240
Arctic Yearbook 2013
Dubois, Shestakov & Tesar
the urgent need of those same states for a binding protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed
outcome no later than 2015 to meet the agreed goal of limiting the increase in global average
temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
Failures such as the UNFCCC example raise the question of which institutional channels and
practices can best ensure that all Arctic countries speak with one coordinated voice on the world
stage. To identify the best institutional mechanisms to handle the creation of a coordinated common
Arctic approach to global negotiations is critical for the future of Arctic governance. To strengthen
the Arctic Council is to address the need to define and optimize the role for the Council within the
array of institutions governing the region.
Institutional Interaction in Global Environmental Change
The theoretical platform this article uses to analyze the implications of the AOR recommendations
is directly informed by the 1998 Science Plan of the research agenda of the Institutional Dimensions
of Global Environmental Change (IDGEC) (Young et al., 1999, 2005). The IDGEC project carries
forward a stream of research concerning institutional interplay. There are four core concepts that
inform the understanding of inter-institutional influence and its consequences: international
institutions, institutional interaction, interplay management and institutional complexes.
1. International institutions
interacting in the context of environmental governance are many,
such as the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Arctic Council amongst many
others. Institutions are ―persistent and connected set of rules and practices that prescribe behavioral
roles, constrain activities and shape expectations‖ (Keohane, 1989: 3). In this article, we consider
international processes and international organizations as international institutions and as a part of
the research agenda on institutional interplay.
2.
When one institution affects the development or performance of another institution, this situation
is considered as
institutional interplay
(Oberthür & Schram Stokke, 2011: 4). For the purpose of
this article, we will consider horizontal interaction for understanding the institutional interplay
between the Arctic Council and the IMO as between regional and global institutions.
3. Interplay management
refers to conscious efforts by any relevant actor or group of actors, in
whatever form or forum, to address and improve institutional interaction and its effects (Stokke,
2001b; Oberthür, 2009). Member states of the Arctic Council, based on the Kiruna Declaration,
created room for maneuver which they should use for consciously managing the interplay between
the Arctic Council and IMO negotiations in order to enhance synergy and give priority to
environmental objectives.
4.
Individual international institutions not only interact with each other, they also form parts of
broader
institutional complexes
, and their interaction generates interlocking governance structures
(Oberthür & Schram Stokke, 2011: 11). The Arctic global governance architecture requires moving
from an analysis of the effects international institutions have on each other, to an exploration of
how these institutions co-govern their overlapping area of governance (Oberthür & Schram Stokke,