Abstract
The former entity is the congregation of the five Arctic States and the latter is the international group that is an addition to the already existing Arctic Council.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
As proposed in para 7.2.
- 2.
See para 3.1.3, where a decisive factor in the decision of the Corfu Channel Case was to determine if the Strait was used for international navigation.
- 3.
Supra note 35 in Chap. 3.
- 4.
Supra note 37 in Chap. 3.
- 5.
i.e. “Arctic Council Members”.
- 6.
In areas beyond national jurisdiction.
- 7.
Supra note 12 in Chap. 1.
- 8.
Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, 2008, 6th Edition, Cambridge University Press, pp. 94–95, Note that, It depends on the intention of the five Arctic States whether the binding treaty should be bilateral or multilateral.
- 9.
As a result of overlapping claims.
- 10.
Once the claims have been resolved or joint development plans are undertaken for unresolved areas, the Arctic States can concentrate on outlining the “Arctic treaty” provisions to control international shipping for the Arctic sea routes combined.
- 11.
World Commission of Environment and Development, Our Common Future, 1987, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 43–46.
- 12.
Supra note 81 in Chap. 3.
- 13.
Supra note 34 in Chap. 1, p. 205.
- 14.
Supra notes 69 and 70 in Chap. 1.
- 15.
In the form of discharge restrictions or indicate “Sox emission control areas”.
- 16.
The three main routes include Arctic Ocean Proper, the NSR and the NWP.
- 17.
Supra note 34 in Chap. 1, p. 206.
- 18.
N.B., Observer status is open to non-Arctic states approved by the Council at the Ministerial Meetings that occur once every two years. Permanent observers have no voting rights in the Council. As of May 2013, twelve non-Arctic states have Permanent Observer status. Then again, Ad hoc observer states need to request permission for their presence at each individual meeting; such requests are routine and most of them are granted. There are six ad hoc members, not including the European Union. At the 2013 Ministerial Meeting in Kiruna, Sweden, the EU requested full observer status. It was not granted, mostly because the members do not agree on the EU ban on hunting seals.
- 19.
Supra note 25 in Chap. 1.
- 20.
Supra note 69 in Chap. 1, p. 155, where it is indicated that emergency response is particularly challenging in the Arctic for a variety of reasons, including the remoteness and great distances that are often involved in responding.
- 21.
Ibid.
- 22.
Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements.
- 23.
Supra note 30 in Chap. 7.
- 24.
Supra note 22 in Chap. 2.
- 25.
Supra notes 68 and 70 in Chap. 2.
- 26.
N.B. Official website of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, available at; http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/marineareas-zonesmarines/mpa-zpm/index-eng.htm (date accessed 6 August 2014), where it is stated that “[e]stablishing MPAs within the context of integrated oceans management provides a mechanism for taking into account stakeholder input as well as broader ecological, social, cultural and economic considerations. It also provides an opportunity to reinforce conservation measures with complementary management regimes implemented in surrounding areas, including linkages with broader ecosystem objectives, as well as land-based initiatives such as habitat protection and enhancement, pollution control, land use controls and the establishment of coastal terrestrial parks. This approach of nesting MPAs within broader planning initiatives helps maintain the integrity and long-term viability of the MPA and maximize the conservation effectiveness of all MPA planning processes.” This is also aligned with the concept of PSSA undertaken by IMO whereby PSSA has been defined as “… an area that needs special protection through action by IMO because of its significance for recognized ecological or socio-economic or scientific reasons and which may be vulnerable to damage by international maritime activities. The criteria for the identification of particularly sensitive sea areas and the criteria for the designation of special areas are not mutually exclusive. In many cases a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area may be identified within a Special Area and vice versa”.
- 27.
United Nations Conference on Environment & Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3–14 June 1992, Agenda 21, United Nations Sustainable Development, See Chapter 1, Preamble para 1.3, See also Chapter 2, para 2.1, where it is stated that, “…[t]his partnership commits all States to engage in a continuous and constructive dialogue, inspired by the need to achieve a more efficient and equitable world economy, keeping in view the increasing interdependence of the community of nations and that sustainable development should become a priority item on the agenda of the international community. It is recognized that, for the success of this new partnership, it is important to overcome confrontation and to foster a climate of genuine cooperation and solidarity. It is equally important to strengthen national and international policies and multinational cooperation to adapt to the new realities.” This if related to the Arctic deduces the fact that partnership between “Arctic Council” and “Arctic Council Members” can surely foster the desired cooperation to balance interests. Global partnership has, thus, been acknowledged as a catalyst that can bring a balance in the uneven equation.
- 28.
Ibid., See Chapter 2, para 2.8, where it is stated that, “[t]he international trading environment has been affected by a number of developments that have created new challenges and opportunities and have made multilateral economic cooperation of even greater importance.”
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Johansson, T., Donner, P. (2015). Conclusion. In: The Shipping Industry, Ocean Governance and Environmental Law in the Paradigm Shift. SpringerBriefs in Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12541-1_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12541-1_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-12540-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-12541-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)