Arctic Claimants "Agree" on Certain Points
In spite of their strong claims over the Arctic, the claimant states came to a consensus on certain Arctic policies to abide with.
The three years by which the circumpolar states -- Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States, as well as the EU – established new Arctic policies in face of the region’s rapidly evolving geopolitical situation, has finally culminated with the release of its Strategy for the Arctic.
Given the region’s diversity of interests, values, resources and cultures, the level of consensus articulated by the following Arctic policies was somewhat surprising.
Security – A lot of domestic interest in the region, particularly from Canada and Russia, revolves around issues of sovereignty, and the half dozen or so boundary disputes in the region have been the source of minor regional tension. The region also retains some of the East-West mentality carried over from the Cold War, with the North American and European states often viewing Russian ambitions in the Arctic with suspicion. All of the countries except Sweden feature Arctic security and defense prominently in their policies, but they similarly accept that there is very little possibility of any actual military conflict in the region. Indeed, the policies generally reflect discourses on human security – environmental, cultural and economic threats. Traditional and human security are not treated as mutually exclusive in the Arctic consensus, but as inter-related and reinforcing issues, especially in light of climate changes. Similarly, defense of sovereignty and a desire for enhanced international cooperation exist side by side within the policies.
Environmental Protection – A significant interest of states and their constituents when it comes to the Arctic is protecting the environment. There is a strong sentiment, particularly from Europeans and the European Union in particular, that the Arctic is a pristine environment that needs to be protected. Countries with large indigenous populations tend to be more pragmatic and favour sustainability rather than preservation. More so than anywhere else, in the Arctic, science is king. Significant credence, and influence, is granted to scientists and their reports, especially within the context of climate change and how to deal with it. Foreign policies for other parts of the world rarely acknowledge the role of science and scientists to the degree that the circumpolar states have in their Arctic policies.
International Cooperation – Despite media headlines to the contrary, the Arctic is a particularly stable region, and all of the states have affirmed their commitment to peace and international cooperation in their policies. The main approach to this is enhanced engagement in the Arctic Council, the high level ministerial forum of the eight circumpolar states; and adherence to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which outlines the process for continental shelf claims. Boundary dispute resolution has also been given priority. Other areas for cooperation identified in the various Arctic policies include search and rescue (institutionalized in a legally binding agreement in May 2011), oil pollution preparedness and response, and shipping regulations.
Sustainable Development – The potential for resource exploitation in the Arctic, particularly oil and gas, looms large in the policies of those states that have large untapped resources. However the policies are written within a context of sustainable development – taking advantage of the wealth of the Arctic while ensuring regulations are put in place across the Arctic to mitigate any environmental consequences.
Indigenous Peoples – Related to the theme of sustainable development is a concern and respect for indigenous peoples in the Arctic, and the intention of having resource exploitation in the Arctic benefit, not harm, their socio-economic well-being. Many of the policies also discuss efforts to help preserve and strengthen indigenous culture and agency.
In light of international cooperation, the fact that the objectives of the consensus, as viewed by the claimant states are so closely aligned, is already pretty reassuring. The Arctic consensus is also a reflection of the influence of the Arctic epistemic community, making it their consensus.
But of course, time has witnessed good policies remaining only on paper. It's a totally different situation when it comes to implementation. What's remarkable at least to this point is that this has shown how far regionalization has come in the Arctic in a short 25 years, and raise hopes of amicably resolving the challenges in the Arctic.
Copyright: arcticle: Newsmuse
Original article from:
Forward this news message:
In spite of their strong claims over the Arctic, the claimant states came to a consensus on certain Arctic policies to abide with.
The three years by which the circumpolar states -- Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States, as well as the EU – established new Arctic policies in face of the region’s rapidly evolving geopolitical situation, has finally culminated with the release of its Strategy for the Arctic.
Given the region’s diversity of interests, values, resources and cultures, the level of consensus articulated by the following Arctic policies was somewhat surprising.
Security – A lot of domestic interest in the region, particularly from Canada and Russia, revolves around issues of sovereignty, and the half dozen or so boundary disputes in the region have been the source of minor regional tension. The region also retains some of the East-West mentality carried over from the Cold War, with the North American and European states often viewing Russian ambitions in the Arctic with suspicion. All of the countries except Sweden feature Arctic security and defense prominently in their policies, but they similarly accept that there is very little possibility of any actual military conflict in the region. Indeed, the policies generally reflect discourses on human security – environmental, cultural and economic threats. Traditional and human security are not treated as mutually exclusive in the Arctic consensus, but as inter-related and reinforcing issues, especially in light of climate changes. Similarly, defense of sovereignty and a desire for enhanced international cooperation exist side by side within the policies.
Environmental Protection – A significant interest of states and their constituents when it comes to the Arctic is protecting the environment. There is a strong sentiment, particularly from Europeans and the European Union in particular, that the Arctic is a pristine environment that needs to be protected. Countries with large indigenous populations tend to be more pragmatic and favour sustainability rather than preservation. More so than anywhere else, in the Arctic, science is king. Significant credence, and influence, is granted to scientists and their reports, especially within the context of climate change and how to deal with it. Foreign policies for other parts of the world rarely acknowledge the role of science and scientists to the degree that the circumpolar states have in their Arctic policies.
International Cooperation – Despite media headlines to the contrary, the Arctic is a particularly stable region, and all of the states have affirmed their commitment to peace and international cooperation in their policies. The main approach to this is enhanced engagement in the Arctic Council, the high level ministerial forum of the eight circumpolar states; and adherence to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which outlines the process for continental shelf claims. Boundary dispute resolution has also been given priority. Other areas for cooperation identified in the various Arctic policies include search and rescue (institutionalized in a legally binding agreement in May 2011), oil pollution preparedness and response, and shipping regulations.
Sustainable Development – The potential for resource exploitation in the Arctic, particularly oil and gas, looms large in the policies of those states that have large untapped resources. However the policies are written within a context of sustainable development – taking advantage of the wealth of the Arctic while ensuring regulations are put in place across the Arctic to mitigate any environmental consequences.
Indigenous Peoples – Related to the theme of sustainable development is a concern and respect for indigenous peoples in the Arctic, and the intention of having resource exploitation in the Arctic benefit, not harm, their socio-economic well-being. Many of the policies also discuss efforts to help preserve and strengthen indigenous culture and agency.
In light of international cooperation, the fact that the objectives of the consensus, as viewed by the claimant states are so closely aligned, is already pretty reassuring. The Arctic consensus is also a reflection of the influence of the Arctic epistemic community, making it their consensus.
But of course, time has witnessed good policies remaining only on paper. It's a totally different situation when it comes to implementation. What's remarkable at least to this point is that this has shown how far regionalization has come in the Arctic in a short 25 years, and raise hopes of amicably resolving the challenges in the Arctic.
Copyright: arcticle: Newsmuse
Original article from:
Forward this news message:
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, and for the general purpose of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, research and / or educational purposes only. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use this material for purposes other than provided by law. You must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html