scholarly journals Training Skills with Common-Interest Building

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-65
Author(s):  
Paul Arthur Berkman ◽  
Alexander Vylegzhanin

This fourth Synthesis of the Science Diplomacy Action series involves that pedagogy of common-interest building among allies and adversaries alike as a negotiation skill to apply, train and refine. This serial edition also represents a journey with science diplomacy and its engine of informed decisionmaking among friends who facilitated the first formal dialogue between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Russia regarding security in the Arctic, which we co-directed at the University of Cambridge in 2010. The starting point for that NATO-Russia dialogue was science diplomacy, as an holistic (international, interdisciplinary and inclusive) process to balance national interests and common interests for the benefit of all on Earth across generations. Operation of this holistic process became clear in 2016 during the 1st International Dialogue on Science and Technology Advice in Foreign Ministries, when the ‘continuum of urgencies’ was identified from security time scales (mitigating risks of political, economic, cultural and environmental instabilities that are immediate) to sustainability time scales (balancing economic prosperity, environmental protection and societal well-being across generations). The following year, the theoretical framework of informed decisionmaking – operating across a ‘continuum of urgencies’ short-term to long-term – emerged with the case study published in Science about the 2017 Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation, which has entered into force among the eight Arctic states. With continuing acceleration, in 2020, Springer published the first volume in the new book series on INFORMED DECISIONMAKING FOR SUSTAINABILITY. The graduate course on “Science Diplomacy: Environmental Security and Law in the Arctic Ocean” was introduced in 2016 with the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, involving a Mock Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting as the culminating synthesis with the Student Ambassadors. Framed around their working papers for the Mock Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting, the Student Ambassadors negotiated a declaration, which they adopted by consensus and signed at end of that first semester. In subsequent years, additional holistic integration exercises were introduced into the course, including the Common-Interest Building – Training Game with the pedagogy of the seventeen United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, each of which has international, interdisciplinary and inclusive relevance at local-global levels (APPENDIX 1: Syllabus – Spring 2020). From 2017 through 2020, the graduate course was expanded to Science Diplomacy: Environmental Security and Law in the Arctic Ocean, involving The Fletcher School in Medford (Massachusetts, United States) and the International Law Programme at MGIMO University in Moscow (Russian Federation). Building on a Memorandum of Understanding between our institutions, this joint video-conferencing course was approved by the Russian Ministry of Education and involved Carnegie Corporation of New York funding that was directed by Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman, contributing to the soon-to-be Russia and Eurasia Program at The Fletcher School. Each year, Student Ambassadors from the United States and Russian Federation adopted and signed joint declarations by consensus, as an exercise in common-interest building. Results of training skills with common-interest building are reflected herein with the compilation of consensus declarations crafted by the Student Ambassadors in their Mock Arctic Council Ministerial Meetings from 2016 to 2020. The essence of common-interest building is to make inormed decisions that operate across time in view of urgencies, short-term to long-term, tactical and strategic. Urgencies are embedded across diverse time scales with local-global relevance, as demonstrated by accelerating impacts through: month-years with our global pandemic; years-decades with high technologies; and decades-centuries with global human population size and atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentration in our Earth system. The underlying process of informed decisionmaking involves holistic integration with science as the ‘study of change’, revealed with the natural sciences and social sciences as well as Indigenous knowledge, all of which characterize patterns, trends and processes (albeit with different methods) that become the bases for decisions. Contributing with research and action, the institutions involved with decisionmaking produce: governance mechanisms (laws, agreements and policies as well as regulatory strategies, including insurance, at diverse jurisdictional levels); and built infrastructure (fixed, mobile and other assets, including communication, observing, information and other systems that require technology plus investment). Coupling of governance mechanisms and built infrastructure contributes to progress with sustainability, which were weaved throughout the course with the Arctic Ocean as a case study. Outcomes of the joint-video conferencing course between The Fletcher School and MGIMO University have accelerated globally into the training initiatives with diplomatic schools among foreign ministries as well as with the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). Our hope is science diplomacy and its engine of informed decisionmaking will lead to lifelong learning across the jurisdictional spectrum with its subnational-national-international legal levels for the benefit of all on Earth across generations.

Nordlit ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Torbjørn Pedersen

This article discusses what role(s) member governments want the Arctic Council to have in Arctic affairs. It compares the foreign policies of the five littoral states of the Arctic Ocean: Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the United States. It identifies and examines three determining debates on a ministerial level over the Arctic Council and the issues it might address: The first debate preceded the Arctic Council's creation in 1996; the second thrived as the five Arctic littoral states convened in Ilulissat, Greenland in 2008; and the third followed a political shift inthe United States in 2009.


