Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2021.1978233
Martin R. Weikart
ABSTRACT U.S. ships and sailors have contributed significantly to Antarctic exploration and research since the first land sightings of Antarctica in 1820. Since Operation High Jump in 1946–1947, the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Navy have operated polar icebreakers in support of United States national interests in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. In the early years of continuous U.S. presence in Antarctica, they were critical to logistical support in the building of research stations at McMurdo, Wilkes Land, Cape Hallett, Gould Bay (Ellsworth), Marie Byrd Land (Byrd), and Palmer (Antarctic Peninsula). Their icebreaking capabilities have been key to the annual ice escort operations of supply ships in McMurdo Sound and other coastal stations. These icebreakers and their assigned aviation detachments have supported numerous U.S. and international research expeditions and projects in waters that had rarely been previously explored, expanding knowledge in all the natural sciences. U.S. Coast Guard icebreakers supported U.S. State Department Antarctic Treaty inspections for many years. Recently, the role of USCG icebreakers in Antarctic science research has diminished, both in number of projects assigned and areas deployed. A new class of U.S. Coast Guard polar icebreakers is in work, designated as polar security cutters, and it is hoped that these icebreakers will be able to continue supporting Antarctic science activities.
{"title":"U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker operations and science support in Antarctica","authors":"Martin R. Weikart","doi":"10.1080/2154896X.2021.1978233","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2021.1978233","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT U.S. ships and sailors have contributed significantly to Antarctic exploration and research since the first land sightings of Antarctica in 1820. Since Operation High Jump in 1946–1947, the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Navy have operated polar icebreakers in support of United States national interests in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. In the early years of continuous U.S. presence in Antarctica, they were critical to logistical support in the building of research stations at McMurdo, Wilkes Land, Cape Hallett, Gould Bay (Ellsworth), Marie Byrd Land (Byrd), and Palmer (Antarctic Peninsula). Their icebreaking capabilities have been key to the annual ice escort operations of supply ships in McMurdo Sound and other coastal stations. These icebreakers and their assigned aviation detachments have supported numerous U.S. and international research expeditions and projects in waters that had rarely been previously explored, expanding knowledge in all the natural sciences. U.S. Coast Guard icebreakers supported U.S. State Department Antarctic Treaty inspections for many years. Recently, the role of USCG icebreakers in Antarctic science research has diminished, both in number of projects assigned and areas deployed. A new class of U.S. Coast Guard polar icebreakers is in work, designated as polar security cutters, and it is hoped that these icebreakers will be able to continue supporting Antarctic science activities.","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":"441 - 468"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48394430","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.2021.2007460
O. Stokke
ABSTRACT This introductory essay synthesises the contributions to this special issue on polar regions and multi-level governance, showing how they address three important themes in the study of institutional complexes: interplay management; the influence that global institutions and processes exert on regional regimes; and the ways in which states and other actors pursue their interests within complexes of institutions. The institutional complexes in focus here comprise institutions relevant to Arctic Ocean governance, EU–Arctic relationships, Arctic maritime boundary disputes, the Antarctic Treaty System (including CCAMLR), the preservation of cultural heritage and the traditional economy in Newfoundland and Labrador, and scientific research in Svalbard.
