Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2022.2062559
C. Sosin
ABSTRACT This paper will focus on the interaction between the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Antarctic Treaty System, particularly the tensions and interplay between these two governance structures in relation to territorial sovereignty over continental shelves and extended continental shelves within the Antarctic Treaty area. Given the wealth of mineral resources buried within these shelves and the extremely fragile nature of the Antarctic ecosystem, this paper outlines what legal parameters were in place regarding state sovereignty. The submissions of Australia, Argentina and the United Kingdom to the Commission for the Limits of the Continental Shelf will be outlined and contrasted alongside the notes verbales lodged following their submission. Finally, the paper will highlight how the form of CLCS submission of each state could impact their resource management potentials in the future concluding with what suggestions could be made for the yet to be finalised, Chilean submission.
{"title":"Continental shelves in the Antarctic region: implications for resource management","authors":"C. Sosin","doi":"10.1080/2154896X.2022.2062559","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2022.2062559","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper will focus on the interaction between the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Antarctic Treaty System, particularly the tensions and interplay between these two governance structures in relation to territorial sovereignty over continental shelves and extended continental shelves within the Antarctic Treaty area. Given the wealth of mineral resources buried within these shelves and the extremely fragile nature of the Antarctic ecosystem, this paper outlines what legal parameters were in place regarding state sovereignty. The submissions of Australia, Argentina and the United Kingdom to the Commission for the Limits of the Continental Shelf will be outlined and contrasted alongside the notes verbales lodged following their submission. Finally, the paper will highlight how the form of CLCS submission of each state could impact their resource management potentials in the future concluding with what suggestions could be made for the yet to be finalised, Chilean submission.","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"12 1","pages":"122 - 147"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48308512","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2022.2062560
J. Salazar, E. Leane, G. Roldán, Caleb Fraser, Katia Macías Díaz, C. Power, Florencia Garro, Rudzani Silima, Elias Barticevic
ABSTRACT Ongoing youth-based programmes providing educational expeditions to Antarctica have been developed by non-state actors, universities, and national Antarctic programs since the early 2000s. Despite the successes and impact of these educational programs, and despite the emergence and growth in recent decades of youth-led issues-based movements worldwide, there have been scarce opportunities for young people to have a voice in national and global networks for action on Antarctica. Furthermore, both Antarctic decision-makers and academia have not paid a great deal of attention to youth participation in Antarctic affairs. Drawing on a youth expedition to King George Island in February 2020, the authors designed the Antarctic Youth Coalition as an experiment in youth participation. As a result of the formation of the Antarctic Youth Coalition across five Antarctic gateway cities, we proposed that AYC to provides conceptual and practical platforms for a deeper interrogation of youth participation in Antarctic political, social, economic and environmental matters of concern. This article highlights sustained and active engagement with Antarctic youth projects and the role that young people can play in Antarctic cultural diplomacy.
{"title":"The Antarctic youth coalition: an experiment in citizen participation and south–south cultural diplomacy","authors":"J. Salazar, E. Leane, G. Roldán, Caleb Fraser, Katia Macías Díaz, C. Power, Florencia Garro, Rudzani Silima, Elias Barticevic","doi":"10.1080/2154896X.2022.2062560","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2022.2062560","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Ongoing youth-based programmes providing educational expeditions to Antarctica have been developed by non-state actors, universities, and national Antarctic programs since the early 2000s. Despite the successes and impact of these educational programs, and despite the emergence and growth in recent decades of youth-led issues-based movements worldwide, there have been scarce opportunities for young people to have a voice in national and global networks for action on Antarctica. Furthermore, both Antarctic decision-makers and academia have not paid a great deal of attention to youth participation in Antarctic affairs. Drawing on a youth expedition to King George Island in February 2020, the authors designed the Antarctic Youth Coalition as an experiment in youth participation. As a result of the formation of the Antarctic Youth Coalition across five Antarctic gateway cities, we proposed that AYC to provides conceptual and practical platforms for a deeper interrogation of youth participation in Antarctic political, social, economic and environmental matters of concern. This article highlights sustained and active engagement with Antarctic youth projects and the role that young people can play in Antarctic cultural diplomacy.","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"12 1","pages":"5 - 21"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43177087","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2022.2058222
Vincent van Uitregt, Isabella Sullivan, K. Watene, P. Wehi
ABSTRACT As the world seeks to engage with Indigenous values to respond to environmental issues, Indigenous peoples seek to meet that need through genuinely equitable partnerships. In Aotearoa New Zealand, preliminary work towards Māori participation in its Antarctic and Southern Ocean activities has begun. We further that work here by analysing two successful international approaches to negotiating Indigenous participation in environmental research, policy, and governance. In doing so, this paper examines how Māori and other Indigenous peoples might continue to work towards equitable participation in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. Given the complex nature of the Antarctic region, our analysis focusses on case studies in similarly complex multijurisdictional areas, in the Arctic, and across the Murray Darling Basin in Australia. Working towards equitable participation in each of these cases has been supported by the collectivisation of Indigenous voices, use and establishment of strong Indigenous organisational structures, consistent influence on environmental law and policy, articulation of Indigenous policy, and alignment of Indigenous knowledges and worldviews with the environmental objectives of the regions. These lessons provide high-level principles to support Māori and other Indigenous peoples as they seek to bring new paradigms and values to support improved management of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean.
