Compliance Evaluation and Sustainable Resource Management in the CCAMLR

Regional fisheries organisations globally are feeling the impacts of non-compliant behaviour by both contracting and non-contracting parties. Non-compliance arising from activities such as illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, or failures by flag states to appropriately report the activities of their vessels, has resulted in damage to the environment and damage to the performance of regional fisheries management organisations themselves. As a result, many of these organisations are adopting and implementing a relatively new mechanism to tackle non-compliance: the compliance evaluation procedure. This article demonstrates that by adopting a compliance evaluation procedure, regional fisheries organisations are better placed to identify and address non-compliance in an effort to improve compliance with their conservation measures. It analyses in detail the procedure adopted by one particular organisation, the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), to suggest that implementation of their procedure has improved transparency, accountability and enforcement. It is argued that the CCAMLR compliance evaluation procedure represents a model for other polar and high seas areas to promote sustainable, and responsible, fishing practices globally.

Prevalence of Soft Law in the Arctic

Soft law has been observed to be increasing within the frontiers – regions and issue-areas that extend beyond national jurisdiction, and where governance substantively integrates scientific and technological knowledge. The often-used assumption for the prevalence of such instruments has been the uncertainty of scientific knowledge. This paper takes this facile analysis further by examining the dynamic changes to the number and diversity of state and non-state actors as well as their relative influence. Using a revised definition of soft law which encompasses both binding and non-binding forms, this article shows that this has not been the case. Through analysis of the legal framework within which the region is governed and a mixed methodology drawing from the fields of international relations and international law, this research confirms that soft law is prevalent within the Arctic and that it is an outcome of domestic politics, as well as geopolitical tensions among the relevant states.

Global Co-management and the Emergent Arctic: Opportunities for Engagement and Collaboration between Arctic States, Indigenous Permanent Participants, and Observers on the Arctic Council

Successful collaboration between the indigenous peoples and the sovereign states of Arctic North America has helped to stabilise the Arctic region, fostering meaningful indigenous participation in the governance of their homeland, the introduction of new institutions of self-governance at the municipal, tribal and territorial levels, and successful diplomatic collaborations at the international level through the Arctic Council. This stability and the reciprocal and increasingly balanced relationship between sovereign states and indigenous stakeholders has yielded a widely recognised spirit of international collaboration often referred to as Arctic exceptionalism. With competition in the Arctic between states on the rise, the multitude of co-management systems and the multi-level, inter-governmental and inter-organisational relationships they have nurtured across the region will help to neutralise new threats to ‘Arctic Exceptionalism’ posed by intensifying inter-state tensions.

The Déjà vu System of International Trusteeship in Continental Antarctica: A Textual Analysis

In the name of environmental protection, the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting seems to have borrowed the paradigm of international trusteeship of the United Nations for managing the Antarctic land-based protected areas. By comparing and analysing the critical questions highly concerned, this paper offers preliminary thoughts on the development and refinement of the conception of land-based protected areas as a déjà vu system of international trusteeship and its surrounding legal applications and implications in continental Antarctica, and challenges the direction followed by this system in protecting Antarctic intrinsic values in legal discourse.

Assessing Japan’s Arctic Engagement during the ArCS Project (2015–2020)

As Japan is considered a non-regional actor in Arctic governance, this paper begins with analysing how Japan navigates the web of Arctic governance and how it manages to create a coherent Arctic narrative and engages with the Arctic both inside and outside the region. The present research argues that the construction of an Arctic identity is a praxis performed through time that needs to be constantly reaffirmed. To illustrate this point, the paper then uses a lateral rather than linear approach to assess the influence of the Arctic on Japan at present. This paper assesses Japan’s engagement on the main stage where Arctic governance is performed (i.e. The Arctic Council) since the release of Japan’s Arctic Policy and under the Arctic Challenge for Sustainability project, Japan’s flagship program for Arctic research. Looking to the future, countries such as Japan who are willing to be involved in all parts of Arctic governance will have to make a choice about what kind of Arctic relationships they want to create and in which of these relationships Japan could invest more.

Ethics of Observation in the Polar Regions

Whilst satellite observations over the Polar Regions yield vastly beneficial scientific knowledge, ethical questions complicate their use in the context of the Polar Regions, in particular, questions about military or strategic advantage vis-a-vis human security concerns. The Antarctic Treaty System is committed to use of its space for peaceful purposes which, in the fulfilment of high-level science, seems plausible. Yet where military endeavour is coupled with such scientific endeavour, or where global security concerns seek an entree to the knowledge acquired by such observation, the question of whether either Pole can remain free from human non-peaceful purpose is bedevilling.

