242
Arctic Yearbook 2013
Dubois, Shestakov & Tesar
So far, researchers have focused their efforts on grasping the drivers of change (PAME AMSA,
2009) in Arctic marine transport activities and have investigated corresponding regulatory gap
analysis in existing governance complexes (Koivurova and Molenaar, 2009). As in Stokke‘s
approach, we emphasize the need to better understand interplay management between the region-
specific institution – the Arctic Council, and the global shipping regime.
The relationship between the IMO and the Arctic Council is a functional linkage among institutions
addressing substantive problems linked in biogeophysical and socioeconomic terms; increased
shipping activities in the Arctic. This interaction occurs because the Arctic states cannot address the
protection of the Arctic Ocean without an institution which comprises a broader membership. Now,
WWF deems time is ripe for the establishment of a political linkage involving the deliberate design
of a permanent working relationship between the Arctic Council and the IMO.
The cutting-edge generation of knowledge from the Arctic Council Arctic Marine Shipping
Assessment (AMSA) 2009 Report and the newly released AOR is embedded in a causal pathway
through which institutional interaction may influence the effectiveness of the regimes involved. This
ideational
interaction relates to a ―process of learning‖ (Stokke, 2001a: 10) and implies that the
recommendations of Arctic Council serve as models for those negotiating another regime, i.e. the
Polar Code. Hence, Arctic states should coordinate in order for the principles of the Arctic Council
such as sustainable development, the precautionary principle and ecosystem-based management to
be reflected in the relevant Arctic-specific shipping measures concerning safety and environmental
protection.
During the last ten years of scholarly efforts to develop a theory of institutional interaction,
researchers moved from classification to mapping a limited relevant number of causal mechanisms
elucidating the pathways through which influence can travel from one institution to another. AMSA
recommendations I(A), I(B), I(C), II(D), II(E), II(G), and II(H) all explicitly refer to the IMO as the
institution to follow up on AMSA findings and recommendations. One of the four causal
mechanisms is
cognitive interaction
, which assumes that institutional interaction can be driven by the
power of knowledge and ideas and it is purely based on persuasion and may be conceived of as a
particular form of inter-institutional learning (Stokke, 2001a: 10).
WWF argues that the Arctic Council must go further and not only rely on its asset of being a
scientific cognitive forerunner and establish an Arctic Voice based on an institutional platform
created by a decision of Senior Arctic Officials or Arctic Ministers. The AOR is also recommending
to the Arctic states to support work at the IMO and other international organizations, but the
negotiation process of the IMO sub-committees does not reflect a coordinated voice by Arctic states
in international agreements; rather, individual Arctic states advance purely national interests.
Hindrances to such coordination are multifaceted. First, the experts participating in the work being
carried out by PAME are not necessarily the experts involved in the IMO network. Second, there
are no formal institutional venues which provide opportunities for coordination and this explains
why Arctic states are not acting in concerted manner but rather as individual states at the global
level. The Arctic Council should be or provide this venue.