Abstract
This chapter introduces conceptual threads woven within and between the chapters, applying the book title as the organizing framework and the Arctic as a case study with global relevance. The book focuses on science diplomacy and its engine of informed decisionmaking together with the theory, methods and skills introduced in view of Building Common Interests. As an exemplar, the Arctic Ocean highlights holistic (international, interdisciplinary and inclusive) integration with marine and surrounding terrestrial systems interacting with humanity at local-global levels, especially in relation to Earth’s changing climate. The importance of this book is With Global Inclusion, recognizing challenges to engage diverse stakeholders, rightsholders and other actors, as illustrated with special respect for the Indigenous peoples who have inhabited the Arctic for millennia with resilience across ice ages and past periods of global warming. The goal of this book on Building Common Interests in the Arctic Ocean with Global Inclusion (involving contributions from graduate students to foreign ministers at the Arctic Frontiers 2020 conference) is to help produce informed decisions that operate short-to-long term at local-global levels for the benefit of all on Earth across generations.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Highlighted terms in Chapter 1 involve definitions to avoid jargon with concepts that are threaded through this book series.
- 2.
1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Vienna, 23 May 1969, in force 27 January 1980), Article 31, para. 3, lit. c. 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, opened for signature 10 December 1982, (entered into forced 16 November 1994) Article 311, para. 2.
- 3.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (opened for signature 10 December 1982, entered into force 16 November 1994) 1833 UNTS 3 (LOSC).
- 4.
1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, opened for signature 10 December 1982, (entered into forced 16 November 1994) Article 311, para.3.
- 5.
1969 International Convention relating to intervention on the high seas in cases of oil pollution casualties, opened for signature 29 November 1969, (entered into forced 06 May 1975) UNTS 970 (p.211).
- 6.
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, 03 March 1973,, (entered into force 01 July 1975), 993 U.N.T.S. 243 (CITES).
- 7.
1980 Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, opened for signature 20 May 1980, (entered into forced 7 April 1982) 1329 UNTS.
- 8.
UN General Assembly, World Charter for Nature., 28 October 1982, A/RES/37/7, available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/39295?ln=es[accessed 06 September 2020]
- 9.
1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, opened for signature 22 march 1985, (entered into forced 22 September 1988) UNTS 1513, (p.293).
- 10.
Second International Conference on the Protection of the North Sea, London, 27 November 1987.
- 11.
Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer, opened for signature 16 September 1987, (entered into forced 01 January 1989) UNTS 26369.
- 12.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, opened for signature 09 May 1992, (entered into forced 21 March 1994) UNTS 1771 (p.107).
- 13.
Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, adopted on 17 March 1992, (entered into forced 06 October 1996).
- 14.
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 14 June 1992, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1 Report of the UNCED Vol.1 (New York).
- 15.
Treaty on European Union, adopted on 07 February 1992, (entered into forced 01 November 1993) UNTS 298, (p.11).
- 16.
Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents, adopted on 17 March 1992, (entered into forced 19 April 2000) UNTS 2105, (p. 457), with Amendments as Adopted in 2015.
- 17.
Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, opened for signature 17 March 1992, (entered into force 17 January 2000) 1507 UNTS.
- 18.
Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (opened for signature 22 September 1992, entered into force 25 March 1998) 2354 UNTS.
- 19.
Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Further Reduction of Sulphur Emissions, Oslo, 14 June 1994, in force 05 August 1998, UNTS 2030, (p. 122).
- 20.
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 (UN Fish Stocks Agreement), 2167 UNTS 3.
- 21.
1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Convention), London, 7 November 1996, in force 24 March 2006, 2006 ATS 11 (London Protocol).
- 22.
Convention on the Protection of the Rhine, adopted on 12 April 1999, (entered into forced 01 January 2003).
- 23.
Protocol to the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety), Cartagena de Indias, adopted on 29 January 2000, (entered into force on 11 September 2003) UNTS 2226, (p.208).
- 24.
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, adopted on 22 May 2001, (entered into force on 17 May 2004) UNTS 2256, (p.119).
- 25.
Framework Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Caspian Sea, adopted on 04 November 2003, (entered into force on 12 August 2006).
- 26.
International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar Code), adopted on 94th Session of IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) in November 2014, entered into force 01 January 2017.