The Polar Code and Telemedicine

One result of a warmer global climate is increased maritime activity in the Arctic. Areas that used to be covered by ice and snow are now accessible for the scientific community and commercial users. The Norwegian government has chosen tourism as a pillar of the economy of Svalbard and facilitates the development of the tourism industry. Aase and Jabour have shown that tourist vessels sail as far north as 82° N, beyond the range of geostationary satellites. The Polar Code states that appropriate communication equipment to enable telemedical assistance in polar areas shall be provided. This paper describes a series of functional telemedicine tests carried out on board the Norwegian Coast Guard vessel NoCGV Svalbard during her transit between Svalbard and the Norwegian mainland in September 2019. Communication was established between the vessel and Haukeland University Hospital in Bergen, Norway, using the new Iridium NEXT constellation of communication satellites. Our tests show that medical services that require low bandwidths work.

From the Indian Ocean to the Arctic: What the Chagos Archipelago Advisory Opinion Tells Us about Greenland

On February 25, 2019, the International Court of Justice issued its advisory opinion on Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965. The judges held by a majority of 13:1 that the process of decolonisation of Mauritius is incomplete, owing to the separation of the Chagos Archipelago shortly before Mauritian independence, that the United Kingdom should end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible, and that all Member States of the United Nations should cooperate to complete the decolonisation of Mauritius. The (partial) decolonisation of Mauritius in 1968 and the treatment of the Chagos islanders (Chagossians) have important parallels with the purported decolonisation of Greenland in 1952–54. In both cases, the consultative body of the colonised people was neither fully independent nor representative of all the people concerned. No real choice was given to either body; rather the colonial power offered only the continuation of the status quo or professed self-determination on terms defined by the colonial power itself. Furthermore, the process of decolonisation was inherently linked to the forcible transfer of people in order to make way for a United States military facility. Nevertheless, there are some relevant differences. First of all, Greenland was purportedly decolonised in 1953, some seven years before the UN General Assembly Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (UNGA Res. 1514(XV) 1960). Second, the UN General Assembly accepted the Danish government’s representations regarding the full decolonisation of Greenland (UNGA Res. 849 (1954), in contrast to their position regarding Mauritius that decolonisation was and remains incomplete, owing to the separation of the Chagos Archipelago (UNGA Res(XX) 1965). Third, though the Chagossians have been recognised as indigenous at the UN, the British government has continually denied this status and (mis)characterises them as a transient people, while Denmark has accepted the status of the Greenlanders as both an indigenous people and a colonial people, entitled to self-determination. This article examines the implications for the judgment for the Greenland case as well as broader questions of self-determination of peoples. It concludes that the colonial boundaries continue to govern in decolonisation cases, with the consequence that the Greenlanders are likely to be held to be a single people; that the erga omnes character of the right to self-determination means that all States must cooperate to facilitate Greenlanders’ choices for their future; and that there remain significant procedural hurdles that prevent colonial and indigenous peoples having their voices heard, even in the matters that concern them most of all.

Some Icelandic Perspectives on the Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean

This paper reflects on several aspects of the Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean from the standpoint of Iceland, prior to, during and at the conclusion of the negotiations of the Agreement in late 2017. Particular reference is made to UNCLOS and coastal State interests, status of knowledge on the fish stocks and the importance of scientific cooperation which the Agreement facilitates. During the years 2008–2015, the so-called Arctic Five consulted on cooperation in Arctic matters including future management of fisheries in the central Arctic Ocean. These rather exclusive cooperative efforts were criticised by Iceland and other States that felt these matters were to be dealt with in a broader international context. It seems evident that Iceland’s desire to become a full participant in the process during the subsequent years was both based on legal arguments as well as fair and natural geopolitical reasons. Iceland became a participant in the negotiations in December 2015. The final version of the Agreement is a fully fledged platform for coordinating scientific research and it even allows for interim management measures until future regional management framework is in place. In essence, the Agreement can be taken as a regional fisheries management arrangement (RFMA), since most elements of relevance are incorporated in accordance with the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement. The opening of the central Arctic Ocean for fishing is not likely to take place in the nearest future, although the development of sea ice retreat is currently faster than earlier anticipated. While the Agreement is today regarded as being historic due to its precautionary approach, future may prove that it was a timely arrangement in a fast-moving world with dramatic changes taking place in the Arctic Ocean.