{"title":"Introductory essay: Polar regions and multi-level governance","authors":"O. Stokke","doi":"10.1080/2154896X.2021.2007460","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2021.2007460","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This introductory essay synthesises the contributions to this special issue on polar regions and multi-level governance, showing how they address three important themes in the study of institutional complexes: interplay management; the influence that global institutions and processes exert on regional regimes; and the ways in which states and other actors pursue their interests within complexes of institutions. The institutional complexes in focus here comprise institutions relevant to Arctic Ocean governance, EU–Arctic relationships, Arctic maritime boundary disputes, the Antarctic Treaty System (including CCAMLR), the preservation of cultural heritage and the traditional economy in Newfoundland and Labrador, and scientific research in Svalbard.","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":"249 - 268"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41577986","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.2021.2014108
Torbjørn Pedersen
«Presence equals influence in the Arctic», U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Karl Schultz summarised during an online event earlier this year. The admiral championed for new U.S. icebreakers. For non-Arctic nations seeking political influence in this region, the most opportune route to presence has been through Norwegian hospitality. In the archipelago of Svalbard, the Norwegian government has facilitated international researchers for years. Research institutions from around the world have been allowed to lease government-owned buildings in the research community NyÅlesund at 79° North and erect research infrastructure, ranging from small-sized sensor riggs to field camps, across the archipelago. Even as Norway has imposed strict conservation measures to preserve the Arctic wilderness and ecosystems, international researchers have been permitted to conduct fieldwork largely unaffected. My study «The Politics of Research Presence in Svalbard» calls out an unintended political fallout from the current facilitation of research. In recent years, some nations have added semi-governmental names and appearances to their research infrastructure, approximating them to enclave facilities hitherto found only in free-for-all Antarctica. Concurrently, capitals grow increasingly emboldened to capitalise on their presence-induced influence, pursuing a range of interests in Svalbard and the wider Arctic region. To the Norwegian government, the posturing in Svalbard represents a delicate challenge. First of all, these strategic footholds may undermine Norway’s exclusive jurisdiction in Svalbard, which is nothing like Antarctica. Also, if international research infrastructure becomes telltale vehicles for pursuing political ambitions in Svalbard and/or the wider Arctic region, Norway is compelled to consider whether the objectives of foreign capitals are aligned with Norwegian interests. The said study suggests they are not necessarily so.
{"title":"The politics of research presence revisited: A response to Molenaar and Ulfstein","authors":"Torbjørn Pedersen","doi":"10.1080/2154896x.2021.2014108","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896x.2021.2014108","url":null,"abstract":"«Presence equals influence in the Arctic», U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Karl Schultz summarised during an online event earlier this year. The admiral championed for new U.S. icebreakers. For non-Arctic nations seeking political influence in this region, the most opportune route to presence has been through Norwegian hospitality. In the archipelago of Svalbard, the Norwegian government has facilitated international researchers for years. Research institutions from around the world have been allowed to lease government-owned buildings in the research community NyÅlesund at 79° North and erect research infrastructure, ranging from small-sized sensor riggs to field camps, across the archipelago. Even as Norway has imposed strict conservation measures to preserve the Arctic wilderness and ecosystems, international researchers have been permitted to conduct fieldwork largely unaffected. My study «The Politics of Research Presence in Svalbard» calls out an unintended political fallout from the current facilitation of research. In recent years, some nations have added semi-governmental names and appearances to their research infrastructure, approximating them to enclave facilities hitherto found only in free-for-all Antarctica. Concurrently, capitals grow increasingly emboldened to capitalise on their presence-induced influence, pursuing a range of interests in Svalbard and the wider Arctic region. To the Norwegian government, the posturing in Svalbard represents a delicate challenge. First of all, these strategic footholds may undermine Norway’s exclusive jurisdiction in Svalbard, which is nothing like Antarctica. Also, if international research infrastructure becomes telltale vehicles for pursuing political ambitions in Svalbard and/or the wider Arctic region, Norway is compelled to consider whether the objectives of foreign capitals are aligned with Norwegian interests. The said study suggests they are not necessarily so.","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":"438 - 440"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41594072","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.2021.2002540
Alexandra Yingst
a perilous journey would hardly be contemplated now, but many signed up for the thrill of an expedition founded only on self-belief and potential fame. Despite failing in its primary goals, the Belgica expedition persisted with collecting hundreds of valuable scientific specimens. It also returned precious personal diaries, not knowing that Sancton would re-unite them to add stunning insight. Other historians will envy the author’s access to such records from the Felix Archive in Antwerp, the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Science and the Byrd Polar Research Centre. Instead of footnotes, Sancton’s notes about his sources goes some way towards filling the gaps for other historians hoping to see precisely where such fine detail was obtained. Throughout the chronological narrative, the slowly building tension over what would become of the ship will capture the armchair adventurer. Equally, it satisfies the Antarctic scholar by confidently examining one of the least-discussed Heroic Era expeditions. We can now better appreciate the significance of many familiar place names in the Antarctic Peninsula, such as the Gerlache Strait, Wiencke Island and other parts of the cartographical landscape. With this new book, Sancton has helped de Gerlache finally achieve respect for his expedition and help cement Belgium’s Antarctic legacy.
