269
Arctic Yearbook 2013
Sánchez Ramos
members, but who have an interest in the activities that the IO carries out.
18
However, although
these figures are quite common, the only characteristic they share is their lack of voting rights. Their
capacity to act differs from one IO to another, and even from one organ to another within a given
organization.
19
The AC regulates observers‘ status in the Ottawa Declaration: (a) non-Arctic States; (b) global and
regional inter-governmental and inter-parliamentary organizations, and (c) non-governmental
organizations.
20
At a later stage, matters associated with admission criteria and their ability to act in
the AC were developed and included in the
Rules of Procedure
(Iqaluit: 1998). After the adoption of
these Rules, several States, International Organizations and Non-Governmental Organizations have
been admitted as permanent observers, a process requiring the consent of all eight member States.
21
Regarding their capacity to participate in the work of the AC, it should be noted that: 1) observers
may be invited to Ministerial meetings and/or other meetings and activities of the Arctic Council; 2)
they may make statements at the discretion of the Chair and submit relevant documents to the
meetings; and 3) any observer that engages in activities which are at odds with the Council
Declaration shall have its status as an observer suspended.
22
However, distrust in this figure by member States
23
and PPs
24
led to a breakdown of the admission
process, as ―ministers were unable to articulate a shared vision on observers‖
(Canada as an Arctic
Power, 2012: 6), stating on the occasion of the sixth Ministerial Meeting that they ―decide to
continue discussing the role of observers in the Arctic Council‖ (Tromsø Declaration 2009: 9). In
this case, Young pointed out that:
[G]iven the profound links between the Arctic and the outside world, it makes no
sense to relegate outsiders (for example Britain, China, France, Germany, the
European Union) to the status of observers who seldom even get to speak at council
sessions. Since the actions of these states are critical to efforts to regulate global
processes (for example climate change, globalization) that will affect the Arctic
profoundly, any procedure that leaves these actors increasingly frustrated and
unhappy in their dealings with the council will be counterproductive (Young, 2009:
80).
On the occasion of the seventh Ministerial Meeting of the AC, the Ministers representing the eight
Arctic States adopted the recommendations of SAOs on the
Role and Criteria for Observers to the AC
and decided to apply these criteria to evaluate pending applicants for observer status. In our opinion
it is interesting to highlight three points of these criteria for admitting observers and their
involvement in the AC: 1) that the observers may recognize Arctic States‘ sovereignty, sovereign
rights and jurisdiction in the Arctic (this criterion is somewhat surprising, as respect of a state‘s
sovereignty is one of the basic tenets of International Law); 2) that decisions at all levels in the AC
are the exclusive right and responsibility of the eight Arctic States with the involvement of the
Permanent Participants (again, the inclusion of this statement is surprising as it was already included
in the Ottawa Declaration
25
); and 3) that observers may propose projects through an Arctic State or
a Permanent Participant, but financial contributions from observers to any given project may not
exceed the financing from Arctic States, unless otherwise decided by the SAOs (Senior Arctic
Officials Report to Ministers, 2011: 50). In this author‘s opinion, these criteria demonstrate mistrust