241
Arctic Yearbook 2013
The Arctic Ocean Review
2011: 11). The Arctic institutional complex is a spatial variant by starting out from a particular
region, the Arctic, and examining the interplay of Arctic-specific institutions and those with a
broader scope like the IMO, CBD, UNFCCC, CLRTAP and many others. The Arctic institutional
complex is highly sophisticated and evolving; hence its study is neither the ambition nor the focus of
the conceptual framework of this article. Further research analyzing the emerging division of labor
between different institutions for governing a specific region, the Arctic, could inform the
understanding of the international regime complexity of the Arctic.
This article aims to highlight the need to further investigate the relationship between the Arctic
Council and other international fora by illustrating the case study of shipping governance in the
Arctic. This article does not pretend to provide final answers but to trigger further related
comprehensive research. This enquiry concerning the relationship between two international
institutions addresses the core question of how, and with what effects, the Arctic Council can and
does influence IMO processes.
Institutional Interplay and the Establishment of an Arctic Voice
The mosaic metaphor for Arctic governance was introduced by Oran R. Young in 2005. The
emphasis of this article on the need for Arctic states to coordinate their actions towards other
international organizations, hence establishing an Arctic voice, is closely related to the research
carried by Olav Schram Stokke, Research Professor at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute, examining the
contribution of Arctic institutions including the Arctic Council by applying a niche-oriented
approach to the cases of Persistent Organic Pollutants, Arctic offshore oil and gas, management of
Arctic contaminants and port-state measures and illegal fishing (Stokke, 2011) and more recently to
the case of Arctic shipping governance (Stokke, 2012). The remainder of this text recognized the
specific contributions of the niche selection and interplay management and the related enhanced
understanding of the Arctic institutional complexes based on the identification of the institutional
features of the Arctic Council. Stokke also assesses the relative effectiveness of the Council in
contributing to the management of the region by occupying and conducting generic tasks of
governance; building knowledge, strengthening norms, enhancing problem-solving capacity, or
enforcing rule compliance.
Based on interplay management assumptions, the establishment of an Arctic Voice will
institutionalize the relationship between the Arctic Council and the global institutions as a deliberate
effort by Arctic states to find common ground, and influence in a coordinated fashion global
regimes. This will facilitate regulatory advances leading to an enhanced cross-institutional interplay
and enable the achievement of regime effectiveness with regards to the larger institutional complex
for the Arctic Ocean.
Drawing on this research, WWF argues that the Arctic Council should not only occupy a
knowledge-building niche, but should institutionalize means to coordinate, promote and empower
Arctic states‘ common positions on the Polar Code and updating other Arctic–specific instruments
at the IMO with the ultimate goal of strengthening the Arctic international governance system for
shipping.