Arctic Yearbook 2012
Exner-Pirot
environmental issues, and deal with them as part of a normal, political and bureaucratic order. There
is no reason to expect the five coastal Arctic states to ever agree to an Antarctic-style treaty.
Of course there is much to be done between now and then, with the Arctic states only very recently
having come around to the idea that legally-binding instruments and ecosystem based management
are optimal practices. Developing a normative consensus around these principles was hard. Enacting
and implementing those principles will be even harder – but they are finally starting to seem within
reach.
Notes
1.
See David VanderZwaag, Rob Huebert and Stacey Ferrera. (2002). The Arctic Environmental
Protection Strategy, Arctic Council and Multilateral Environmental Initiatives: Tinkering while
the Arctic Marine Environment Totters.
Denver Journal of International Law and Policy
. 30(2), 131-72.
2.
See the World Economic Forum (2011). Mining and Metals Scenarios to 2030 (Report).
Retrieved (05.25.12) from, http://www.weforum.org/reports/mining-metals-scenarios-2030
3.
Under UNCLOS III, states have rights to an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) extending 200
miles from their coastline. However this zone can be extended up to 350 miles and in some case
even further, if states can demonstrate with geological evidence that there is a natural
prolongation of their continental shelves. States would have sovereign rights only to the
resources in the sea bed – not the water column – in that area.
4.
See Michael Pidwirny. (2006). Fundamentals of Physical Geography (2006), as quoted in Betsy
Baker. (2010). Law, Science and the Continental Shelf: The Russian Federation and the Promise
of International Cooperation.
American University International Law Review
. 25(2), 252.
5.
See Huebert (2009) and Huebert et al. (2012). for a listing of the announcements and events.
6.
This was the provocative title of Scott Borgerson’s 2008 submission to the
Foreign Affairs
journal: Arctic Meltdown: The Economic and Security Implications of Global Warming.
Foreign
Affairs
. 87, 63–77.
7.
The “law of the sea” is actually spelled in lower case letters, probably as a consequence of the
fact that the United States is not actually party to the ‘Law of the Sea’ – UNCLOS III.
8.
The USA is notably not party to the UNCLOS.
9.
See the 2009
Fishery Management Plan for Fish Resources of the Arctic Management Area
, available at
http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/fmp/arctic/ArcticFMP.pdf
10.
See for example Brian Flemming, “Canada-US Relations in the Arctic: A Neighbourly Proposal”,
CDFAI
, December 2008.