{"title":"Negotiating greater Māori participation in Antarctic and Southern Ocean research, policy, and governance","authors":"Vincent van Uitregt, Isabella Sullivan, K. Watene, P. Wehi","doi":"10.1080/2154896X.2022.2058222","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2022.2058222","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT As the world seeks to engage with Indigenous values to respond to environmental issues, Indigenous peoples seek to meet that need through genuinely equitable partnerships. In Aotearoa New Zealand, preliminary work towards Māori participation in its Antarctic and Southern Ocean activities has begun. We further that work here by analysing two successful international approaches to negotiating Indigenous participation in environmental research, policy, and governance. In doing so, this paper examines how Māori and other Indigenous peoples might continue to work towards equitable participation in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. Given the complex nature of the Antarctic region, our analysis focusses on case studies in similarly complex multijurisdictional areas, in the Arctic, and across the Murray Darling Basin in Australia. Working towards equitable participation in each of these cases has been supported by the collectivisation of Indigenous voices, use and establishment of strong Indigenous organisational structures, consistent influence on environmental law and policy, articulation of Indigenous policy, and alignment of Indigenous knowledges and worldviews with the environmental objectives of the regions. These lessons provide high-level principles to support Māori and other Indigenous peoples as they seek to bring new paradigms and values to support improved management of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean.","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"12 1","pages":"42 - 61"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45474067","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2022.2062558
A. Mancilla
ABSTRACT Argentina and Chile, known in the world of Antarctic politics as the ‘South American claimants’, have shown themselves since the inception of their interests in the White Continent as standing alone and in opposition to the advances of the colonial powers of the North – especially the United Kingdom. As Shirley Scott has suggested, while the UK was busy staking claims over Antarctica and treating it as terra nullius, Argentina and Chile ascertained what they took to be their historical rights to the continent, inherited from the time when they were Spanish colonies. In this article, I support Argentina’s and Chile’s contention that the attitude and procedure followed by the other claimants to the continent was unequivocally colonial, but I reject their contention that theirs was not. I examine four sites where their colonial spirit is revealed: their use of the geographic doctrines of continuity and contiguity, and of the sector principle; the appeal to historic rights inherited from the time when they were Spanish colonies; their expansion to Antarctica through the establishment of military settlements, and their underlying economic and strategic interests, no different from their ‘Northern’ counterparts. I then point to some specific and general implications of reinterpreting their story in this light.
