Advertisement

Climate Governance in the Arctic: Introduction and Theoretical Framework

  • E. Carina H. Keskitalo
  • Timo Koivurova
  • Nigel Bankes
Chapter
Part of the Environment & Policy book series (ENPO, volume 50)

Abstract

The introductory chapter describes the objectives of this edited volume and provides a theoretical framework for considering the contributions of the various authors. The objective of the book is to take an institutional perspective on climate change in the Arctic discussing both mitigation and adaptation. Beginning with an account of the soft law institutions in the Arctic, the chapter then briefly canvasses the relevance of general legal norms that apply in the Arctic e.g. the law of the sea and international human rights. The theoretical framework is introduced by a discussion of key terms including mitigative and adaptive capacity and vulnerability. The chapter canvasses the different perspective of both international lawyers and international relations scholars and some of their terminology before concluding with summary accounts of the various contributions.

Keywords

Indigenous People Adaptive Capacity Polar Bear Arctic State Arctic Council 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Adger,W. N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16, 268–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adger, W. N., Agrawala, S., Mirza, M. M. Q., Conde, C., O’Brien, K., Pulhin, et al. (2007). Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity. In M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden & C. E. Hanson (Eds.), Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (pp. 717–743). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Agreement between the Government of the Kingdom of Norway on the one hand, and the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark together with the Home Rule Government of Greenland on the other hand, concerning the delimitation of the continental shelf and the fishery zones in the area between Greenland and Svalbard, Copenhagen, 20 February 2006 In force 2 June 2006). U.N.T.S. 42887.Google Scholar
  4. Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, New York, 4 August 1995. In force 11 December 2001, 34 I.L.M. 1542 (1995). Retrieved August 20, 2008, from www.un.org/Depts/los.
  5. Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears. Oslo, 15 November 1973. 13 I.L.M., 13 (1974).Google Scholar
  6. The Agreement on the European Economic Area, Brussels, 17 March 1993. In force 1 January 1994. Official Journal L 001. 494. Retrieved August 4, 2008, from www.efta.int.
  7. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA). (2004). Impacts of a warming Arctic: Arctic climate impact assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA). (2005). Arctic climate impact assessment: Scientific report. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Arctic Contaminants Action Program. (n.d.). Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://arcticportal.org/en/acap.
  10. Arctic Human Development Report (AHDR). (2004). Akureyri: Stefansson Arctic Institute.Google Scholar
  11. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP). (1997). Arctic pollution issues: A state of the Arctic environment report. The map can be downloaded e.g., from http://arcticstudies.pbwiki.com/f/map.jpg. Retrieved August 10, 2008.
  12. Boyle, A. (2000). Globalism and regionalism in the protection of the marine environment. In D. Vidas (Ed.), Protecting the polar marine environment (pp. 19–33). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carnaghan, M., & Goody, A. (2006, January). Canadian Arctic sovereignty. Canadian Library of Parliament, Political and Social Affairs Division. PRB05-61E. Retrieved August 20, 2008 from http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0561-e.htm.
  14. Chan (2005). High Arctic gas report. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://www.ceri.ca/ documents/HighArcticGasReport.PDF.
  15. Chan, L., Eynon, G., & McDoll, D. (2005). The Economics, of High Artic Gas Development: Expanded Sensitivity Analysis. Calgary: Canadian Energy Research Institute. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://www.ceri.ca/documents/HighArcticGasReport.PDF
  16. Commission on the Limits of Continental Shelf. (n.d.). Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/clcs_home.htm.
  17. Convention on Biological Diversity, Nairobi, 22 May 1992. In force 29 December 1993. 31 I.L.M., 822 (1992). Retrieved August 4, 2008, from www.biodiv.org.
  18. Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context. 25 February 1991. 30 I.L.M., 800.Google Scholar
  19. Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Stockholm, 22 May 2001. Retrieved July 10, 2008, from http://chm.pops.int/Portals/0/Repository/conf/UNEP-POPS-CONF-4-AppendixII.5206ab9e-ca67-42a7-afee-9d90720553c8.pdf.
  20. Continental slope off Alaska 100 nautical miles further off coast than assumed. (2008, February 12). Science Daily. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080211134449.htm.
  21. Downey D., & Fenge T. (eds.) (2003). Northern lights against POPs: Combating toxic threats at the top of the world. Montreal, Quebec: McGill Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Eberlein, B, & Newman, A. L. (2008, January). Escaping the international governance dilemma? Incorporated transgovernmental networks in the European Union. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 21(1), 25–52.Google Scholar
  23. Franckx, E. (2006). The protection of biodiversity and fisheries management: Issue raised by the relationship between CITES and LOSC. In D. Freestone, R. Barnes, & D. Ong (Eds.), The Law of the Sea: Progress and prospects (pp. 210–232). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Graver, H. P., & Ulfstein, G. (2004). The Sami people’s right to land in Norway. International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, 11, 337–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gupta, S., Tirpak, D. A., Burger, N., Gupta, J., Höhne, N., Boncheva, A. I., et al. (2007). Policies, instruments and co-operative arrangements. In B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch, R. Dave, & L. A. Meyer (Eds.), Climate change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Haas, P. M. (2000). International institutions and social learning in the management of global environmental risks. Policy Studies Journal, 28(3), 558–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ilulissat declaration. (2008). Arctic Ocean Conference Ilulissat, Greenland, 27–29 May 2008. Retrieved August 10, 2008, from http://arctic-council.org/filearchive/Ilulissat-declaration. pdf.
