just like the high seas of the Atlantic Ocean. Unlike in the case of other oceans, there
is not yet a regional seas agreement in the formal sense of the term or a regional
fisheries management organization for the central Arctic Ocean.
This does not mean that there is no room for a specific regional approach for the
Arctic Ocean. The recent adoption and signing of the CAOFA, which at the time of
writing had not yet not entered into force, marked a regional effort to regulate the
Arctic Ocean. The CAOFA was created by the A5+5, the five coastal States of the
Arctic Ocean (Norway, Canada, Denmark acting for Greenland, the United States)
and five interested parties (the European Union, Iceland, Japan, South Korea and
China) although it is understood that the CAOFA is not meant to influence existing
agreements nor to alter the respective positions of States with regard to the issues
dealt with by the CAOFA.
70 It is particularly noteworthy that the CAOFA leaves
room for the regulation of fisheries through other means, both on the national and the
international levels, as it is only concerned with unregulated fisheries.
71 It might
even be argued that the CAOFA already amounts to a regional fisheries management
arrangement (RFMA) as understood in Article 1 (1) of the 1995 UN Fish Stocks
Agreement.
72 At the very least the CAOFA should be considered the most realistic
starting point for negotiations towards the creation of a central Arctic Ocean
RFMA.
73
For the time being, though, commercial unregulated fishing in the central Arctic
Ocean remains improbable. The CAOFA is a noteworthy example for the practical
implementation of the precautionary approach
74 insofar as it is a welcome change
from the more common reactive approach found in the international law of the sea,
75
especially when it comes to protecting the marine environment, and it has long been
common for the international community to react to disasters rather than to adopt a
preventive and precautionary approach such as the one found in the CAOFA. There
are already a number of measures aimed at protecting the Arctic Ocean
76 even
though there seems to be a lack of political interest in the creation of regional
maritime protected zones. This is also highlighted by the increasing focus on
hydrocarbon extraction despite the environmental risk in several coastal States of
the Arctic Ocean. Seeing climate change as an opportunity for exploiting natural
resources in newly-accessible parts of the Arctic can make it more likely that the A5
will not play the same trailblazing role for environmental protection in their EEZs
and over their continental shelves than they did with regard to the prevention of
unregulated fishing.
70 Schatz et al. (2018).
71 Ibid.
72 Ibid.
73 Ibid.
74 De Lucia et al. (2018), p. 265.
75 Cf. Louis-Jacques (2012).
76 Roach (2018).
4 The Arctic Ocean: Are We Ready to Govern a New Ocean?
71
is not yet a regional seas agreement in the formal sense of the term or a regional
fisheries management organization for the central Arctic Ocean.
This does not mean that there is no room for a specific regional approach for the
Arctic Ocean. The recent adoption and signing of the CAOFA, which at the time of
writing had not yet not entered into force, marked a regional effort to regulate the
Arctic Ocean. The CAOFA was created by the A5+5, the five coastal States of the
Arctic Ocean (Norway, Canada, Denmark acting for Greenland, the United States)
and five interested parties (the European Union, Iceland, Japan, South Korea and
China) although it is understood that the CAOFA is not meant to influence existing
agreements nor to alter the respective positions of States with regard to the issues
dealt with by the CAOFA.
70 It is particularly noteworthy that the CAOFA leaves
room for the regulation of fisheries through other means, both on the national and the
international levels, as it is only concerned with unregulated fisheries.
71 It might
even be argued that the CAOFA already amounts to a regional fisheries management
arrangement (RFMA) as understood in Article 1 (1) of the 1995 UN Fish Stocks
Agreement.
72 At the very least the CAOFA should be considered the most realistic
starting point for negotiations towards the creation of a central Arctic Ocean
RFMA.
73
For the time being, though, commercial unregulated fishing in the central Arctic
Ocean remains improbable. The CAOFA is a noteworthy example for the practical
implementation of the precautionary approach
74 insofar as it is a welcome change
from the more common reactive approach found in the international law of the sea,
75
especially when it comes to protecting the marine environment, and it has long been
common for the international community to react to disasters rather than to adopt a
preventive and precautionary approach such as the one found in the CAOFA. There
are already a number of measures aimed at protecting the Arctic Ocean
76 even
though there seems to be a lack of political interest in the creation of regional
maritime protected zones. This is also highlighted by the increasing focus on
hydrocarbon extraction despite the environmental risk in several coastal States of
the Arctic Ocean. Seeing climate change as an opportunity for exploiting natural
resources in newly-accessible parts of the Arctic can make it more likely that the A5
will not play the same trailblazing role for environmental protection in their EEZs
and over their continental shelves than they did with regard to the prevention of
unregulated fishing.
70 Schatz et al. (2018).
71 Ibid.
72 Ibid.
73 Ibid.
74 De Lucia et al. (2018), p. 265.
75 Cf. Louis-Jacques (2012).
76 Roach (2018).
4 The Arctic Ocean: Are We Ready to Govern a New Ocean?
71