The Recent Arctic Council Assessments: Influential Tools in Policy-Making in the Council and Beyond?

M. Smieszek, A. Stępień, P. Kankaanpää
{"title":"The Recent Arctic Council Assessments: Influential Tools in Policy-Making in the Council and Beyond?","authors":"M. Smieszek, A. Stępień, P. Kankaanpää","doi":"10.1163/22116427_008010011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The scientific assessments of the Arctic Council (AC) have been widely regarded as the most effective products of the AC. Yet, so far comparatively little scholarly attention has been given to this primary area of the Council’s work. This paper examines the most recent assessment work within the Arctic Council. In order to do this, we build on the literature on global environmental assessments to analyze whether this work exhibits design features and is carried out in a way that enhances the potential for AC assessments to be effective. We understand the effectiveness of assessments to influence decision and policy-making in the Arctic Council itself, but we also look beyond its structures. This paper focuses on four case studies: Arctic Biodiversity Assessment (ABA), Arctic Human Development Report-II (ADHR-II), Arctic Resilience Report/Arctic Resilience Assessment (ARR/ARA) and Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic (AACA). Whereas detailed examination of such influence is at this point not possible due to either very short time from their completion (ABA, ADHR-II) or the fact that the projects are still ongoing (ARA, AACA), the analysis of those assessments through the lens of a series of their design features provides us with some guidance in relation to their expected effectiveness in bridging science with decision-making in the AC and beyond. The article finds that whereas different processes exhibit different individual characteristics, all the studied assessments rank from relatively high to very high in terms of how their design may affect their salience, credibility and legitimacy. However, their actual policy influence will depend first and foremost on the political will of those ordering the assessments and wielding decision-making power in the Arctic Council.","PeriodicalId":202575,"journal":{"name":"The Yearbook of Polar Law Online","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Yearbook of Polar Law Online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22116427_008010011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The scientific assessments of the Arctic Council (AC) have been widely regarded as the most effective products of the AC. Yet, so far comparatively little scholarly attention has been given to this primary area of the Council’s work. This paper examines the most recent assessment work within the Arctic Council. In order to do this, we build on the literature on global environmental assessments to analyze whether this work exhibits design features and is carried out in a way that enhances the potential for AC assessments to be effective. We understand the effectiveness of assessments to influence decision and policy-making in the Arctic Council itself, but we also look beyond its structures. This paper focuses on four case studies: Arctic Biodiversity Assessment (ABA), Arctic Human Development Report-II (ADHR-II), Arctic Resilience Report/Arctic Resilience Assessment (ARR/ARA) and Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic (AACA). Whereas detailed examination of such influence is at this point not possible due to either very short time from their completion (ABA, ADHR-II) or the fact that the projects are still ongoing (ARA, AACA), the analysis of those assessments through the lens of a series of their design features provides us with some guidance in relation to their expected effectiveness in bridging science with decision-making in the AC and beyond. The article finds that whereas different processes exhibit different individual characteristics, all the studied assessments rank from relatively high to very high in terms of how their design may affect their salience, credibility and legitimacy. However, their actual policy influence will depend first and foremost on the political will of those ordering the assessments and wielding decision-making power in the Arctic Council.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
北极理事会最近的评估:理事会内外有影响力的决策工具?
北极理事会(AC)的科学评估被广泛认为是AC最有效的成果。然而,迄今为止,相对较少的学术关注给予理事会工作的这一主要领域。本文审查了北极理事会最近的评估工作。为了做到这一点,我们以全球环境评估的文献为基础,分析这项工作是否表现出设计特征,并以一种增强交流评估有效潜力的方式进行。我们了解评估对影响北极理事会本身的决策和决策的有效性,但我们也将目光投向其结构之外。本文重点介绍了北极生物多样性评估(ABA)、北极人类发展报告ii (ADHR-II)、北极恢复力报告/北极恢复力评估(ARR/ARA)和北极变化的适应行动(AACA)四个案例研究。由于距离完成时间很短(ABA, ADHR-II)或项目仍在进行中(ARA, AACA),因此目前无法对此类影响进行详细检查,但通过一系列设计特征对这些评估进行分析,为我们提供了一些指导,说明它们在将科学与AC及以后的决策联系起来方面的预期有效性。文章发现,尽管不同的过程表现出不同的个体特征,但就其设计如何影响其显著性、可信度和合法性而言,所有被研究的评估都从相对高到非常高。然而,它们实际的政策影响将首先取决于北极理事会中下令进行评估和行使决策权的国家的政治意愿。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Snjólaug Árnadóttir. Climate Change and Maritime Boundaries: Legal Consequences of Sea Level Rise, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2022, pp. 304. ISBN: 978-1-316-51789-5 Polar Policy in Practice: Tour Guiding in Antarctica Recalcitrant Materialities of a Liminal Ocean: Deconstructing the ‘Arctic Nomos’ Legal Personality in Antarctica The 2018 Judgment by the European Court of Justice on Antarctic MPAS and Its Possible Significance to the Antarctic Treaty System
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1