Do the Continental Shelf Developments Challenge the Polar Regimes?

2009 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 477-497
Author(s):  
Timo Koivurova
Keyword(s):  
Continental Shelf ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Polar Regions ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Made In ◽  
Antarctic Treaty System

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.

scholarly journals BRICS in polar regions: Brazil’s interests and prospects

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-340
Author(s):  
Paulo Borba Casella ◽  
◽  
Maria Lagutina ◽  
Arthur Roberto Capella Giannattasio ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Legal Regulation ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Polar Regions ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
Public Power ◽  
Promising Tool ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
International Power ◽  
Global Affairs ◽  
The Antarctic

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.

Bioprospecting in Antarctica and the Arctic. Common Challenges?

2009 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 145-174
Author(s):  
David Leary
Keyword(s):  
The Arctic ◽  
Polar Regions ◽  
Contact Group ◽  
Critical Issues ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
History Of ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Antarctic Treaty System

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.

Comparing the robustness of Arctic and Antarctic governance through the continental shelf submission process

Polar Record ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-59
Author(s):  
Melissa Weber
Keyword(s):  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Regional Cooperation ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Polar Regions ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
Governing System ◽  
Emerging Issues ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Antarctic

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.

Governing the antipodes: international cooperation in Antarctica and the Arctic

Polar Record ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 230-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oran R. Young
Keyword(s):  
Effective Means ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Polar Regions ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
Governance Systems ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Face ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The Antarctic

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.

scholarly journals The Continental Shelf of Antarctica: Implications of the Requirement to Make a Submission to the CLCS under Article 76 of the LOS Convention

2002 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 485-520 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex G. Oude Elferink
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Outer Limit ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Antarctic

AbstractThis article looks at the question of how the obligation of states parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to submit information on the outer limit of their continental shelf to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and the regime established by the Antarctic Treaty can be reconciled. Under the latter Treaty states have 'agreed to disagree' about the legal status of Antarctica. The establishment of an outer limit of the continental shelf on the basis of the recommendations of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf would pose a threat to this agreement to disagree as it would recognise the existence of coastal states and maritime zones. The article sets out the options of the states involved to deal with this issue. It is concluded that there are a number of approaches which safeguard the rights of coastal states under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the agreement to disagree of the Antarctic Treaty.

The Antarctic Treaty and the law of the sea: fifty years on

Polar Record ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher C. Joyner
Keyword(s):  
Decision Makers ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
New Strategies ◽  
Antarctic Treaty System

Since the Antarctic Treaty was negotiated in 1959, it has undergone major substantive legal transformations as it grew into a multifaceted regime known as the Antarctic Treaty system. Many of those transformations stemmed from actions by the principal decision makers, the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs), as they adopted new strategies and values alongside binding legal agreements for managing their activities in circumpolar southern waters. This essay examines the evolution of the modern law of the sea and seeks to explain how it embellished (has it at times challenged?) the character, significance and purposes of the Antarctic Treaty.

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
Keyword(s):  
The Arctic ◽  
International Governance ◽  
Polar Regions ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
Multilateral Environmental Agreements ◽  
Commercial Activities ◽  
Governance Systems ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The Right ◽  
Antarctic Treaty System

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document