Regime interplay in Arctic shipping governance: explaining regional niche selection

Original Paper


Distinctive institutional features can make a regime particularly suited for conducting one or more generic tasks of governance: building knowledge, strengthening norms, enhancing problem-solving capacity, or enforcing rule compliance. Each of those governance tasks constitutes a potential “niche” that a regime can specialize in within a larger institutional complex. Applying this niche-oriented approach to the case of Arctic marine transport helps to explain the emerging division of labor between regional and global institutions in an issue area marked by rapid change. Drawing on earlier regime-effectiveness research, the article examines the potential of regional institutions, especially the Arctic Council, to contribute to strengthening the international governance system for shipping, based on the UN International Maritime Organization (IMO). Although the Arctic Council is not well positioned to regulate regional shipping activities, it may facilitate regulatory advances in the IMO, in part by knowledge-building and in part by helping Arctic states to find common ground on matters of controversy. The Council is also well equipped to enhance regional maritime infrastructure, like capacities for responding to oil spills, and search and rescue operations. Should binding region-specific international rules on Arctic shipping be adopted, Arctic institutions could play a role in coordinating port-state enforcement measures—but existing institutions with broader participation are better suited and will probably remain dominant. The larger question of achieving cross-institutional interplay that can promote effectiveness is relevant in any region or issue area, because efforts to solve specific problems usually involve more than one institution.


Governance International regimes Institutional interplay Shipping Arctic 



Exclusive economic zone


Working Group on Emergency Prevention, Preparedness, and Response


International Civil Aviation Organization


International Maritime Organization


Law of the Sea Convention


International convention for the prevention of pollution from ships


Memorandum of understanding


Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment Working Group


Particularly sensitive sea area


Search and rescue


Safety of Life and Sea


Standards of Training and Certification of Watchkeeping



I would in particular like to thank Oran Young for providing candid criticism, constructive advice, and generous support of my work over the past 25 years. Many thanks also to Ole Kristian Fauchald, Øystein Jensen, Timo Koivurova, Ronald Mitchell, Erik Molenaar, David VanderZwaag, Davor Vidas, and two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments on this article. The work has been financed by the Research Council of Norway under the Geopolitics of the High North program.