- 27.
‘Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean’, 12.6.2018, COM (2018) 454 final, available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018PC0453&from=EN; last accessed 05 May 2020.
References
Ackoff, R. L. (1989). From data to wisdom. Presidential address to ISGSR, June 1988. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 16, 3–9. http://www-public.imtbs-tsp.eu/~gibson/Teaching/Teaching-ReadingMaterial/Ackoff89.pdf
Ackoff, R. L. (1999). Ackoff’s best: his classic writings on management. John Wiley.
Ambassadorial Panel. (2015). Building common interests in the Arctic Ocean. University of Reykjavik. https://en.ru.is/news/arctic-high-seas-oct15
Ambassadorial Panel. (2016). Building common interests in the Arctic Ocean. University of Reykjavik. https://en.ru.is/news/building-common-interests-in-the-arctic-ocean-1
Arctic Council. (2004). 2005–2015 Arctic marine strategic plan. Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) Working Group. https://www.pame.is/document-library/amsp-documents/173-amsp-2005-2015/file
Arctic Council. (2015). 2015–2025 Arctic marine strategic plan. 9th Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting, Iqaluit. https://www.pame.is/document-library/amsp-documents/174-amsp-2015-2025/file
Arctic Council. (2016). In M. Carson & G. Peterson (Eds.), Arctic resilience report. Stockholm Environment Institute and Stockholm Resilience Centre. https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/1838
Arctic Council Secretariat (2013) Vision for the Arctic. Arctic Council Secretariat, Kiruna, Sweden 15 May 2013
Arctic Frontiers (2020a) Arctic Frontiers 2020. Annual Report: The Power of Knowledge. Tromsø, Norway. (https://www.arcticfrontiers.com/conference/2020-the-power-of-knowledge/)
Arctic Frontiers (2020b) Arctic Frontiers 2020. Conference Summary. The Power of Knowledge. Tromsø, Norway. (https://www.arcticfrontiers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/plenaryreport2020.pdf)
Arctic Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness Agreement (2013) Agreement on cooperation on marine oil pollution preparedness and response in the Arctic. Signed: 15 May 2013, Kiruna, Sweden Entry into Force: 25 March 2016. https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/529
Arctic Science Agreement (2017) Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation. Signed Fairbanks, Alaska, United States, 11 May 2017. Entry into Force, 23 May 2018. (https://www.state.gov/e/oes/rls/other/2017/270809.htm)
Arctic Search and Rescue Agreement (2011) Agreement on cooperation on aeronautical and maritime search and rescue in the Arctic. Signed: 12 May 2011, Nuuk, Greenland Entry into Force: 19 January 2013. (https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/531)
Balton, D. A. (2019). What will the BBNJ agreement mean for the Arctic fisheries agreement? Marine Policy, 109, 103745. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308597X1930449X
Balton, D. A. (2020). Chapter 21 implementing the new Arctic fisheries agreement. In T. Heidar (Ed.), New knowledge and changing circumstances in the law of the sea (pp. 429–445). Brill Nkjhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004437753_023
Banet, C. (Ed.). (2020). The law of the seabed: access, uses, and protection of seabed resources. Brill Nijhoff.
Berger, A. (1988). Milankovitch theory and climate. Reviews of Geophysics, 26(4), 624–657. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230890888_Milankovitch_Theory_and_Climate
Berkes, F., Folke, C., & Colding, J. (Eds.). (2000). Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. University of Cambridge Press.
Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2008). Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press.
Berkman, P. A. (2002). Science into policy: global lessons from Antarctica. Academic.
Berkman, P. A. (2009). International spaces promote peace. Nature, 462, 412–413. https://www.nature.com/articles/462412a
Berkman, P. A. (2011). President Eisenhower, the Antarctic treaty and origin of international spaces. In P. A. Berkman, M. A. Lang, D. W. H. Walton, & O. R. Young (Eds.), Science diplomacy: antarctica, science and the governance of international spaces (pp. 17–28). Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press. https://repository.si.edu/handle/10088/16154
Berkman, P. A. (2012). ‘Common interests’ as an evolving body of international law: applications for Arctic Ocean stewardship. In R. Wolfrum (Ed.), Arctic Marine Science, International Law and Climate Protection. Legal Aspects of Future Marine Science in the Arctic Ocean (pp. 155–174). Springer.