{"title":"Icebound: shipwrecked at the edge of the world","authors":"Alexandra Yingst","doi":"10.1080/2154896x.2021.2002540","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896x.2021.2002540","url":null,"abstract":"a perilous journey would hardly be contemplated now, but many signed up for the thrill of an expedition founded only on self-belief and potential fame. Despite failing in its primary goals, the Belgica expedition persisted with collecting hundreds of valuable scientific specimens. It also returned precious personal diaries, not knowing that Sancton would re-unite them to add stunning insight. Other historians will envy the author’s access to such records from the Felix Archive in Antwerp, the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Science and the Byrd Polar Research Centre. Instead of footnotes, Sancton’s notes about his sources goes some way towards filling the gaps for other historians hoping to see precisely where such fine detail was obtained. Throughout the chronological narrative, the slowly building tension over what would become of the ship will capture the armchair adventurer. Equally, it satisfies the Antarctic scholar by confidently examining one of the least-discussed Heroic Era expeditions. We can now better appreciate the significance of many familiar place names in the Antarctic Peninsula, such as the Gerlache Strait, Wiencke Island and other parts of the cartographical landscape. With this new book, Sancton has helped de Gerlache finally achieve respect for his expedition and help cement Belgium’s Antarctic legacy.","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":"479 - 481"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49546249","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.2021.1994197
Nora Apelgren, C. Brooks
ABSTRACT Norway is an important player in Antarctic governance. As a claimant state with historic whaling interests, it has long held influence in decision-making. Today, Norway lands the largest catch of the Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) while also leading innovations in sustainable management. The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) – a 26-member body (including Norway) which manages marine living resources in the Southern Ocean – has been moving towards adopting a network of marine protected areas (MPAs). Norway has been very influential in this effort – at times supporting and at other times opposing. Here, our research seeks to understand how Norwegian interests in Antarctica – including historic, political and economic – impact the adoption of MPAs. To complete this research, we performed a content analysis of Norwegian government documents and CCAMLR meeting reports combined with interviews with key informants. Norway has shown a complex combination of support and concern, often related to economic interests, the role of science, and Norway’s positions in other global realms (e.g., the Arctic). A variety of themes emerged that help describe Norwegian positions and actions in the Southern Ocean MPA process: Norway as a leader in the Antarctic, and in global ocean industries and sustainability; Norway as an active supporter of international cooperation; the importance of science which informs utilisation and protection; and CCAMLR’s purpose as a marine living resource management organisation. This research helps provide insight into Norway’s positions and into understanding consensus in the CCAMLR MPA process.