  28. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2001). Climate change 2001: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.htm.
  29. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). M. L Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, & C. E. Hanson (Eds.) (2007). Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm.
  30. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966. In force 23 March 1976. 999 U.N.T.S., 171.Google Scholar
  31. International Labour Organization Convention No. 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, 28 I.L.M., 1382 (1989).Google Scholar
  32. Janssen, M. A., Schoon, M. L., Ke, W., & Börner, K. (2006). Scholarly networks on resilience, vulnerability and adaptation within the human dimensions of global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 16, 240–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kane, S., & Shogren, J. (2000). Linking adaptation and mitigation in climate change policy. Climatic Change, 45(1), 75–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kates, R. W., Ausubel, J. H., & Berberian, M. (Eds.) (1985). Climate impact assessment: studies of the impact of climate and society. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  35. Kelly, P. M., & Adger, W. N. (2000). Theory and practice in assessing vulnerability to climate change and facilitating adaptation. Climatic Change, 47, 325–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S., Jr. (2000). Governance in a globalizing world. In J. S. Nye & J. D. Donahue (Eds.), Governance in a globalizing world. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  37. Keskitalo, E. C. H. (2004). Negotiating the Arctic. The construction of an international region. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Keskitalo, E. C. H. (2008). Climate change and globalization in the Arctic. An integrated approach to vulnerability assessment. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  39. Koivurova, T. (2002). Environmental impact assessment in the Arctic: A study of international legal norms. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  40. Koivurova T. (2008). A background paper prepared for the joint seminar of UArctic Rectors. Forum and the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region on February 28, 2008, at the Arctic Centre in Rovaniemi, Finland. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:4HsI0JBjc0UJ:www.uarctic.org/Timo_Koivurova_FINAL_web_g0gNj.pdf.file+discussion+paper+koivurova&hl=fi&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=fi.
  41. Koivurova, T. (in press). The draft nordic Saami convention: Nations working together. International Community Law Review, 10, 279–293.Google Scholar
  42. Koivurova, T., & VanderZwaag, D. (2007). The Arctic council at 10 years: Retrospect and prospects. UBC Law Review, 40(1), 121–194.Google Scholar
  43. O’Brien, K., & Leichenko, R. (2000). Double exposure: Assessing the impacts of climate change within the context of economic globalization. Global Environmental Change, 10(3), 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Slaughter, A.-M., Tulumello, A. S., & Wood, S. (1998). International law and international relations theory: A new generation of interdisciplinary scholarship. American Journal of International Law, 92(3), 367–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smit, B., & Wandel J. (2006). Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16, 282–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stevenson, C. (2007). Hans off!: The struggle for Hans Island and the ramifications for international border dispute resolution. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, 30, 263–275. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bciclr/30_1/iclr_30_1_web.pdf.
  47. Treaty on the Status of Spitsbergen (Svalbard Treaty). Paris, 9 February 1920. In force 14 August 1925. 2 League of Nations Treaty Series 8. Reproduced in Vol. 18 of the American Journal of International Law, Suppl., 1924, 199–208.Google Scholar
  48. Ulfstein, G. (1995). The Svalbard treaty: From terra nullius to Norwegian Sovereignty. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Ulfstein, G., & Churchill, R. (2000). Autonomous institutional arrangements in multilateral environmental agreements: A little-noticed phenomenon in international law in 2000. American Journal of International Law, 94(4) 623–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Montego Bay, 10 December 1982. In force 16 November 1994, 1833 U.N.T.S. 396. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from www.un.org/Depts/los.
  51. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 61/295 on 13 September 2007. Retrieved November 22, 2007, from http://www. iwgia.org/graphics/Synkron-Library/Documents/InternationalProcesses/DraftDeclaration/07-09-13ResolutiontextDeclaration.pdf.
  52. Wiener, J. (1999). Global environmental regulation: Instrument choice in a legal context. Yale Law Journal, 108, 677–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Young, O. (2000). The structure of Arctic cooperation: Solving problems/seizing opportunities. A paper prepared at the request of Finland in preparation for the Fourth Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region, Rovaniemi, 27–29 August 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Carina H. Keskitalo
    • 1
  • Timo Koivurova
  • Nigel Bankes
  1. 1.Political Science, Department of Social and Economic GeographyUmeå UniversitySweden

Personalised recommendations