Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2021.1977048
Yelena Yermakova
ABSTRACT The Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) has governed the Antarctic for the last six decades ensuring it to be a place of peace and scientific cooperation. Like any institution, the ATS exists in order to solve collective action problems through coordination and the creation of norms. But how do we know if a particular institution is the right one to solve a specific problem or address issues regarding the governance of a region? And when is it time to replace or reform such an institution? To answer these questions, we need an account of institutional legitimacy. An assessment of the legitimacy of the ATS is necessary in order to determine whether it is worthy of being empowered through support, or if it is time to reform some aspects of it. Building on the account of legitimacy of global governance institutions proposed by Buchanan and Keohane, the paper assesses the legitimacy of the ATS and argues that it is time to reform some components of it. Specifically, the paper assesses the legitimacy of the ATS based on the following criteria: minimal moral acceptability; comparative benefit; institutional integrity; and accountability. The paper highlights the ATS’ shortcomings based on these criteria and suggests reforms that will strengthen the legitimacy of the ATS
{"title":"Legitimacy of the Antarctic Treaty System: is it time for a reform?","authors":"Yelena Yermakova","doi":"10.1080/2154896X.2021.1977048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2021.1977048","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) has governed the Antarctic for the last six decades ensuring it to be a place of peace and scientific cooperation. Like any institution, the ATS exists in order to solve collective action problems through coordination and the creation of norms. But how do we know if a particular institution is the right one to solve a specific problem or address issues regarding the governance of a region? And when is it time to replace or reform such an institution? To answer these questions, we need an account of institutional legitimacy. An assessment of the legitimacy of the ATS is necessary in order to determine whether it is worthy of being empowered through support, or if it is time to reform some aspects of it. Building on the account of legitimacy of global governance institutions proposed by Buchanan and Keohane, the paper assesses the legitimacy of the ATS and argues that it is time to reform some components of it. Specifically, the paper assesses the legitimacy of the ATS based on the following criteria: minimal moral acceptability; comparative benefit; institutional integrity; and accountability. The paper highlights the ATS’ shortcomings based on these criteria and suggests reforms that will strengthen the legitimacy of the ATS","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":"342 - 359"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46507075","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.2021.1972257
E. Molenaar
ABSTRACT Participation in the Antarctic Treaty and its main decision-making body – the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) – has been highly sensitive from the outset, in particular due to the fundamental issue of Antarctic territorial sovereignty and the ATCM’s decision-making by unanimity. Broader participation means enhanced applicability of the Antarctic Treaty and acts adopted by the ATCM, but does not necessarily improve effectiveness because each new participant obtains a de facto right to veto. There are multiple reasons why States want to participate in the Antarctic Treaty and other key instruments of the Antarctic Treaty System, including reasons related to the issue of Antarctic territorial sovereignty and the ability to engage in activities such as scientific research, tourism and exploitation of resources. The objective of this article is to analyse the grounds and requirements for participation in the Antarctic Treaty, their genesis during the negotiations on the Antarctic Treaty, and their subsequent operationalisation and application in practice.
{"title":"Participation in the Antarctic Treaty","authors":"E. Molenaar","doi":"10.1080/2154896X.2021.1972257","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2021.1972257","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Participation in the Antarctic Treaty and its main decision-making body – the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) – has been highly sensitive from the outset, in particular due to the fundamental issue of Antarctic territorial sovereignty and the ATCM’s decision-making by unanimity. Broader participation means enhanced applicability of the Antarctic Treaty and acts adopted by the ATCM, but does not necessarily improve effectiveness because each new participant obtains a de facto right to veto. There are multiple reasons why States want to participate in the Antarctic Treaty and other key instruments of the Antarctic Treaty System, including reasons related to the issue of Antarctic territorial sovereignty and the ability to engage in activities such as scientific research, tourism and exploitation of resources. The objective of this article is to analyse the grounds and requirements for participation in the Antarctic Treaty, their genesis during the negotiations on the Antarctic Treaty, and their subsequent operationalisation and application in practice.","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":"360 - 380"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41423373","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.2021.1982162
Sergey Shubin, I. Rogachev
{"title":"10th International Congress of Arctic Social Sciences (ICASS X) (15–20 June 2021, Arkhangelsk, Russia)","authors":"Sergey Shubin, I. Rogachev","doi":"10.1080/2154896x.2021.1982162","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896x.2021.1982162","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":"469 - 470"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41439068","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.2021.1978995
A. Jackson