{"title":"Norwegian interests and participation towards the creation of marine protected areas in the Southern Ocean","authors":"Nora Apelgren, C. Brooks","doi":"10.1080/2154896X.2021.1994197","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2021.1994197","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Norway is an important player in Antarctic governance. As a claimant state with historic whaling interests, it has long held influence in decision-making. Today, Norway lands the largest catch of the Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) while also leading innovations in sustainable management. The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) – a 26-member body (including Norway) which manages marine living resources in the Southern Ocean – has been moving towards adopting a network of marine protected areas (MPAs). Norway has been very influential in this effort – at times supporting and at other times opposing. Here, our research seeks to understand how Norwegian interests in Antarctica – including historic, political and economic – impact the adoption of MPAs. To complete this research, we performed a content analysis of Norwegian government documents and CCAMLR meeting reports combined with interviews with key informants. Norway has shown a complex combination of support and concern, often related to economic interests, the role of science, and Norway’s positions in other global realms (e.g., the Arctic). A variety of themes emerged that help describe Norwegian positions and actions in the Southern Ocean MPA process: Norway as a leader in the Antarctic, and in global ocean industries and sustainability; Norway as an active supporter of international cooperation; the importance of science which informs utilisation and protection; and CCAMLR’s purpose as a marine living resource management organisation. This research helps provide insight into Norway’s positions and into understanding consensus in the CCAMLR MPA process.","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":"393 - 412"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42960814","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 : 2021-06-22DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2021.1929672
O. Young
ABSTRACT In the 2015 Iqaluit Declaration, the Arctic Council created a Task Force on Arctic Marine Cooperation (TFAMC) ‘to assess future needs for a regional seas programme or other mechanism, as appropriate, for increased cooperation in Arctic marine areas,’ and ‘to make recommendations on the nature and scope of any such mechanism.’ After working for two years, the Task Force came back to the council with a request that the TFAMC be renewed for a second two-year term with a more limited mandate focused on coordinating the efforts of the Arctic Council itself, a request approved in the 2017 Fairbanks Declaration. The eventual result was the establishment in 2019 of ‘a SAO-based mechanism to guide the marine work of the Arctic Council and improve coordination on marine issues in the Arctic Council.’ The SMM, whose ongoing place within the family of Arctic Council arrangements remains to be determined, held its first meeting in September-October 2020. Due to the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic, this meeting took the form of a series of webinars held over the course of a month with the overall goal of bringing together marine experts ‘to discuss among themselves, and with the SAOs and Permanent Participants, how the Council and its cooperation partners could jointly pave a way forward on some of the Arctic’s most pressing marine-related issues.’ This article provides a critical assessment of the performance of the TFAMC, asking what we can learn from the work of the task force about Arctic Ocean governance, the role of the Arctic Council in this realm, and the management of regime complexes more generally.
{"title":"What can we learn about ocean governance from the performance of the Arctic Council’s Task Force on Arctic Marine Cooperation?","authors":"O. Young","doi":"10.1080/2154896X.2021.1929672","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2021.1929672","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In the 2015 Iqaluit Declaration, the Arctic Council created a Task Force on Arctic Marine Cooperation (TFAMC) ‘to assess future needs for a regional seas programme or other mechanism, as appropriate, for increased cooperation in Arctic marine areas,’ and ‘to make recommendations on the nature and scope of any such mechanism.’ After working for two years, the Task Force came back to the council with a request that the TFAMC be renewed for a second two-year term with a more limited mandate focused on coordinating the efforts of the Arctic Council itself, a request approved in the 2017 Fairbanks Declaration. The eventual result was the establishment in 2019 of ‘a SAO-based mechanism to guide the marine work of the Arctic Council and improve coordination on marine issues in the Arctic Council.’ The SMM, whose ongoing place within the family of Arctic Council arrangements remains to be determined, held its first meeting in September-October 2020. Due to the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic, this meeting took the form of a series of webinars held over the course of a month with the overall goal of bringing together marine experts ‘to discuss among themselves, and with the SAOs and Permanent Participants, how the Council and its cooperation partners could jointly pave a way forward on some of the Arctic’s most pressing marine-related issues.’ This article provides a critical assessment of the performance of the TFAMC, asking what we can learn from the work of the task force about Arctic Ocean governance, the role of the Arctic Council in this realm, and the management of regime complexes more generally.","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":"269 - 283"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2154896X.2021.1929672","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44475541","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 : 2021-06-03DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2021.1935645
Sergey Shubin, I. Rogachev
From October 29 to 30, Arkhangelsk hosted the International Scientific Conference Spitsbergen Archipelago: from terra nullius to the interaction territory. Celebrating the 100th anniversary of the signing of the Spitsbergen Treaty in an online format. The forum was attended by more than 40 Russian and international scientists from Norway, Sweden, Belgium, and Italy. All specialising in areas spanning the history of the study of the Arctic, Spitsbergen, Russian–Norwegian relations, historical geography, and museology. The conference was divided into a plenary session and five thematic sections: Plenary: Spitsbergen Archipelago – the problem of sovereignty”; 1. Scientific expeditions in the Spitsbergen Archipelago; 2. Prospects for circumpolar cooperation; 3. Economic development of the archipelago in the XVIII – early XX centuries; 4. Economy of the archipelago in the XX century and Spitsbergen in the Second World War; and 5. Cultural heritage and social problems of modern Svalbard. Opening the plenary session, A. A. Komarov, Head of the Center for the History of Northern Europe and the Baltic States of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, noted that the Spitsbergen Treaty laid the foundation for the international status of the Spitsbergen Archipelago. However, 100 years later, the foreign policy situation around the archipelago continues to be very difficult. A serious destabilising factor is the general geopolitical situation in the Arctic, with countries focusing on competition instead of cooperation. Professor A. N. Vylegzhanin then drew attention to the objective nature of the interests of Norway and Russia in their rapprochement positions in the Arctic. In his opinion, the international treaty on Maritime Delimitation and Cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean of 15 September 2010, allows the two countries to more actively coordinate efforts in defending their mutual interests in preserving the ecological nature of the marine environment and the reasonable extraction of transboundary reserves. Here, Oslo has more disagreements with Iceland, Great Britain, Spain, Latvia and, in general, with the European Union than with the Russian Federation. Therefore, Russian–Norwegian cooperation in this direction is strong basis for continued rapprochement of Norway and Russia, and gives additional stability to broader international relations in the Arctic.
