265
Arctic Yearbook 2013
Sánchez Ramos
for longer periods each year. It also means easier access is available to natural resources such as oil,
gas, marine species and various raw materials. Moreover, the Arctic is itself an area of growing
strategic importance. In this context, the structure of the Arctic Council has evolved slower than
problems caused by climate change have arisen: ―the founding values, objectives and commitments
of the Arctic Council will continue to be the North Star that guides our cooperation‖ (Vision for the
Arctic, Kiruna, 2013: 3).
This article studies how to strengthen the AC in order to face up to these new scenarios by means of
the ―package solution‖ and, consequently, the creation of the Arctic Council Secretariat, the role of
observers and the nature of the decisions taken in the Arctic Council.
The Arctic Council: From the Ottawa to the Kiruna Declaration
In 1999, Evan Bloom pointed out that ―the Arctic Council is the only major intergovernmental
initiative for the Arctic involving all eight Arctic States‖ (Bloom, 1999: 712). This idea
2
was recently
reaffirmed in the Kiruna Declaration adopted in Sweden, 15 May 2013, which reminds us that ―the
Arctic Council is and continues to be the primary forum for Arctic cooperation‖
3
(Senior Arctic
Officials‘ Report to Ministers, Kiruna, 15 May 2013: 3).
Although the AC is still the only intergovernmental forum for circumpolar cooperation, we should
ask whether this initiative – with a structure that has remained virtually unchanged since its
creation – should evolve, and how, in order to face up to the challenges of the coming years.
The AC was created in 1996 as a ―high level forum‖ to ―provide a means for promoting
cooperation, coordination and interaction among the Arctic States, with the involvement of the
Arctic indigenous communities and other Arctic inhabitants on common Arctic issues‖ (Declaration
on the establishment of the Arctic Council. Ottawa Declaration, 1996). Therefore, from a strictly
legal point of view, the AC is a high level forum
4
and not an ‗International Organization‘. This has
important consequences for both its international configuration and its external dimension, namely
its capacity to interact with other international subjects. Internally, the AC is an intergovernmental
forum characterized by the participation of indigenous peoples, and where the States have a very
wide-ranging capacity to define the AC‘s goals and to make decisions that are not legally binding for
its member states. However, its legal nature also implies important limitations in the external field: it
cannot participate as a member in other International Organizations, nor can it sign international
agreements with other subjects, as established in the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties, and
the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties between States and International Organizations.
Therefore, although it is clear that the AC is the only major intergovernmental initiative for the
Arctic involving all eight Arctic States, the question is whether its current configuration, as a political
forum, allows it to develop and play its role in the global governance in the Arctic. This governance
has an internal dimension – involving relations between the Arctic states, the Permanent Participants
and the observers – and also an external dimension, as many of the issues in the short, medium and
long term go beyond the jurisdiction of its states, and are of interest to the international community
as a whole. In this sense, we believe that the fundamental issue is the capacity of the AC to play its
role in the global governance of the Arctic in both its internal dimension – with weaknesses derived