  1. Aldridge, H. (1999). Organizations evolving. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  2. AMAP (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme). (2007). Assessment 2007: Oil and gas activities in the Arctic—effects and potential effects. Oslo. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme.Google Scholar
  3. Andresen, S., Skodvin, T., Underdal, A., & Wettestad, J. (2000). Science and politics in international environmental regimes. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Arctic Council. (1998a). Rules of procedure of the Arctic council. Accessed January 2, 2012.
  5. Arctic Council. (1998b). Iqualit declaration. Accessed January 2, 2012.
  6. Arctic Council. (2000). Barrow declaration. Accessed January 2, 2012.
  7. Arctic Council. (2009). Tromsø declaration. Accessed January 2, 2012.
  8. Arctic Council. (2011). Nuuk declaration. Accessed January 2, 2012.
  9. Barrett, S. (2003). Environment and statecraft: The strategy of environmental treaty-making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bartenstein, K. (2011). The “Arctic exception” in the Law of the Sea Convention: A contribution to safer navigation in the Northwest Passage? Ocean Development and International Law, 42, 22–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. BEATA (Steering Committee for the Barents Euro-Arctic Pan-European Transport Area). (2011). Norwegian Chair BEATA SC 2012–2014. Presentation to the Committee of Senior Officials of the Barents Euro-Arctic Council, Oslo, 7–8 December 2011. Accessed January 2, 2012.
  12. Beluga Shipping. (2010). The Arctic shortcut. Accessed January 2. 2012.
  13. Borgerson, S. G. (2008). Arctic meltdown: The economic and security implications of global warming. Foreign Affairs, 87, 63–77.Google Scholar
  14. Boyle, A. (2000). Globalism and regionalism in the protection of the marine environment. In D. Vidas (Ed.), Protecting the polar marine environment: Law and policy for pollution prevention (pp. 19–33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brigham, L. W. (2000). The emerging international polar navigation code: Bi-polar relevance? In D. Vidas (Ed.), Protecting the polar marine environment: Law and policy for pollution prevention (pp. 221–243). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Brigham, L. W. (2011). Globalization and challenges for the maritime Arctic. In D. Vidas & P. J. Schei (Eds.), The world ocean in globalization: Climate change, sustainable fisheries, biodiversity, shipping, regional issues (pp. 305–320). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  17. Brubaker, R. D. (2001). Straits in the Russian Arctic. Ocean Development and International Law, 32, 263–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Campe, S. (2009). The secretariat of the international maritime organization: A tanker for tankers. In F. Biermann & B. Siebenhüner (Eds.), Managers of global change: The influence of environmental bureaucracies (pp. 143–168). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Chircop, A. (2005). Particularly sensitive sea areas and international navigation rights: Trends, controversies and emerging issues. In I. Davies (Ed.), Issues in international commercial law (pp. 217–243). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  20. Chircop, A. (2009). The growth of international shipping in the Arctic: Is a regulatory review timely? International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 24, 355–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Deggim, H. (2009). International requirements for ships operating in polar waters. London: International Maritime Organization. Accessed January 2, 2012.
  22. DNV (Det Norske Veritas). (2006). Port reception facilities in the PAME region. Technical Report 2006–1517. Høvik, Norway: Det Norske Veritas.Google Scholar
  23. DNV (Det Norske Veritas). (2011). Heavy fuel in the Arctic (phase 1). Technical Report 2011–0053. Høvik, Norway: Det Norske Veritas.Google Scholar
  24. de La Fayette, L. A. (2001). The Marine Environmental Protection Committee: The conjunction of the Law of the Sea and international environmental law. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 16, 155–238.Google Scholar
  25. Fauchald, O. K. (2011). Regulatory frameworks for maritime transport in the Arctic: Will a polar code contribute to resolve conflicting interests? In J. Grue & R. H. Gabrielsen (Eds.), Marine transport in the high north (pp. 7–91). Oslo: Det norske vitenskaps-akademi.Google Scholar
  26. Franck, T. M. (1990). The power of legitimacy among nations. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Haas, P. M. (1989). Do regimes matter? Epistemic communities and Mediterranean pollution control. International Organization, 43, 377–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 929–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hasanat, W. (2010). Cooperation in the Barents Euro-Arctic Region in the light of international law. Yearbook of Polar Law, 2, 279–309.Google Scholar
  30. Holland, G. (2002). The Arctic Ocean—the management of change in the northern seas. Ocean and Coastal Management, 45, 841–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hovi, J., Stokke, O. S., & Ulfstein, G. (2005). Introduction and main findings. In O. S. Stokke, J. Hovi, & G. Ulfstein (Eds.), Implementing the climate regime: International compliance (pp. 1–14). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  32. IMO (International Maritime Organization). (2011a). Outcome of DE 55—Legal opinion on making the Polar Code mandatory: Note by the Secretariat. MEPC 62/11/4/Add.1, 6 May 2011. London: IMO.Google Scholar
  33. IMO (International Maritime Organization). (2011b). Development of a mandatory code for ships operating in polar waters: Report of the working group (Part 2). DE 56/10, 7 July 2011. London: IMO.Google Scholar
  34. Jensen, Ø. (2008). Arctic shipping guidelines: Towards a legal regime for navigation safety and environmental protection? Polar Record, 44, 107–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kankaanpää, P., & Young, O. R. (2012). The effectiveness of the Arctic Council. Rovaniemi, Finland: Arctic Centre. Accessed January 2, 2012.
  36. Kao, S.-M., Pearre, N. S., & Firestone, J. (2012). Adoption of the arctic search and rescue agreement: A shift of the Arctic regime toward a hard law basis? Marine Policy, 36, 832–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Koivurova, T. (2010). Governing Arctic shipping: Finding a role for the Arctic Council. Yearbook of Polar Law, 2, 115–138.Google Scholar
  38. Koivurova, T., & Molenaar, E. J. (2009). International governance and regulation of the marine Arctic. Oslo: WWF International Arctic Programme.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lasserre, F. (2011). Arctic shipping routes. International Journal, 64, 793–808.Google Scholar