specific northern nations shifted their Arctic policies from the highly-militarised posture of the Cold War to encompass softer security threats in the 21st century. Russia, for example, adjusted the mandate of the Border Guard Service to include monitoring and control of fluvial sites along the northern sea route, a dynamic Alexander Sergunin outlines in his chapter on Russian Arctic realities (chapter 6). Wilfrid Greaves, P. Whitney Lackenbauer, and Andreas Osthagen addressed evolving strategic doctrines in other Arctic nations, reinforcing one of the volume’s central themes that ‘we must stop thinking of the Arctic as a single holistic place’ to understand unique national priorities (p. 13). The chapters on emerging threats (chapters 9–12) move beyond realist conceptions of security, but remain couched in the language of sovereign protection, with chapters from Petra Dolata, Gunhild Hoogensen Gjorv, Natalia Loukacheva, and Frank Sejersen. Hoogensen Gjorv argues in chapter 10 that ‘at its core, human security is concerned about how people themselves experience security and insecurity,’ [emphasis in original] (p. 206) underscoring the editors’ point that perceptions of security and sovereignty are neither fixed nor absolute. Indigenous sovereignty and security, for example, is bound up in the ability to access foods central to traditional diets and cope with effects of climate change, an idea explored in greater depth by Loukacheva in chapter 11. Although Mathieu Landriault’s media analysis of Canadian Arctic security crises (chapter 3) and P. Whitney Lackenbauer’s assessment of Canadian Arctic policies (chapter 7) read more like standalone articles than part of a cohesive edited volume, the overall thematic coherence of the book makes for a publication that is useful for Arctic students and scholars of all levels. The editors of and contributors to Breaking Through created an essential handbook for understanding security and sovereignty above the Arctic Circle. Having explored these issues from numerous angles throughout the volume, editor Wilfrid Greaves concludes with a reminder that conventional concerns of Arctic militarisation, emerging threats from global warming, and the historic political marginalisation of Indigenous groups are intrinsically bound together in shaping future challenges to Arctic sovereignty and security. Although these individual threats have typically been siloed into distinct academic or policy discussions, the contributors to this multidisciplinary volume remind readers that such divisions no longer match the Arctic’s political reality.
{"title":"Madhouse at the end of the world: the Belgica’s journey into the dark Antarctic night","authors":"A. Jackson","doi":"10.1080/2154896x.2021.1978995","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896x.2021.1978995","url":null,"abstract":"specific northern nations shifted their Arctic policies from the highly-militarised posture of the Cold War to encompass softer security threats in the 21st century. Russia, for example, adjusted the mandate of the Border Guard Service to include monitoring and control of fluvial sites along the northern sea route, a dynamic Alexander Sergunin outlines in his chapter on Russian Arctic realities (chapter 6). Wilfrid Greaves, P. Whitney Lackenbauer, and Andreas Osthagen addressed evolving strategic doctrines in other Arctic nations, reinforcing one of the volume’s central themes that ‘we must stop thinking of the Arctic as a single holistic place’ to understand unique national priorities (p. 13). The chapters on emerging threats (chapters 9–12) move beyond realist conceptions of security, but remain couched in the language of sovereign protection, with chapters from Petra Dolata, Gunhild Hoogensen Gjorv, Natalia Loukacheva, and Frank Sejersen. Hoogensen Gjorv argues in chapter 10 that ‘at its core, human security is concerned about how people themselves experience security and insecurity,’ [emphasis in original] (p. 206) underscoring the editors’ point that perceptions of security and sovereignty are neither fixed nor absolute. Indigenous sovereignty and security, for example, is bound up in the ability to access foods central to traditional diets and cope with effects of climate change, an idea explored in greater depth by Loukacheva in chapter 11. Although Mathieu Landriault’s media analysis of Canadian Arctic security crises (chapter 3) and P. Whitney Lackenbauer’s assessment of Canadian Arctic policies (chapter 7) read more like standalone articles than part of a cohesive edited volume, the overall thematic coherence of the book makes for a publication that is useful for Arctic students and scholars of all levels. The editors of and contributors to Breaking Through created an essential handbook for understanding security and sovereignty above the Arctic Circle. Having explored these issues from numerous angles throughout the volume, editor Wilfrid Greaves concludes with a reminder that conventional concerns of Arctic militarisation, emerging threats from global warming, and the historic political marginalisation of Indigenous groups are intrinsically bound together in shaping future challenges to Arctic sovereignty and security. Although these individual threats have typically been siloed into distinct academic or policy discussions, the contributors to this multidisciplinary volume remind readers that such divisions no longer match the Arctic’s political reality.","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"257 1","pages":"477 - 479"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41298586","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.2021.1984658
M. Haward
ABSTRACT The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) has addressed the management of biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction since its establishment under the 1980 Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CAMLR Convention). The development of a draft Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement) reinforces the significance of conservation oriented, ecosystem-based management in areas beyond national jurisdiction pioneered by CCAMLR. This paper explores the potential interplay between CCAMLR and the BBNJ Agreement, noting that while the BBNJ Agreement commits not to ‘undermine relevant legal instruments and frameworks and relevant global, regional, subregional and sectoral bodies’, it is likely to sharpen assessments of CCAMLR’s performance.