Berkman, P. A. (2013) Preventing and Arctic Cold War. New York Times 12 March 2013. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/opinion/preventing-an-arctic-cold-war.html
Berkman, P. A. (2015). Institutional dimensions of sustaining Arctic observing networks (SAON). Arctic, 68(Suppl. 1). https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic4499
Berkman, P. A. (2019). Evolution of science diplomacy and its local-global applications. Special issue, ‘broadening soft power in EU-US relations’. European Foreign Affairs Review, 24, 63–79. https://www.ingsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Evolution-of-Science-Diplomacy-and-its-Local-Global-Applications_23JUL19.pdf
Berkman, P. A. (2020a). Science diplomacy and it engine of informed Decisionmaking: operating through our global pandemic with humanity. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 15, 435–450. https://brill.com/view/journals/hjd/15/3/article-p435_13.xml
Berkman, P. A. (2020b) ‘The pandemic lens’: focusing across time scales for local-global sustainability. Patterns 1(8): 13 November 2020. 4p. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33294877/
Berkman, P. A. (2020c). Chapter 6. Polar science diplomacy. In K. N. Scott & D. VanderZwaag (Eds.), Research Handbook on Polar Law (pp. 105–123). Edward Elgar.
Berkman, P. A., & Vylegzhanin, A. N. (Eds.). (2012a). Environmental security in the Arctic Ocean. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series (p. 459p). Springer. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789400747128
Berkman, P. A., & Vylegzhanin, A. N. (2012b). Conclusion: building common interests in the Arctic Ocean. In P. A. Berkman & A. N. Vylegzhanin (Eds.), Environmental security in the Arctic Ocean. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series (pp. 371–404). Springer. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789400747128
Berkman, P. A., & Vylegzhanin, A. N. (2020). Training Skills with Common-Interest Building. Science Diplomacy Action 4:1–65. [Student-Ambassador Declarations (2016–2020) from the Joint Video-Conferencing Course on Science Diplomacy: Environmental Security and Law in the Arctic Ocean with the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University (United States) and International Law Programme at MGIMO University (Russian Federation)]. https://scidiplo.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Synthesis_4.pdf
Berkman, P. A., & Young, O. R. (2009). Governance and environmental change in the Arctic Ocean. Science, 324, 339–340. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/324/5925/339
Berkman, P. A., Lang, M. A., Walton, D. W. H., & Young, O. R. (Eds.). (2011). Science diplomacy: Antarctica, science and the governance of international spaces. Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press. https://repository.si.edu/handle/10088/16154
Berkman, P. A., Kullerud, L., Pope, A., Vylegzhanin, A. N., & Young, O. R. (2017). The Arctic science agreement propels science diplomacy. Science, 358, 596–598. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6363/596
Berkman, P. A., Vylegzhanin, A. N., & Young, O. R. (2019). Baseline of Russian Arctic Laws. Springer. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030062613
Berkman, P. A., Young, O. R., & Vylegzhanin, A. N. (2020). Preface for the book series on informed Decisionmaking for sustainability. IN: Young, O.R., Berkman, P.A. and Vylegzhanin (eds.) Volume 1: Governing Arctic Seas: Regional Lessons from the Bering Strait and Barents Sea. Springer. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/bfm%3A978-3-030-25674-6%2F1.pdf
Briner, J. P., Cuzzone, J. K., Badgeley, J. A., Young, N. E., Steig, E. J., Morlighem, M., Schlegel, N.-J., Hakim, G. J., Schaefer, J. M., Johnson, J. V., Lesnek, A. J., Thomas, E. K., Allan, E., Bennike, O., Cluett, A. A., Csatho, B., de Vernal, A., Downs, J., Larour, E., & Nowicki, S. (2020). Rate of mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet will exceed Holocene values this century. Nature, 586, 70–74. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2742-6
Bull, H., Kingsbury, B., & Roberts, A. (1995). Hugo Grotius and international relations. Clarendon Press.