{"title":"South American claims in Antarctica: colonial, malgré tout","authors":"A. Mancilla","doi":"10.1080/2154896X.2022.2062558","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2022.2062558","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Argentina and Chile, known in the world of Antarctic politics as the ‘South American claimants’, have shown themselves since the inception of their interests in the White Continent as standing alone and in opposition to the advances of the colonial powers of the North – especially the United Kingdom. As Shirley Scott has suggested, while the UK was busy staking claims over Antarctica and treating it as terra nullius, Argentina and Chile ascertained what they took to be their historical rights to the continent, inherited from the time when they were Spanish colonies. In this article, I support Argentina’s and Chile’s contention that the attitude and procedure followed by the other claimants to the continent was unequivocally colonial, but I reject their contention that theirs was not. I examine four sites where their colonial spirit is revealed: their use of the geographic doctrines of continuity and contiguity, and of the sector principle; the appeal to historic rights inherited from the time when they were Spanish colonies; their expansion to Antarctica through the establishment of military settlements, and their underlying economic and strategic interests, no different from their ‘Northern’ counterparts. I then point to some specific and general implications of reinterpreting their story in this light.","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"12 1","pages":"22 - 41"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41719262","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2022.2025718
M. Ghayoomi, K. Duderstadt, A. Kholodov, A. Shiklomanov, M. Turner, Elham Ajorlou
Environmental, ecological, and social changes interactively influence the seismic response of built infrastructure, the natural environment, and social systems in the Arctic. This includes direct and indirect climate impacts on earthquake-induced damages and postearthquake recovery. Challenges with currently available knowledge are that 1) scientific knowledge is discipline-focused, 2) local community and Indigenous knowledge is not always equally respected and incorporated, and 3) even in some sectors, the fundamental technical understanding is lacking. In order to design new sustainable and resilient systems that will minimise the damage of earthquakes to Arctic infrastructure and environmental systems, scientists and engineers need to better understand the threats facing communities and their infrastructure, including the local and global consequences of a changing climate. Knowing that some Arctic and sub-Arctic regions are seismically active, such a holistic approach becomes even more pressing. For example, the state of Alaska in the U.S. is one of the most seismically active regions in the world. About 10% of the world’s instrumented seismic events occur in Alaska, including some of the largest historic earthquakes. Seismically induced hazards can impact both natural environments (such as ground deformations, landslides, rock falls, tsunamis, liquefaction) and built infrastructure (such as collapse of buildings and bridges and disruptions in lifeline systems including transportation networks, power transmission, water supply and sewage systems, and communication networks). All of these damages and disruptions directly impact social systems and communities. Thus, any resilience metrics, recovery decision, or mitigation strategy require inputs from a range of stakeholders with different perspectives. A workshop was hosted by the University of New Hampshire to facilitate convergent discussions and to assess and prioritise the research needs and future directions of seismic resilience in the Arctic. The overarching goal of this workshop was to build capacity for investigating the resilience of Arctic infrastructure and social systems in response to seismic events in light of a changing climate. The core
{"title":"Seismic resilience of Arctic infrastructure and social systems: 1st international workshop","authors":"M. Ghayoomi, K. Duderstadt, A. Kholodov, A. Shiklomanov, M. Turner, Elham Ajorlou","doi":"10.1080/2154896X.2022.2025718","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2022.2025718","url":null,"abstract":"Environmental, ecological, and social changes interactively influence the seismic response of built infrastructure, the natural environment, and social systems in the Arctic. This includes direct and indirect climate impacts on earthquake-induced damages and postearthquake recovery. Challenges with currently available knowledge are that 1) scientific knowledge is discipline-focused, 2) local community and Indigenous knowledge is not always equally respected and incorporated, and 3) even in some sectors, the fundamental technical understanding is lacking. In order to design new sustainable and resilient systems that will minimise the damage of earthquakes to Arctic infrastructure and environmental systems, scientists and engineers need to better understand the threats facing communities and their infrastructure, including the local and global consequences of a changing climate. Knowing that some Arctic and sub-Arctic regions are seismically active, such a holistic approach becomes even more pressing. For example, the state of Alaska in the U.S. is one of the most seismically active regions in the world. About 10% of the world’s instrumented seismic events occur in Alaska, including some of the largest historic earthquakes. Seismically induced hazards can impact both natural environments (such as ground deformations, landslides, rock falls, tsunamis, liquefaction) and built infrastructure (such as collapse of buildings and bridges and disruptions in lifeline systems including transportation networks, power transmission, water supply and sewage systems, and communication networks). All of these damages and disruptions directly impact social systems and communities. Thus, any resilience metrics, recovery decision, or mitigation strategy require inputs from a range of stakeholders with different perspectives. A workshop was hosted by the University of New Hampshire to facilitate convergent discussions and to assess and prioritise the research needs and future directions of seismic resilience in the Arctic. The overarching goal of this workshop was to build capacity for investigating the resilience of Arctic infrastructure and social systems in response to seismic events in light of a changing climate. The core","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"12 1","pages":"172 - 176"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47709605","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2021.2014106
E. Molenaar
This essay responds to some aspects of the paper ‘The Politics of Research Presence in Svalbard’ by Torbjørn Pedersen that concern the interpretation and application of the Spitsbergen Treaty. Pedersen emphasises that his paper is not a legal paper, and that it touches only briefly on legal issues relating to Svalbard and the Spitsbergen Treaty. After a summary of the different interpretations of the geographical scope of the Spitsbergen Treaty that exist among scholars and contracting parties to the Treaty, the paper also very briefly covers the question as to whether the Spitsbergen Treaty recognises a right to engage in scientific research and who can exercise this right. As these two questions are directly relevant to the main concerns and conclusions on national posturing advanced in the paper, I felt that a more in-depth and balanced analysis was both warranted and desirable. In view of the length-limitations for essays such as these, it is not possible to also adequately cover the closely related questions on Norway’s jurisdiction over scientific research and the possible applicability of the prohibition of non-discrimination.