{"title":"Spitsbergen Archipelago: 100 years of the treaty, no longer terra nullius","authors":"Sergey Shubin, I. Rogachev","doi":"10.1080/2154896X.2021.1935645","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2021.1935645","url":null,"abstract":"From October 29 to 30, Arkhangelsk hosted the International Scientific Conference Spitsbergen Archipelago: from terra nullius to the interaction territory. Celebrating the 100th anniversary of the signing of the Spitsbergen Treaty in an online format. The forum was attended by more than 40 Russian and international scientists from Norway, Sweden, Belgium, and Italy. All specialising in areas spanning the history of the study of the Arctic, Spitsbergen, Russian–Norwegian relations, historical geography, and museology. The conference was divided into a plenary session and five thematic sections: Plenary: Spitsbergen Archipelago – the problem of sovereignty”; 1. Scientific expeditions in the Spitsbergen Archipelago; 2. Prospects for circumpolar cooperation; 3. Economic development of the archipelago in the XVIII – early XX centuries; 4. Economy of the archipelago in the XX century and Spitsbergen in the Second World War; and 5. Cultural heritage and social problems of modern Svalbard. Opening the plenary session, A. A. Komarov, Head of the Center for the History of Northern Europe and the Baltic States of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, noted that the Spitsbergen Treaty laid the foundation for the international status of the Spitsbergen Archipelago. However, 100 years later, the foreign policy situation around the archipelago continues to be very difficult. A serious destabilising factor is the general geopolitical situation in the Arctic, with countries focusing on competition instead of cooperation. Professor A. N. Vylegzhanin then drew attention to the objective nature of the interests of Norway and Russia in their rapprochement positions in the Arctic. In his opinion, the international treaty on Maritime Delimitation and Cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean of 15 September 2010, allows the two countries to more actively coordinate efforts in defending their mutual interests in preserving the ecological nature of the marine environment and the reasonable extraction of transboundary reserves. Here, Oslo has more disagreements with Iceland, Great Britain, Spain, Latvia and, in general, with the European Union than with the Russian Federation. Therefore, Russian–Norwegian cooperation in this direction is strong basis for continued rapprochement of Norway and Russia, and gives additional stability to broader international relations in the Arctic.","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":"471 - 473"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2154896X.2021.1935645","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47182521","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 : 2021-02-09DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2021.1883900
Torbjørn Pedersen
ABSTRACT Some of the international research presence in Svalbard has the ambience of foreign missions, representing state actors rather than individual researchers or research institutions. National posturing, e.g. through the naming and labelling of research facilities and the use of ensigns and other national symbols, points to the presence as national footholds in the Arctic region. Some capitals present this presence as a ticket to political influence on governance, both in Svalbard and the wider Arctic region. The aim of this study is to examine whether Norway, under no legal obligation to host international research infrastructure in Svalbard, could conceive cases of national posturing by visiting researchers as a security concern. First, the study finds that the posturing may fuel misperceptions about Norway’s sovereignty and exclusive jurisdiction in Svalbard. Second, it suggests that the facilitation may help aspirational non-Arctic nations gain influence on regional governance at the expense of the central Arctic Ocean coastal states, including Norway’s. The study accounts for recent Norwegian policy shifts, which seem to address these concerns without weakening international scientific cooperation or the pursuit of scientific knowledge about the changing Arctic environment.