Bunders, J. F. G., Broerse, J. E. W., Keil, F., Pohl, C., Scholz, R. W., & Zweekhorst, M. B. M. (2010). How can transdisciplinary research contribute to knowledge democracy? IN: in ‘t veld, Roel (Ed.) Knowledge Democracy: Consequences for Science, Politics, and Media (pp. 125–152). Springer. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274239011_Knowledge_Democracy
CAO High Seas Fisheries Agreement. (2018). Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean. Signed: Ilulissat, 3 October 2018. Entry into Force: pending remaining ratification by China. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2018:453:FIN
Carmack, E., Polyakov, I., Padman, L., Fer, I., Hunke, E., Hutchings, J., Jackson, J., Kelley, D., Kwok, R., Layton, C., Melling, H., Perovich, D., Persson, O., Ruddick, B., Timmermans, M.-L., Toole, J., Ross, T., Vavrus, S., & Winsor, P. (2015). Toward quantifying the increasing role of oceanic heat in sea ice loss in the new Arctic. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 96(12), 2079–2105. https://journals.ametsoc.org/downloadpdf/journals/bams/96/12/bams-d-13-00177.1.xml
CBS News. (2018). California now has the world’s 5th largest economy. CBS News, 4 May 2018. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-now-has-the-worlds-5th-largest-economy/
Convention on the High Seas. (1958). Convention on the high seas. Signed: Geneva, 29 April 1958 Entry into Force: 30 September 1962. https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXI-2&chapter=21
De Lucia, V. (2019). The BBNJ negotiations and ecosystem governance in the Arctic. Marine Policy, 110, 103756. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(20)30860-5/sref32)
DeEicken H., Lee OA, Lovecraft AL (2016) Evolving roles of observing systems and data co-management in Arctic Ocean governance. OCEANS 2016, Marine Technology Society. pp. 1-8 (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7761298)
Eddy, J. A. (2009). The sun, the earth and the near-earth space: A guide to the sun-earth system. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. https://lwstrt.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/pdf/john_eddy/SES_Book_Interactive.pdf
Ehlers, E., & Thomas Krafft, T. (Eds.). (2006). Earth system science in the Anthropocene. Springer.
Ehrlich, P. R., & Holdren, J. P. (1971). Impact of population growth. Science, 171, 1212–1217. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/171/3977/1212
Falardeau, M., & Bennett, E. M. (2020). Towards integrated knowledge of climate change in Arctic marine systems: a systematic literature review of multidisciplinary research. Arctic Science, 6, 1–23. https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/10.1139/as-2019-0006
Fiske, G. (2021). Indigenous Peoples of the Arctic boundary polygons, 2021. Arctic Data Center. https://doi.org/10.18739/A24746S61
Freestone, D. (Ed.). (2019). Conserving biodiversity in areas beyond National Jurisdiction. Brill Nijhoff.
Gad, U. P., & Strandsbjerg, J. (Eds.). (2019). The politics of sustainability in the Arctic. Reconfiguring identity, space, and time. Routledge.
Greybill, J. K., & Petrov, A. N. (Eds.). (2020). Arctic sustainability, key methodologies and knowledge domains. Routledge.
GRID-Arendal. (2021). Global Resource Information Database (GRID) Partner of the United Nations Environmental Programme in Arendal, Norway. https://www.grida.no/
Guterres, A. (2020). ‘Transcript of UN Secretary-General’s virtual press encounter to launch the report on the socio-economic impacts of COVID-19’. United Nations Secretary-General, 31 March 2020. https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/press-encounter/2020-03-31/transcript-of-un-secretary-general%E2%80%99s-virtual-press-encounter-launch-the-report-the-socio-economic-impacts-of-covid-19
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243
Hoag, H. (2017). Nations put science before fishing in the Arctic. Science, 358, 1235. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/358/6368/1235.full.pdf
Holdren, J. P. (2008). Science and technology for sustainable well-being. Science, 319, 424–434. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/319/5862/424
Holland, M. M., & Bitz, C. M. (2003). Polar amplification of climate change in coupled models. Climate Dynamics, 21, 221–232. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-003-0332-6
Hopkins, D. M. (1967). The Bering land bridge. Stanford University Press.