{"title":"A Response to “The Politics of Research Presence in Svalbard” by Torbjørn Pedersen","authors":"E. Molenaar","doi":"10.1080/2154896X.2021.2014106","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2021.2014106","url":null,"abstract":"This essay responds to some aspects of the paper ‘The Politics of Research Presence in Svalbard’ by Torbjørn Pedersen that concern the interpretation and application of the Spitsbergen Treaty. Pedersen emphasises that his paper is not a legal paper, and that it touches only briefly on legal issues relating to Svalbard and the Spitsbergen Treaty. After a summary of the different interpretations of the geographical scope of the Spitsbergen Treaty that exist among scholars and contracting parties to the Treaty, the paper also very briefly covers the question as to whether the Spitsbergen Treaty recognises a right to engage in scientific research and who can exercise this right. As these two questions are directly relevant to the main concerns and conclusions on national posturing advanced in the paper, I felt that a more in-depth and balanced analysis was both warranted and desirable. In view of the length-limitations for essays such as these, it is not possible to also adequately cover the closely related questions on Norway’s jurisdiction over scientific research and the possible applicability of the prohibition of non-discrimination.","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":"427 - 432"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48224359","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2021.1978757
Romain Chuffart, Andreas Raspotnik, A. Stępień
ABSTRACT The European Union (EU) is a unique stakeholder in Arctic affairs. The EU is linked to the Arctic, affecting and affected by regional changes and developments, resulting in a multidimensional nexus of influences, impacts and overlapping agendas and stakeholders. As a global multi-level force and a major promoter of the concept of sustainable development the EU can also be a leader in setting standards for a more sustainable interaction between a major economy and the Arctic region. On the premise that the path towards a more comprehensive and integrated EU Arctic policy should focus on implementing more robust environmental policies in Europe, this paper argues that developing a distinct EU Arctic policy should only be regarded as secondary to building a – predominantly internal – regulatory framework that considers the ongoing changes in the Arctic. This article analyses the EU’s capacity to be a global regulator and to set internal environmental standards with external influence on the Arctic. Specifically, this paper is concerned with the extent to which EU environmental policies and legislations can be regarded as contributing to the promotion of sustainable development in the Arctic with an analyses of the EU’s energy-climate policy complex.
{"title":"Our common arctic? A more sustainable EU-arctic nexus in light of the European green deal","authors":"Romain Chuffart, Andreas Raspotnik, A. Stępień","doi":"10.1080/2154896X.2021.1978757","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2021.1978757","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The European Union (EU) is a unique stakeholder in Arctic affairs. The EU is linked to the Arctic, affecting and affected by regional changes and developments, resulting in a multidimensional nexus of influences, impacts and overlapping agendas and stakeholders. As a global multi-level force and a major promoter of the concept of sustainable development the EU can also be a leader in setting standards for a more sustainable interaction between a major economy and the Arctic region. On the premise that the path towards a more comprehensive and integrated EU Arctic policy should focus on implementing more robust environmental policies in Europe, this paper argues that developing a distinct EU Arctic policy should only be regarded as secondary to building a – predominantly internal – regulatory framework that considers the ongoing changes in the Arctic. This article analyses the EU’s capacity to be a global regulator and to set internal environmental standards with external influence on the Arctic. Specifically, this paper is concerned with the extent to which EU environmental policies and legislations can be regarded as contributing to the promotion of sustainable development in the Arctic with an analyses of the EU’s energy-climate policy complex.","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":"284 - 302"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41536630","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2021.1978234
Andreas Østhagen, C. Schofield
ABSTRACT The Arctic region is sometimes described as an area of geopolitical competition and boundary disputes. However, in terms of territorial and maritime claims, such portrayals are misleading. Our examination of maritime boundaries in the Arctic, and Arctic state practice concerning baselines, maritime claims and extended continental shelf submissions in the central Arctic Ocean, shows that the Arctic is a maritime space where states have settled disputes before real conflict could emerge. In that sense the Arctic is arguably an ocean apart and the case of the Arctic can be of broader relevance regarding maritime disputes in other regional contexts.