Author(s):  
A. N. Vylegzhanin ◽  
N. V. Korchunov ◽  
A. R. Tevatrosyan

INTRODUCTION. The article covers the legal aspects of the establishment of a new international forum – the Arctic Economic Council – and its role in the existing international legal framework for governing the Arctic Ocean, including the Arctic seas. The status and the functioning of the said international forum, particularly with regard to the activities within its Working Groups, have been examined based on the analysis of the documents adopted by the forum since its establishment. Special attention has been paid to the legal analysis of the coordination of the newly established forum with the Arctic Council and the prospects of such institutional cooperation.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The research done by the authors on the relevant documents released by the Artic Council, in the context of legal and scientific sources on the topic of the Arctic Ocean and its seas, as well as on the Reports of the Arctic Economic Council submitted to the Senior Officials of the Arctic Council, underlies this article. The article also takes into consideration political and legal research of the Arctic Council’s work, aimed at the sustainable development of the economic activities in the region, as well as respective archive documents from the electronic database of the Arctic Council, including relevant press releases.RESEARCH RESULTS. The Arctic Economic Council (AEC), established upon the initiative of the Arctic Council in 2014, is a new circumpolar business-forum, which aims at fostering the sustainable development of the Arctic region by substantive cooperation with the entrepreneurs, carrying out economic activities in the region or planning to do so. The new international organization has the potential to become an effective international legal mechanism to promote greener economies in the Arctic; meanwhile, the organization is yet to become a constructive platform for dialogue on fostering the economic activities in the region.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The AEC foundational documents determine the structure and the course of action of the organization. The article, nevertheless, suggests that the executives and the Secretary of this newly established international forum ensure that the business representatives, committed to conduct activities in the Arctic, seek to comply with the international environmental standards, applicable to the Arctic; particularly that, subject to the unique vulnerability of the Arctic environment, an exchange of best practices takes place. Moreover, in view of the increased shipping and growth of other marine activities in the region, the Arctic business standards not only need to be more environmentally oriented, but also take into account the possibility of diversifying the Arctic economy. The AEC could focus its efforts on enhancing the quality of the regional regulation of the economic activities in the Arctic, paying particular attention to the coordinated self-regulative measures of the legal entities in different countries. In this case, its activities may prove to be more relevant and effective.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 296-318
Author(s):  
Alexander N. Vylegzhanin ◽  
◽  
Elena V. Kienko ◽  

The article, in the context of the contemporary status of the Arctic, examines the legal and political documents adopted by China, Japan and South Korea in regard to their arctic policy, including those agreed upon by these three States. The alarming reaction to such documents in the Arctic coastal states, firstly, in the USA and Canada, is also considered in the article. Relevant western scholars’ arguments are scrutinized, such as the increase of “China’s military power”; China’s “insatiable appetite” for access to natural resources in the Arctic; the argument that “China seeks to dominate” the Arctic and the situation when “the Arctic Council is split”; the notion that China makes other non-Arctic States create separate legal documents concerning the regime of the Arctic Ocean. The article concludes that the western interpretation of such documents is alarming only in relation to China. The research shows that up till now there are no grounds for such estimations of China’s negative role. However, statements by Chinese officials as cited in the article and some provisions stipulated in “China’s Arctic policy” contradict the common will of the Arctic coastal states in regard to the legal regime of the Arctic Ocean as reflected in the Ilulissat Declaration of 2008. In such a dynamic legal environment, new instruments of collaboration are in demand, which might involve China and other non-Arctic states in maintaining the established legal regime of the Arctic. Thus, the new instruments would deter the creation (with unpredictable consequences) by China, Japan and South Korea of new trilateral acts relating to the status of the Arctic.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camille Lique ◽  
Heather Regan ◽  
Gianluca Meneghello ◽  
Claude Talandier

<p>Mesoscale activity in the Arctic Ocean remains largely unexplored, owing primarily to the challenges of i) observing eddies in this ice-covered region and ii) modelling at such small deformation radius. In this talk, we will use results from a simulation performed with a high-resolution, eddy resolving model to investigate the spatial and temporal variations of the eddy kinetic energy (EKE) in the Arctic Basin. On average and in contrast to the typical open ocean conditions, the levels of mean and eddy kinetic energy are of the same order of magnitude, and EKE is intensified along the boundary and in the subsurface. On long time scales (interannual to decadal), EKE levels do not respond as expected to changes in the large scale circulation. This can be exemplified when looking at the spin up of the gyre that occurred in response to a strong surface input of momentum in 2007-2008. On seasonal time scales, the estimation of a Lorenz energy cycle allows us to investigate the drivers behind the peculiarities of the EKE field, and to understand the relative roles played by the atmospheric forcing for them.</p><p> </p>


