent, reduce, and control vessel source pollution, which poses a particular risk to the highly sensitive Arctic marine environment. The aim of this article is to present a thorough interpretation of Article 234 in order to eventually evaluate the provision’s significance for Arctic navigation, specifically in the Canadian Arctic and the Northwest Passage.