Protecting Polar Wilderness: Just a Western Philosophical Idea or a Useful Concept for Regulating Human Activities in the Polar Regions?

2009 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kees Bastmeijer

Abstract This article focuses on the question to what extent wilderness protection receives attention in the international governance systems for the Polar Regions (Arctic Council and Antarctic Treaty System). First, on the basis of a definition of the term ‘wilderness’, the role of law in protecting wilderness is discussed. Next, attention is focused on wilderness protection in the Arctic and Antarctic. It is concluded that the international governance systems pay very little attention to the preservation of the Polar Regions as the last relatively untouched wildernesses on earth. The applicability of various multilateral environmental agreements (particularly the Arctic) is not very helpful in this respect as wilderness protection does not receive substantial attention in these legal instruments either. In view of the broad acknowledgement of the wilderness values of the Polar Regions and the fast increase of commercial activities in these regions, the author urges stakeholders involved in the Arctic Council and the Antarctic Treaty System to open the debate on relevant questions: What are wilderness values in the context of the Polar Regions and when would these values be affected? For the Arctic, how could wilderness protection be integrated in the efforts regarding sustainable development to ensure the right balance between wilderness protection and the protection of indigenous peoples rights? The questions are certainly complex; however, excluding these questions from the international governance debate with the argument that the concept is too vague, subjective or sensitive will most certainly result in a continuing loss of untouched nature, both in the Arctic and Antarctic.

Polar Record ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 230-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oran R. Young

ABSTRACTThe Arctic and the Antarctic appear to be polar opposites with regard to many matters, including the systems of governance that have evolved in the two regions. Antarctica is demilitarised, closed to economic development, open to a wide range of scientific activities, and subject to strict environmental regulations under the terms of the legally binding Antarctic Treaty of 1959 along with several supplementary measures that together form the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS). The Arctic, by contrast, is a theatre of military operations, a site of largescale industrial activities, a homeland for sizable groups of indigenous peoples, and a focus of growing concern regarding the environmental impacts of human activities. The Arctic Council, the principal international body concerned with governance at the regional level, operates under the terms of a ministerial declaration that is not legally binding; it lacks the authority to make formal decisions about matters of current interest. Digging a little deeper, however, one turns up some illuminating similarities between the governance systems operating in the antipodes. In this article, I pursue this line of thinking, setting forth a range of observations relating to (i) the history of governance in the antipodes, (ii) institutional innovations occurring in these regions, (iii) issues of membership, (iv) jurisdictional concerns, (v) the role of science, (vi) relations with the UN system, (vii) institutional interplay, and (viii) the adaptiveness of governance systems in the face of changing circumstances. The governance systems for the polar regions are not likely to converge anytime soon. Nevertheless, this analysis should be of interest not only to those concerned with the fate of Antarctica and the Arctic but also to those seeking to find effective means of addressing needs for governance in other settings calling for governance without government.


2009 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 477-497
Author(s):  
Timo Koivurova

Abstract The article will provide a study of the continental shelf submissions that have been made in the polar regions and an evaluation as to whether these pose a challenge to the two polar regimes: the Arctic Council and the Antarctic Treaty System. This will be done by comparing these regimes, examining the development of the law of the sea as regards seabed rights and studying what sort of challenge the polar regimes face from the continental shelf activity in both polar regions and how serious that challenge is. Conclusions are finally drawn as to what types of effects may ensue for the polar regimes from the continental shelf submissions by various states.


2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-340
Author(s):  
Paulo Borba Casella ◽  
◽  
Maria Lagutina ◽  
Arthur Roberto Capella Giannattasio ◽  
◽  
...  

The current international legal regulation of the Arctic and Antarctica was organized during the second half of the XX century to establish an international public power over the two regions, the Arctic Council (AC) and the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), which is characterized by Euro-American dominance. However, the rise of emerging countries at the beginning of the XXI century suggests a progressive redefinition of the structural balance of international power in favor of states not traditionally perceived as European and Western. This article examines the role of Brazil within the AC and the ATS to address various polar issues, even institutional ones. As a responsible country in the area of cooperation in science and technology in the oceans and polar regions in BRICS, Brazil appeals to its rich experience in Antarctica and declares its interest in joining the Arctic cooperation. For Brazil, participation in polar cooperation is a way to increase its role in global affairs and BRICS as a negotiating platform. It is seen in this context as a promising tool to achieve this goal. This article highlights new paths in the research agenda concerning interests and prospects of Brazilian agency in the polar regions.