{"title":"An ocean apart? Maritime boundary agreements and disputes in the Arctic Ocean","authors":"Andreas Østhagen, C. Schofield","doi":"10.1080/2154896X.2021.1978234","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2021.1978234","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Arctic region is sometimes described as an area of geopolitical competition and boundary disputes. However, in terms of territorial and maritime claims, such portrayals are misleading. Our examination of maritime boundaries in the Arctic, and Arctic state practice concerning baselines, maritime claims and extended continental shelf submissions in the central Arctic Ocean, shows that the Arctic is a maritime space where states have settled disputes before real conflict could emerge. In that sense the Arctic is arguably an ocean apart and the case of the Arctic can be of broader relevance regarding maritime disputes in other regional contexts.","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":"317 - 341"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42143418","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2021.2014107
G. Ulfstein
Norway has been very clear about its determination to uphold sovereignty over Svalbard, based on the 1920 Svalbard Treaty. Thus, any challenges or attempts to undermine Norwegian sovereignty should be taken seriously. Torbjørn Pedersen discusses in his article ‘The Politics of Research Presence in Svalbard’ in this issue to what extent some of the foreign scientific research on Svalbard should be seen as national posturing, threatening Norwegian sovereignty. However, it is important to distinguish between intentions and effects of any national posturing. As Pedersen notes, the relevant activities must be interpreted: are they based on scientific or other relevant needs, or are meant to challenge Norwegian sovereign right to regulate activities on Svalbard. Only the latter forms of activities should be subject to concern. Secondly, the different measures taken by other states should be individually assessed. For example, the name of a research station would hardly in itself be a challenge, whereas the Chinese request for an international decision-making process in the adoption of a research strategy for NyÅlesund may give reason to worry. Thirdly, a distinction should be made between internal national communications and external international demands. Only the latter has the ability to be interpreted as a challenge. Finally, there is reason to emphasise that no state has an interest in an unregulated power struggle. Instead, they have a common interest in acknowledging Norway as a regulatory Hobbesian Leviathan, securing a common peaceful order. I will not discuss the policy aspects further, but – like Erik Molenaar – concentrate on the legal aspects, i.e. the interpretation of the Svalbard Treaty. Molenaar submits that article 5(2) of the Svalbard Treaty contains three ‘implicit assumptions or understandings:
{"title":"The Svalbard Treaty and research: Comment to Pedersen and Molenaar","authors":"G. Ulfstein","doi":"10.1080/2154896X.2021.2014107","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2021.2014107","url":null,"abstract":"Norway has been very clear about its determination to uphold sovereignty over Svalbard, based on the 1920 Svalbard Treaty. Thus, any challenges or attempts to undermine Norwegian sovereignty should be taken seriously. Torbjørn Pedersen discusses in his article ‘The Politics of Research Presence in Svalbard’ in this issue to what extent some of the foreign scientific research on Svalbard should be seen as national posturing, threatening Norwegian sovereignty. However, it is important to distinguish between intentions and effects of any national posturing. As Pedersen notes, the relevant activities must be interpreted: are they based on scientific or other relevant needs, or are meant to challenge Norwegian sovereign right to regulate activities on Svalbard. Only the latter forms of activities should be subject to concern. Secondly, the different measures taken by other states should be individually assessed. For example, the name of a research station would hardly in itself be a challenge, whereas the Chinese request for an international decision-making process in the adoption of a research strategy for NyÅlesund may give reason to worry. Thirdly, a distinction should be made between internal national communications and external international demands. Only the latter has the ability to be interpreted as a challenge. Finally, there is reason to emphasise that no state has an interest in an unregulated power struggle. Instead, they have a common interest in acknowledging Norway as a regulatory Hobbesian Leviathan, securing a common peaceful order. I will not discuss the policy aspects further, but – like Erik Molenaar – concentrate on the legal aspects, i.e. the interpretation of the Svalbard Treaty. Molenaar submits that article 5(2) of the Svalbard Treaty contains three ‘implicit assumptions or understandings:","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":"433 - 437"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43852432","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：