Read e-book International Energy Policy, the Arctic and the Law of the Sea (Center for Oceans Law and Policy)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online International Energy Policy, the Arctic and the Law of the Sea (Center for Oceans Law and Policy) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with International Energy Policy, the Arctic and the Law of the Sea (Center for Oceans Law and Policy) book. Happy reading International Energy Policy, the Arctic and the Law of the Sea (Center for Oceans Law and Policy) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF International Energy Policy, the Arctic and the Law of the Sea (Center for Oceans Law and Policy) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF International Energy Policy, the Arctic and the Law of the Sea (Center for Oceans Law and Policy) Pocket Guide.

In Italian.

The Barents Observer, Khrono, In Norwegian. See all in media. Teknisk Ukeblad, Towards a typology of pilots: the Shanghai emissions-trading scheme pilot. Iselin Stensdal.

Annual Conference Proceedings

High North News, Arendalsuka Hva er opprinnelsesgarantier? Per Ove Eikeland. Arendalsuka Debate presentation. Arendalsuka Markedet for opprinnelsesgarantier 'The market for Guarantees of Origin'. Berit Tennbakk. Adrian Mekki.

About Polar Cooperation Research Centre

Changing the record: Narrative policy analysis and the politics of emissions trading in New Zealand. See all publications. New wind power study reveals transparency issues. The Fridtjof Nansen Institute. This year, the institute took home the prize as the best European think tank on energy, environment, science and health. Norway and Alaska sharing 'blue economy' lessons The Arctic holds vast possibilities for increased economic development, though such ventures are not without challenges. Can Alaska and Northern Norway learn from each other's experiences?

Svein Vigeland Rottem. Between and , the Arctic sea ice extent—the surface area of the ocean covered by sea ice—decreased by 4. Even if global temperature rises by less than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the Arctic could see a sea ice—free summer at least once a decade. Decreased sea ice allows for additional human activity in the Arctic; this in turn exacerbates the damage to the Arctic ecosystem.

Decreasing sea ice and permafrost—as a result of which more fresh water enters the Arctic Ocean—can change weather and climate conditions in other parts of the globe. Global Governance. Climate Change. Oceans and Seas. The changing Arctic environment could lead to an Arctic Gold Rush, with states competing against one another to exploit oil and gas reserves and to claim the natural resources in sea areas by expanding the legal definition of the outer limits of their continental shelves.

In addition, as the sea ice extent depletes, the Arctic could become an alternative corridor for international shipping. The Northeast Passage, encompassing the maritime route along the Norwegian and Russian Arctic, is 37 percent shorter than traditional routes through the Suez Canal.

However, before the natural resources can be extracted or the Arctic sea routes used, tremendous technical, environmental, and operational risks need to be addressed. The Arctic is also home to four million people, including indigenous populations and other residents highly dependent on the Arctic ecosystem. Accelerated ice melting eases access to resources, aiding the economic development of indigenous communities, but increased offshore and onshore commercial activities endanger the traditions and lifestyles of indigenous peoples, who want to preserve the environment and develop it using traditional knowledge.

Political and security concerns are also associated with the changing Arctic. Eight Arctic countries Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States have sovereign rights and jurisdiction over their land, internal waters, territorial seas, exclusive economic zones EEZs , and continental shelves.

Although a basic legal framework exists, new issues could challenge peace and stability in the Arctic. These issues include: opposing North Atlantic Treaty Organization NATO and Russian alliance structures inherited from the Cold War era; Arctic military deployments; bilateral territorial disputes; legal claims concerning the outer limits of continental shelves; disagreements on the legal status of the Northeast and Northwest Passage; and nontraditional security issues such as catastrophic oil spills, environmental disasters, and maritime search and rescue responses. As the geoeconomic significance of the Arctic increases, even environmental protection issues that had been considered noncontroversial and hardly a threat to state survival have developed national and international security implications.

National governments, international institutions, and nonstate actors should establish a cohesive regime complex that integrates new and existing smaller frameworks to tackle the challenges in the Arctic.

Arctic policy of Russia

Strive for a consensus-based decision-making process. The existing multitier Arctic governance structures should be strengthened. At the global level, international conventions regulate non-geographical or jurisdictional issues, such as the protection of biodiversity and maritime ecosystems. At the regional level, the Arctic Council—comprising eight Arctic states as members, six indigenous organizations as permanent participants, and thirteen non-Arctic states and thirteen intergovernmental, inter-parliamentary organizations, and nongovernmental organizations NGOs as observers—provides more practical and legally binding agreements, such as on maritime search and rescue , marine oil pollution preparedness and response , and scientific cooperation.

At the subregional level, under the Ilulissat Declaration governance model, the five Arctic coastal states Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the United States discuss Arctic maritime issues exclusively among themselves and seek limited dialogue on issues of common interest with other members of the Arctic Council i. Although states are within their rights to act unilaterally on matters of national interest within their own territorial seas, EEZs, and continental shelves, they should collaborate more broadly on matters in the Arctic that qualify as public goods.

The Challenge

Consensus-based policy- and decision-making at intergovernmental levels can improve cooperation on these matters. Increase the interoperability and update the jurisdictions of existing Arctic governance mechanisms. The fragmentation of existing Arctic governance mechanisms makes it difficult to coordinate responses to and effectively manage national, subregional, regional, and global Arctic challenges. For instance, even though UNCLOS applies to the Arctic, it does not contain provisions that determine the policies and procedures regarding Arctic scientific research and resource extraction.

In addition, the Arctic Council does not have the explicit authority to determine traditional security issues or formulate legally binding rules on disputes. At this time, efforts to establish a comprehensive and legitimate regime governing all aspects of the Arctic region are unlikely to be successful.

Therefore, it would be productive to better integrate the existing various narrowly focused Arctic institutional arrangements into a wider regime complex. This approach better conforms to current geopolitical realities in the Arctic and, to some extent, would avoid the potential race for dominance among existing governance mechanisms. Coordinate the desires and capabilities of the Arctic Eight with other non-regional states, intergovernmental organizations, and NGOs, where possible. Although the Arctic does not conceptually qualify as a global commons , it manifests complex sovereignty issues, as it encompasses areas and resources within and outside national jurisdictions.

Therefore, it would be nearly impossible to formulate a unified Arctic treaty system, similar to the one that exists for the Antarctic.


  • International Energy Policy, the Arctic and the Law of the Sea;
  • Localization and Delocalization in Quantum Chemistry: Ionized and Excited States.
  • Publications | Center for Oceans Law and Policy, omuvadylop.ml;
  • Registration Form.
  • The Critical Path to Corporate Renewal;
  • Center for Oceans Law and Policy.

Arctic governance should be based on respect for the sovereign rights and jurisdictions of Arctic countries while taking into account the concerns of non-Arctic states and nonstate actors in accordance with relevant international treaties and international law. On the one hand, all relevant parties should be encouraged to contribute capital, technology, and human resources toward fostering new models of cooperation in setting the agenda and building institutions for Arctic governance.

Neves, Maria Madalena das – Jurfak | UiT

On the other hand, international cooperation should be considered as the essential channel for non-Arctic states to participate in resource exploitation and development, which normally reflects national interests of the Arctic Eight. Prioritize scientific research. As the most promising area of Arctic affairs, interested parties should prioritize joint research and data sharing.

The Dickey Center at Dartmouth: "Who 'Owns' the North Pole and Who Decides?

Formulating and implementing mandatory environmental standards and technical requirements based on a solid scientific basis is essential to understanding, utilizing, and protecting the Arctic.