2018 ◽  
Vol 123 (7) ◽  
pp. 4853-4873 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michiel Rutgers van der Loeff ◽  
Lauren Kipp ◽  
Matthew A. Charette ◽  
Willard S. Moore ◽  
Erin Black ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (5) ◽  
pp. 1461-1482 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lejiang Yu ◽  
Shiyuan Zhong ◽  
Mingyu Zhou ◽  
Donald H. Lenschow ◽  
Bo Sun

Abstract The sharp decline of Arctic sea ice in recent decades has captured the attention of the climate science community. A majority of climate analyses performed to date have used monthly or seasonal data. Here, however, we analyze daily sea ice data for 1979–2016 using the self-organizing map (SOM) method to further examine and quantify the contributions of atmospheric circulation changes to the melt-season Arctic sea ice variability. Our results reveal two main variability modes: the Pacific sector mode and the Barents and Kara Seas mode, which together explain about two-thirds of the melt-season Arctic sea ice variability and more than 40% of its trend for the study period. The change in the frequencies of the two modes appears to be associated with the phase shift of the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO). The PDO and AMO trigger anomalous atmospheric circulations, in particular, the Greenland high and the North Atlantic Oscillation and anomalous warm and cold air advections into the Arctic Ocean. The changes in surface air temperature, lower-atmosphere moisture, and downwelling longwave radiation associated with the advection are consistent with the melt-season sea ice anomalies observed in various regions of the Arctic Ocean. These results help better understand the predictability of Arctic sea ice on multiple (synoptic, intraseasonal, and interannual) time scales.


2015 ◽  
Vol 45 (5) ◽  
pp. 1393-1409 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camille Lique ◽  
Helen L. Johnson ◽  
Peter E. D. Davis

AbstractThe circulation of the Arctic Ocean has traditionally been studied as a two-layer system, with a wind-driven anticyclonic gyre in the surface layer and a cyclonic boundary current in the Atlantic Water (AW) layer, primarily forced remotely through inflow and outflow to the basin. Here, an idealized numerical model is used to investigate the interplay between the dynamics of the two layers and to explore the response of the circulation in each of the layers to a change in the forcing in either layer. In the model, the intensity of the circulation in the surface and AW layers is primarily set by the ocean surface stress curl intensity and the inflow to the basin, respectively. Additionally, the surface layer circulation can strongly modulate the intensity of the intermediate layer by constraining the lateral extent of the AW current on the slope. In contrast, a change in the AW current strength has little effect on the surface layer circulation. The intensity of the circulation in the surface layer adjusts over a decade, on a time scale consistent with a balance between Ekman pumping and an eddy-induced volume flux toward the boundary, while the circulation in the AW layer adjusts quickly to any change of forcing (~1 month) through the propagation of boundary-trapped waves. As the two layers have different adjustment processes and time scales, and are subject to forcing that varies on all time scales, the interplay between the dynamics of the two layers is complex, and more simultaneous observations of the circulation within the two layers are required to fully understand it.


2009 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 371-382 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tullio Scovazzi

Abstract In the 2008 Ilulissat Declaration the Arctic countries state that the present law of the sea framework provides a solid foundation for the responsible management of the Arctic Ocean, But difficult legal questions which expect to be clarified are still pending as regards navigation in the region. Specific tools have been developed to address navigation in the region (in particular, the IMO Arctic Guidelines), but need to be strengthened as to their legal nature. Other tools which have a general scope could be applied also in the specific context of the Arctic Ocean (for instance, area based management tools and marine protected areas). The Arctic Council, the forum of regional co-operation among the eight Arctic States, could become an instrument to discuss and promote commonly agreed measures.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-140
Author(s):  
Ragnar Baldursson

This essay provides an Icelandic perspective on the opening of the Arctic Ocean. It provides an overview of the historic evolution of Arctic shipping divided into three distinct stages: The initial stage was driven by search for alternative shipping routes during the expansionist era of modern Europe. The Soviet stage was driven by Soviet strategic interests during the Cold War. The contemporary stage is driven by new technologies, resource development in the Arctic and tourism. A second section focuses on Iceland’s reaction to climate change linking it to Iceland’s role in the Arctic Council, and the need for action and adaptation. The final section connects the two first sections and highlights Iceland’s potential role in future trans-Arctic shipping. It heralds the beginning of the fourth stage of the evolution of Arctic shipping with the imminent opening of the Arctic Ocean for intercontinental shipping, This stage will be driven by the need for increased connectivity in a globalized economy, decreasing sea ice, capacity constraints of current shipping routes and security concerns


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document