  40. Mitchell, R. B. (1998). Sources of transparency: Information systems in international regimes. International Studies Quarterly, 42, 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mitchell, R. B., Clark, W. C., & Cash, D. W. (2006). Information and influence. In R. B. Mitchell, W. C. Clark, D. W. Cash, & N. M. Dickson (Eds.), Global environmental assessments: Information and influence (pp. 307–338). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Molenaar, E. J. (2007). Port state jurisdiction: Towards comprehensive, mandatory and global coverage. Ocean Development and International Law, 38, 225–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Molenaar, E. J. (2009). Arctic marine shipping: Overview of the international legal framework, gaps and options. Journal of Transnational Law & Policy, 18, 289–325.Google Scholar
  44. Norway (2011). Protokoll fra det 17. møte i den blandede norsk-russiske miljøvernkommisjonen. Oslo: Ministry of the Environment. Accessed January 2, 2012.
  45. Oberthür, S., & Stokke, O. S. (Eds.). (2011). Institutional interaction and global environmental change: Interplay management and institutional complexes. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. PAME (Working Group on the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment). (2009). Arctic marine shipping assessment 2009 report. Accessed January 2, 2012.
  47. PAME (Working Group on the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment). (2011). PAME work plan 20112013. Accessed January 2, 2012.
  48. Pharand, D. (2007). The Arctic waters and the Northwest passage: A final revisit. Ocean Development and International Law, 38, 3–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pietri, D., Soule, A. B, I. V., Kershner, J., Soles, P., & Sullivan, M. (2008). The Arctic shipping and environmental management agreement: A regime for marine pollution. Coastal Management, 36, 508–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Raustiala, K., & Victor, D. G. (2004). The regime complex for plant genetic resources. International Organization, 58, 277–309.Google Scholar
  51. Richter-Menge, J. A. & Overland, J. E. (eds.), Arctic report card 2010. Accessed January 2 2012.
  52. Ringbom, H. (2011). Regulatory layers in shipping. In D. Vidas & P. J. Schei (Eds.), The world ocean in globalization: Climate change, sustainable fisheries, biodiversity, shipping, regional issues (pp. 345–370). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  53. Skjærseth, J. B., Stokke, O. S., & Wettestad, J. (2006). Soft law, hard law, and effective implementation of international environmental norms. Global Environmental Politics, 6, 104–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stenlund, P. (2002). Lessons in regional cooperation from the Arctic. Ocean and Coastal Management, 45, 835–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stokke, O. S. (1990). The northern environment: Is cooperation coming? Annals of the American Academy for Political and Social Science, 512, 58–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stokke, O. S. (2000). Sub-regional cooperation and protection of the Arctic marine environment: The Barents Sea. In D. Vidas (Ed.), Protecting the polar marine environment: Law and policy for pollution prevention (pp. 124–148). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stokke, O. S. (2007). A legal regime for the Arctic? Interplay with the Law of the Sea Convention. Marine Policy, 31, 402–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stokke, O. S. (2011a). Interplay management, niche selection, and Arctic environmental governance. In S. Oberthür & O. S. Stokke (Eds.), Institutional interaction and global environmental change: Interplay management and institutional complexes. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  59. Stokke, O. S. (2011b). Environmental security in the Arctic: The case for multilevel governance. International Journal, 66, 835–848.Google Scholar
  60. Stokke, O. S., & Hønneland, G. (Eds.). (2007). International cooperation and Arctic governance: Regime effectiveness and northern region building. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. Stokke, O. S., & Tunander, O. (Eds.). (1994). The Barents region: Cooperation in Arctic Europe. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  62. Stokke, O. S., & Vidas, D. (1996). The effectiveness and legitimacy of international regimes. In O. S. Stokke & D. Vidas (Eds.), Governing the Antarctic: The effectiveness and legitimacy of the Antarctic Treaty System (pp. 13–31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Tan, A. K.-J. (2006). Vessel-source marine pollution: The law and politics of international regulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Thürer, D. (2000). Soft law. In R. Bernhardt (Ed.), Encyclopedia of public international law (pp. 452–460). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  65. Underdal, A. (1989). The politics of science in international resource management: A summary. In S. Andresen & W. Østreng (Eds.), International resource management: The role of science and politics (pp. 253–268). London: Belhaven Press.Google Scholar
  66. Underdal, A. (2002). One question, two answers. In E. L. Miles, A. Underdal, S. Andresen, J. Wettestad, J. B. Skjærseth, & E. M. Carlin (Eds.), Environmental regime effectiveness: Confronting theory with evidence (pp. 3–45). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  67. VanderZwaag, D., Chircop, A., Franckx, E., Kindred, H., & MacInnis, K. et al. (2009). Governance of Arctic marine shipping. Arctic Council. Accessed January 2, 2012.
  68. Verhaag, M. A. (2003). It is not too late: The need for a comprehensive international treaty to protect the Arctic environment. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 15, 555–579.Google Scholar
  69. Wergeland, T. (2011). Historical transit passage through the Northern sea route—August 2010. Mercator, September 2011. Accessed January 2 2012.
  70. Young, O. R. (1985). The age of the Arctic. Foreign Policy, 61, 160–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Young, O. R. (1991). Political leadership and regime formation: On the development of institutions in international society. International Organization, 45, 281–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Young, O. R. (1996). Institutional linkages in international society: Polar perspectives. Global Governance, 2, 1–24.Google Scholar
  73. Young, O. R. (1997). Rights, rules and resources in international society. In O. R. Young (Ed.), Global governance: Drawing insights from the environmental experience (pp. 1–23). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  74. Young, O. R. (1998). Creating regimes: Arctic accords and international governance. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Young, O. R. (1999). Regime effectiveness: Taking stock. In O. R. Young (Ed.), The effectiveness of international regimes (pp. 249–279). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fridtjof Nansen InstituteLysakerNorway

Personalised recommendations