{"title":"Biodiversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ): the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) and the United Nations BBNJ agreement","authors":"M. Haward","doi":"10.1080/2154896X.2021.1984658","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2021.1984658","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) has addressed the management of biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction since its establishment under the 1980 Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CAMLR Convention). The development of a draft Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement) reinforces the significance of conservation oriented, ecosystem-based management in areas beyond national jurisdiction pioneered by CCAMLR. This paper explores the potential interplay between CCAMLR and the BBNJ Agreement, noting that while the BBNJ Agreement commits not to ‘undermine relevant legal instruments and frameworks and relevant global, regional, subregional and sectoral bodies’, it is likely to sharpen assessments of CCAMLR’s performance.","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":"303 - 316"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48788086","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.2021.1945812
Allaiarov Rustambek
On 9 June 2021, an international Japanese-Russian seminar on cooperation in the Arctic was held on the Zoom platform. The seminar was organised by the Center for Arctic Research and the International Department of Hokkaido University. Supported by the Arctic Challenge for Sustainability II (2020–2025) grant programme, the Training Platform for Japanese-Russian Economic Cooperation and Humanitarian Exchanges (HaRP, 2017–2022), and the UArctic Thematic Network on Asia in the Arctic. The first speaker was Geir Hønneland, Norwegian research professor at the University of Arctic Tromsø (UiT) and a member of the Norwegian Helsinki Committee. He presented his research on the topic ‘Norway and Russia in the Barents Region: the structure of bilateral and multilateral cooperation’. Hønneland spoke to Norway’s aspirations in the Arctic region and outlined Oslo’s strategy for implementing cooperation programmes with Russia. The main emphasis of the report covered the factors which form the basis of suspicion from Russia in the context of Arctic cooperation. Among them:
{"title":"Japanese-Russian seminar on cooperation in the North and the Arctic: is the Barents region a starting point of cooperation in the Arctic?","authors":"Allaiarov Rustambek","doi":"10.1080/2154896x.2021.1945812","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896x.2021.1945812","url":null,"abstract":"On 9 June 2021, an international Japanese-Russian seminar on cooperation in the Arctic was held on the Zoom platform. The seminar was organised by the Center for Arctic Research and the International Department of Hokkaido University. Supported by the Arctic Challenge for Sustainability II (2020–2025) grant programme, the Training Platform for Japanese-Russian Economic Cooperation and Humanitarian Exchanges (HaRP, 2017–2022), and the UArctic Thematic Network on Asia in the Arctic. The first speaker was Geir Hønneland, Norwegian research professor at the University of Arctic Tromsø (UiT) and a member of the Norwegian Helsinki Committee. He presented his research on the topic ‘Norway and Russia in the Barents Region: the structure of bilateral and multilateral cooperation’. Hønneland spoke to Norway’s aspirations in the Arctic region and outlined Oslo’s strategy for implementing cooperation programmes with Russia. The main emphasis of the report covered the factors which form the basis of suspicion from Russia in the context of Arctic cooperation. Among them:","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":"474 - 475"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2154896x.2021.1945812","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45813815","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.2021.2012003
Janice Cavell
{"title":"Explorations in the Icy North: how travel narratives shaped Arctic science in the nineteenth century","authors":"Janice Cavell","doi":"10.1080/2154896x.2021.2012003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896x.2021.2012003","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":"485 - 487"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47293530","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：