other polar bear range states controlled polar bears federally, which meant that it
should not have been the Canadian federal government but the provinces and
territories negotiating the agreement. This was resolved by adding a polar bear
scientist representing the territories and provinces to the Canadian delegation. The
other and more significant event was the start of the third UN Conference on the Law
of the Sea in 1973. The conference would last for 9 years and would result in the
UNCLOS.
7 The political and legal sensitivity of the matters that were discussed by
the conference also reflected onto the polar bear convention. Norway’s overall
approach was that the polar bear convention could serve as a stepping stone towards
wider Arctic cooperation, particularly with regard to Arctic wildlife. Given that this
would transcend national boundaries and affect issues relevant for the law of the sea
conference, this was rather quickly dismissed. In the preparatory phase to the
November 1973 meeting when the parties would get together in Oslo to discuss
the polar bear agreement, a wider Arctic approach was therefore not chosen and the
sole focus rested on the conservation of polar bears.
7.3
Finding Common Ground: The 1973 Polar Bear Agreement
Prior to the meeting, issues circling around high seas conservation were discussed
and commented on. Terms such as “jurisdiction”, “at sea beyond its territory” or “in
the regions they [i.e. polar bears] inhabit” were legally too sensitive to be included in
the agreement. Given that the Cold War was in full swing, finding common ground
also concerning the rights of indigenous populations was difficult. After all, it was
considered that indigenous populations should retain their right to hunt and sell polar
bears and their hides. In order to do so, however, access to ports was necessary and
given the difficult geopolitical situation—after all, the Arctic was a ‘theatre’ of the
Cold War—access to ports by foreign vessels was a sensitive issue. Therefore, in the
period before the meeting in November, it was yet unclear how the IUCN as the
organisation in chart of drafting the agreement, was to incorporate this into the new
draft under consideration.
The year 1973 saw also the negotiation, and ultimately adoption, of CITES in
Washington DC. The United States, as one of those countries strongly pushing for a
conservationist agenda, suggested to negotiate and agree upon an Interim Agreement
on polar bears as a side agreement at the CITES meeting in January/February of
1973. Concerning the sovereignty issues involved in the polar bear agreement and
fact that the Soviet Union had placed polar bears under strict protection since 1956,
this suggestion was rejected. But as we will see, it is the United States which has
unsuccessfully tried on several occasions to place the polar bear under a strict CITES
umbrella.
As we have seen above, it has been particularly Norway which has signalled from
the very early stages onward that it would take great interest in the adoption of a
7 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December 1982 (1833 UNTS 3).
7.3 Finding Common Ground: The 1973 Polar Bear Agreement
161
should not have been the Canadian federal government but the provinces and
territories negotiating the agreement. This was resolved by adding a polar bear
scientist representing the territories and provinces to the Canadian delegation. The
other and more significant event was the start of the third UN Conference on the Law
of the Sea in 1973. The conference would last for 9 years and would result in the
UNCLOS.
7 The political and legal sensitivity of the matters that were discussed by
the conference also reflected onto the polar bear convention. Norway’s overall
approach was that the polar bear convention could serve as a stepping stone towards
wider Arctic cooperation, particularly with regard to Arctic wildlife. Given that this
would transcend national boundaries and affect issues relevant for the law of the sea
conference, this was rather quickly dismissed. In the preparatory phase to the
November 1973 meeting when the parties would get together in Oslo to discuss
the polar bear agreement, a wider Arctic approach was therefore not chosen and the
sole focus rested on the conservation of polar bears.
7.3
Finding Common Ground: The 1973 Polar Bear Agreement
Prior to the meeting, issues circling around high seas conservation were discussed
and commented on. Terms such as “jurisdiction”, “at sea beyond its territory” or “in
the regions they [i.e. polar bears] inhabit” were legally too sensitive to be included in
the agreement. Given that the Cold War was in full swing, finding common ground
also concerning the rights of indigenous populations was difficult. After all, it was
considered that indigenous populations should retain their right to hunt and sell polar
bears and their hides. In order to do so, however, access to ports was necessary and
given the difficult geopolitical situation—after all, the Arctic was a ‘theatre’ of the
Cold War—access to ports by foreign vessels was a sensitive issue. Therefore, in the
period before the meeting in November, it was yet unclear how the IUCN as the
organisation in chart of drafting the agreement, was to incorporate this into the new
draft under consideration.
The year 1973 saw also the negotiation, and ultimately adoption, of CITES in
Washington DC. The United States, as one of those countries strongly pushing for a
conservationist agenda, suggested to negotiate and agree upon an Interim Agreement
on polar bears as a side agreement at the CITES meeting in January/February of
1973. Concerning the sovereignty issues involved in the polar bear agreement and
fact that the Soviet Union had placed polar bears under strict protection since 1956,
this suggestion was rejected. But as we will see, it is the United States which has
unsuccessfully tried on several occasions to place the polar bear under a strict CITES
umbrella.
As we have seen above, it has been particularly Norway which has signalled from
the very early stages onward that it would take great interest in the adoption of a
7 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December 1982 (1833 UNTS 3).
7.3 Finding Common Ground: The 1973 Polar Bear Agreement
161