2009 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 145-174
Author(s):  
David Leary

Abstract Bioprospecting is occurring in the Arctic and Antarctica. This paper considers evidence on the nature and scale of bioprospecting in the Polar Regions. The paper then aims to draw out some of the critical issues in this debate by examining recent developments in the context of the Antarctic Treaty System. After an introduction to the history of the debate on bioprospecting in the Antarctic context it examines the recent Report of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (‘ATCM’) Intersessional Contact Group to examine the issue of Biologocal Prospecting in the Antarctic Treaty Area tabled at ATCM XVII in Kiev in June 2008. The paper then concludes with some brief thoughts on the relevance of the Arctic experience to the debate in relation to Antarctica and whether or not there is an ‘Arctic Model’ for a response to the bioprospecting question in Antarctica. It is argued that rather than there being one Arctic model there is in fact a spectrum of models and experiences to choose from.


Polar Record ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-59
Author(s):  
Melissa Weber

ABSTRACTThe processes undertaken by Arctic states and Antarctic claimant states to submit data to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) demonstrates the robustness of polar governance. The robustness of a governing system reflects its capacity to deal with emerging issues. For the purposes of this article, robustness comprises the effective protection of rights in the absence of prejudice and participant confidence. In the Arctic, unilateral assertion of continental shelf entitlement can proceed due to the nature of the CLCS process and recognition of sovereignty. Combined with the voluntary nature of Arctic governance, the process does not hamper cooperation in scientific research, boundary delimitation or engagement in initiatives such as the Arctic Council. In the Antarctic, a coordinated approach to continental shelf delimitation protected claimant states’ entitlement to a continental shelf and the right of other states not to recognise sovereignty. States demonstrated commitment to the Antarctic Treaty and acted according to accepted norms. Though different in structure, each polar governing system has its own characteristics of robustness. State authority drives participant confidence and regional cooperation in the Arctic. In the Antarctic, norms of behaviour foster system legitimacy and resilience is reinforced by the consequences of abandoning the system. With continued acceptance of the individual governing-system dynamics, emerging issues can be accommodated in both polar regions.


2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 561-581
Author(s):  
Md Waliul Hasanat

Abstract Since the 1990s, various international governance systems have been active in promoting the wellbeing of the northern part of the globe. The Arctic Council, the Barents Euro-Arctic Council, and the Northern Forum – three profound forms of governance – are in vogue in addressing the challenges faced by peoples residing in the Arctic. Climate change touches upon almost every issue connected to the wellbeing of the Arctic region. It also affects the primary goals and objectives of these governance systems. Over time, each initiative has developed its own climate policy. This article focuses on the climate policies of three soft-law governance systems and examines their role in addressing climate change in the Arctic.


2016 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 52-62
Author(s):  
X. Guangmiao

With a brief history review of China’s participation in the 20th century Arctic activities, the article discusses basic directions of China’s Arctic interests in the 21th century, examines their legal grounds and mechanisms for their pursuit. Considering China‘s Arctic interests related to climate change, economic, scientific and political activities, the author emphasizes that the latter primarily serve its desire for a better understanding of climate change dynamics and economic interest. While elaborating on legal issues, the author also admits the existence of legal disputes that impede the pursuit of Chinese interests. Furthermore, when introducing the mechanisms for China’s Arctic interests pursuit as a complex which can be achieved in governmental, academic and commercial aspects, the obstructive practical factors in the process of implementation, and the shortcomings of the according mechanisms are discussed. Attempting to analyze the perspective and summarize the basic position of Chinese government on the present issue, the author adopts the methods of history research, document research, interdisciplinary research and comparison, and draws the conclusion that, as a non-Arctic state, China does not regard Arctic as a foreign policy priority and raises no claims in the region. China shows respect to the sovereignty and sovereign rights of Arctic countries, while insisting that non-Arctic states should also exercise the right of scientific research and navigation. To develop a partnership of cooperation, Arctic and non-Arctic states should recognize and respect each other's rights under the international law. China endorses UNCLOS to be the main legal instrument of the Arctic Governance and considers the Arctic Council as the most influential international forum promoting the development of Arctic Governance and cooperation. Unprepared as China has been to form its official Arctic policy, it will continue to actively participate in all aspects of the governance and cooperation in the region.


2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 448-500
Author(s):  
Jill Barrett

This article explores the principal institutions of international governance of the Antarctic region, their members, and how open they are to new participants. It considers the relationship between the openness of these institutions to new participation and their long-term international legitimacy and efficacy. Taking as its starting point the Antarctic Treaty System, each constituent part is examined for participation, transparency and legitimacy. It applies these criteria to both State and non-State actors and to parties and non-parties. Ultimately it seeks to determine what factors have contributed to its success over five decades in a radically changing world, and what factors might contribute to its future vulnerability. The examination and conclusions might have resonance for what happens in the Arctic.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document