{"title":"The politics of research presence in Svalbard","authors":"Torbjørn Pedersen","doi":"10.1080/2154896X.2021.1883900","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2021.1883900","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Some of the international research presence in Svalbard has the ambience of foreign missions, representing state actors rather than individual researchers or research institutions. National posturing, e.g. through the naming and labelling of research facilities and the use of ensigns and other national symbols, points to the presence as national footholds in the Arctic region. Some capitals present this presence as a ticket to political influence on governance, both in Svalbard and the wider Arctic region. The aim of this study is to examine whether Norway, under no legal obligation to host international research infrastructure in Svalbard, could conceive cases of national posturing by visiting researchers as a security concern. First, the study finds that the posturing may fuel misperceptions about Norway’s sovereignty and exclusive jurisdiction in Svalbard. Second, it suggests that the facilitation may help aspirational non-Arctic nations gain influence on regional governance at the expense of the central Arctic Ocean coastal states, including Norway’s. The study accounts for recent Norwegian policy shifts, which seem to address these concerns without weakening international scientific cooperation or the pursuit of scientific knowledge about the changing Arctic environment.","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":"413 - 426"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2154896X.2021.1883900","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47637586","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 : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2021.1881240
Gustavo Ramírez Buchheister
SCAR SC-HASS Action Group on PoLSciNex originally planned to convene a session at the 2020 SCAR Open Science Conference (OSC), to which several interesting abstracts were submitted. 1 1. SCAR’s Sta...
{"title":"Antarctic science-policy interface: a way forward","authors":"Gustavo Ramírez Buchheister","doi":"10.1080/2154896X.2021.1881240","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2021.1881240","url":null,"abstract":"SCAR SC-HASS Action Group on PoLSciNex originally planned to convene a session at the 2020 SCAR Open Science Conference (OSC), to which several interesting abstracts were submitted. 1 1. SCAR’s Sta...","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":"231 - 233"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2154896X.2021.1881240","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48591092","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 : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/2154896X.2021.1911044
A. Todorov
ABSTRACT Russia has taken numerous steps to harmonise its national legislation with the provisions of the Polar Code. Since its entry into force, there have been a small number of registered violations of the Polar Code on the Northern Sea Route (NSR). To a large extent, this could be explained by the fact that the bulk of navigation on the NSR falls out of the scope of the Polar Code. Another reason is that Russia continues to implement its national navigation rules, which in some cases impose stricter requirements than those of the Polar Code. However, potential risks related to the navigation of vessels in violation of the Polar Code in Arctic waters should not be underestimated. This article also proposes the establishment of an Arctic Port State Control mechanism to address potential challenges associated with the implementation of the Code in the future.
{"title":"Russia’s implementation of the Polar Code on the Northern Sea Route","authors":"A. Todorov","doi":"10.1080/2154896X.2021.1911044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2021.1911044","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Russia has taken numerous steps to harmonise its national legislation with the provisions of the Polar Code. Since its entry into force, there have been a small number of registered violations of the Polar Code on the Northern Sea Route (NSR). To a large extent, this could be explained by the fact that the bulk of navigation on the NSR falls out of the scope of the Polar Code. Another reason is that Russia continues to implement its national navigation rules, which in some cases impose stricter requirements than those of the Polar Code. However, potential risks related to the navigation of vessels in violation of the Polar Code in Arctic waters should not be underestimated. This article also proposes the establishment of an Arctic Port State Control mechanism to address potential challenges associated with the implementation of the Code in the future.","PeriodicalId":52117,"journal":{"name":"Polar Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":"30 - 42"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2154896X.2021.1911044","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44528030","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：