for vessels operating in Arctic waters.
66 Today, AMSA is seen as a landmark event
in Arctic legal developments.
67
The Arctic Marine Strategic Plan (AMSP) led to a number of initiatives through
which the AC has influenced the ways in which the Arctic Ocean can or should be
used. This includes, for example, guidelines for the offshore hydrocarbon sector. The
strategic approach seen in the AMSP is supplemented by other efforts to strengthen
marine governance in the Arctic, with one method being through working groups
and expert groups.
While this affects mainly economic activities in parts of the Arctic Ocean that are
under various coastal State jurisdictions, such as exclusive economic zones or
continental shelves, the work of the AC also concerns parts of the Arctic Ocean
beyond national jurisdictions. The AC has done this by influencing the drafting of
the Polar Code and international responses to marine biodiversity challenges and
also existing international legal regimes. The latter examples include the legal norms
on mercury as well as on persistent organic pollutants and current work on marine
litter.
All of these measures, both within the AC framework as well as in other contexts,
can be seen as building blocks of an emerging system of Arctic marine governance.
The AC’s overall idea for the regulation of the Arctic Ocean can be deduced from the
AMSP, and the norms created by the AC—both soft law and treaties drafted under
the auspices of the Arctic Council—are the first tiles in the mosaic being constructed
by the States of the Arctic.
Such a regional approach is necessary not only because of the inclusion of
regional Arctic expertise in the creation of regulations and policies but also because
there is no global approach to protecting the Arctic Ocean. There is no Arctic
institution that parallels the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine
Living Resources (CCAMLR), which is based on an international treaty and the
1980 Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources,
68 and
which has parties from all over the world. The original reason for the absence of such
an institution is that the Arctic Ocean is surrounded by nation States that can take
measures to protect the marine environment of the Arctic Ocean, for example under
Article 234 UNCLOS. The A5 did “see no need to develop a comprehensive legal
regime to govern the Arctic Ocean”
69 beyond the framework provided by UNCLOS
and the possibilities given to the Arctic States by existing international law. At this
time, there is no political support for the creation of an Arctic treaty to parallel the
legal regime already in place for Antarctica. This also means that there is no separate
institution for the protection of the part of the Arctic Ocean that is beyond national
jurisdictions. As a result, the central Arctic Ocean is regulated by the law of the sea
66 AMSA (2009), p. 6.
67 Scott and VanderZwaag (2017), p. 736.
68 CAMLR Convention (1980).
69 Ilulissat Declaration (2008), https://cil.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2008-IlulissatDeclaration.pdf.
70
T. Koivurova et al.
66 Today, AMSA is seen as a landmark event
in Arctic legal developments.
67
The Arctic Marine Strategic Plan (AMSP) led to a number of initiatives through
which the AC has influenced the ways in which the Arctic Ocean can or should be
used. This includes, for example, guidelines for the offshore hydrocarbon sector. The
strategic approach seen in the AMSP is supplemented by other efforts to strengthen
marine governance in the Arctic, with one method being through working groups
and expert groups.
While this affects mainly economic activities in parts of the Arctic Ocean that are
under various coastal State jurisdictions, such as exclusive economic zones or
continental shelves, the work of the AC also concerns parts of the Arctic Ocean
beyond national jurisdictions. The AC has done this by influencing the drafting of
the Polar Code and international responses to marine biodiversity challenges and
also existing international legal regimes. The latter examples include the legal norms
on mercury as well as on persistent organic pollutants and current work on marine
litter.
All of these measures, both within the AC framework as well as in other contexts,
can be seen as building blocks of an emerging system of Arctic marine governance.
The AC’s overall idea for the regulation of the Arctic Ocean can be deduced from the
AMSP, and the norms created by the AC—both soft law and treaties drafted under
the auspices of the Arctic Council—are the first tiles in the mosaic being constructed
by the States of the Arctic.
Such a regional approach is necessary not only because of the inclusion of
regional Arctic expertise in the creation of regulations and policies but also because
there is no global approach to protecting the Arctic Ocean. There is no Arctic
institution that parallels the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine
Living Resources (CCAMLR), which is based on an international treaty and the
1980 Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources,
68 and
which has parties from all over the world. The original reason for the absence of such
an institution is that the Arctic Ocean is surrounded by nation States that can take
measures to protect the marine environment of the Arctic Ocean, for example under
Article 234 UNCLOS. The A5 did “see no need to develop a comprehensive legal
regime to govern the Arctic Ocean”
69 beyond the framework provided by UNCLOS
and the possibilities given to the Arctic States by existing international law. At this
time, there is no political support for the creation of an Arctic treaty to parallel the
legal regime already in place for Antarctica. This also means that there is no separate
institution for the protection of the part of the Arctic Ocean that is beyond national
jurisdictions. As a result, the central Arctic Ocean is regulated by the law of the sea
66 AMSA (2009), p. 6.
67 Scott and VanderZwaag (2017), p. 736.
68 CAMLR Convention (1980).
69 Ilulissat Declaration (2008), https://cil.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2008-IlulissatDeclaration.pdf.
70
T. Koivurova et al.