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.

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.

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.

The Polar Regions and the Development of International Law: Contemporary Reflections and Twenty-First Century Challenges

2013 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 233-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald R. Rothwell
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
First Century ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Polar Regions ◽  
Foundational Research ◽  
Twenty First Century ◽  
Legal Frameworks ◽  
Global Affairs ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
The Impact

Abstract The polar regions are increasingly coming to the forefront of global affairs in ways that are beginning to approach the prominence given to the polar regions during the ‘heroic era’ of exploration at the beginning of the twentieth century. This contemporary focus is, however, very much upon governance and the capacity of the existing and future legal frameworks to govern the Antarctic and Arctic effectively. This article revisits foundational research undertaken in 1992–1993 and reassesses the impact of the polar regions upon the development of international law. Particular attention is given to environmental management, living and nonliving resource management, the regulation and management of maritime areas, and governance mechanisms and frameworks. The article seeks to critically assess whether the existing legal frameworks that operate in Antarctica and the Arctic are capable of dealing with their increasing globalisation, or whether there will be a need for new legal and governance regimes to be developed to address twenty-first century challenges.

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.

‘Himadri’ and the Global Politics of Melting Ice: India’s Arctic Presence and the March Towards Global Governance

2013 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 649-667
Author(s):  
Anuradha Nayak
Keyword(s):  
Global Governance ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
Governance Model ◽  
Arctic Sea ◽  
Political Impact ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
Arctic Policy ◽  
The Antarctic

Abstract The Arctic is witnessing major changes due to the melting and thinning of Arctic sea ice. This phenomenon resulted in exposure of hidden natural resources and opening of new navigational routes. The future would witness circumpolar states benefitting from these changes. However, it seems that non-circumpolar states would also be interested in participation and reaping benefits from the development process. Hence, they make their presence felt in the Arctic, through various activities which has geo-political impact. In this light, the article focuses on one of the non – circumpolar countries, India and its perspective stance. The article deliberates on the ramification of melting ice and the present Arctic system through the Arctic Council, the Svalbard treaty and an analysis of the Antarctic treaty system. The article concludes by proposing a perceived Arctic policy for India and a global governance model. The attempt is governance should focus on pan- Arctic issues rather than regional ones. Furthermore, it should encompass interests/rights of vested states, legal entities and other interested parties.

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.

scholarly journals Polityczne i prawne aspekty prowadzenia badań naukowych w rejonach polarnych

2019 ◽  
pp. 335-347
Author(s):  
Aleksander Świątecki ◽  
Dorota Górniak ◽  
Marek Zdanowski ◽  
Jakub Grzesiak ◽  
Tomasz Mieczan
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
Arctic Region ◽  
Global Scale ◽  
International Community ◽  
Scientific Activity ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
The Political ◽  
Polar Regions ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The Antarctic

The Arctic and Antarctic have been of great interest to the international community for a number of years. The still unresolved problem regardingpolar regions is the still partially regulated legal issues concerning the management of these areas. Both the Arctic and Antarctica are areas of potentiallygreat scientific, economic, political and military importance. The political and legal status of polar areas is not uniform. Currently, there is no legalinternational document that would regulate issues related to the management of the Arctic region. The political and legal status of Antarctica wasdetermined in 1959 in Washington. The Antarctic Treaty regulates in detail the activities in this region. Territorial claims are a particularly importantproblem. A number of countries prove their territorial rights to both the Arctic and Antarctic. The Arctic division is discussed within five countries,without the participation of the international community, while the Antarctic Treaty arrangements have put these issues on ice until 2049. Internationalcooperation in the field of research of polar regions has a long history and is confirmed by bilateral and international agreements. Conducted researchin the Arctic and Antarctic relate to various scientific problems. Investigations of processes taking place on Earth on a global scale are of particularimportance, both in historical and prognostic perspective. The history of Polish polar research is rich, multi-faceted and dates back to the second half ofthe nineteenth century. Contemporary Polish polar research focuses on a number of problems: glaciology and periglacial phenomena, climatology,geomorphology, hydrology, and geo-ecosystems dynamics. Polish scientific activity, in these regions, significantly develops our positive relations withthe international community.

scholarly journals Polar Ecotoxicology – a missing link

2003 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 317-317 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARTIN J. RIDDLE ◽  
PETER M. CHAPMAN
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Environmental Risk ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Specific Information ◽  
Polar Regions ◽  
Missing Link ◽  
Polar Species ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The Antarctic

There is a pressing need for region-specific information on the response of polar species to contaminants. The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty states “…regular and effective monitoring shall take place to allow assessment of the impacts of ongoing activities, including the verification of predicted impact…”. Although the Treaty only applies to the Antarctic, similar requirements exist for the Arctic; thus, our comments below apply to both polar regions. Without ecotoxicological information all the effort that is directed towards contaminants monitoring is largely meaningless as it does not tell us whether the levels detected pose an environmental risk.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document