Indigenous Peoples Secretariat. (2021a). Indigenous Peoples Secretariat of the Arctic Council. https://www.arcticpeoples.com/
Ilulissat Declaration. (2008). Declaration from the Arctic Ocean Conference. Declared by Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russian Federation and United States. Ilulissat, 28 May 2008
Indigenous Peoples Secretariat. (2021b). Arctic indigenous languages and revitalization: an online educational resource. Indigenous Peoples Secretariat. https://www.arcticpeoples.com/arctic-languages#feedback
Jakobsson, M., Grantz, A., Kristoffersen, Y., Macnab, R., MacDonald, R. W., Sakshaug, E., Stein, R., & Jokat, W. (2004). The Arctic Ocean: boundary conditions and background information. In R. Stein & R. W. MacDonald (Eds.), The organic carbon cycle in the Arctic Ocean. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18912-8_1
Jakobsson, M., Pearce, C., Cronin, T. M., Backman, J., Anderson, L. G., Barrientos, N., Björk, G., Coxall, H., de Boer, A., Mayer, L. A., Mörth, C.-M., Nilsson, J., Rattray, J. E., Stranne, C., Semiletov, I., & O’Regan, M. (2017). Post-glacial flooding of the Bering land bridge dated to 11 cal ka BP based on new geophysical and sediment records. Climate of the Past, 13, 991–1005. https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-13-991-2017
James, R. H., Bousquet, P., Bussmann, I., Haeckel, M., Kipfer, R., Leifer, I., Niemann, H., Ostrovsky, I., Piskozub, J., Rehder, G., Treude, T., Vielstädte, L., & Greinert, J. (2016). Effects of climate change on methane emissions from seafloor sediments in the Arctic Ocean: A review. Limnology and Oceanography, 61, S283–S299. https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.10307
King, M. L. (1964). The quest for peace and justice. Nobel Peace Prize Lecture, 11 December 1964, Oslo. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1964/king/lecture/
Kish, J. (1973). The law of international spaces. A. W. Sijthoff.
Kondratyev, K. Y., & Hunt, G. E. (1982). Weather and climate on planets. Elsevier.
Krebs, C. J. (1972). Ecology: the experimental analysis of distribution and abundance. Harper & Row.
Lee, C.M., Starkweather, S., Eicken, H., Timmermans, M.L., Wilkinson, J., Sandven, S., Dukhovskoy, D., Gerland, S., Grebmeier, J., Intrieri, J.M., Kang, S.Hj., McCammon, M, Nguyen, A.T., Polyakov, I., Rabe, B., Sagen, H., Seeyave, S., Volkov, D., Beszczynska-Möller, A., Chafik, L., Dzieciuch, M., Goni, G., Hamre, T., King, A.L., Olsen, A., Raj, R.P, Rossby, T., Skagseth, Ø., Søiland, H., & Sørensen, K. (2019). A framework for the development, design and implementation of a sustained Arctic Ocean observing system. Frontiers in Marine Science 6: (19 August 2019):1–21. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2019.00451/full
Lucretius, 55 BCE. On the Nature of Things (De Rerum Natura). Rome. [Translated by Stallings, A.E. 2007. Penguin Classics]
Meredith, M., Sommerkorn, M., Cassotta, S., Derksen, C., Ekaykin, A., Hollowed, A., Kofinas, G., Mackintosh, A., Melbourne-Thomas, J., Muelbert, M. M. C., Ottersen, G., Pritchard, H., & Schuur, E. A. G. (2019). Chapter 3. Polar regions. In H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Nicolai, A. Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama, & N. M. Weyer (Eds.), IPCC special report on the ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate (pp. 203–320) https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/
NASA. (2012). Arctic sea ice hits smallest extent in satellite era. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-seaicemin.html
National Research Council. (2014). The Arctic in the Anthropocene. Emerging research questions. National Academies Press. http://nap.edu/18726
Nature. (2020). Editorial. Arctic Science Cannot Afford a New Cold War. Nature 30 September 2020. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02739-x
Ottawa Declaration. (1996). Declaration on the Establishment of the Arctic Council. 19 September 1996, Ottawa: Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/85
PAME. (2013). The Arctic Ocean Review Project, Final Report, (Phase II 2011–2013). Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) Secretariat, Akureyri. https://www.pame.is/projects/arctic-marine-shipping/the-arctic-ocean-review-aor
Platjouw, F. M. (2019). Dimensions of transboundary legal coherence needed to foster ecosystem-based governance in the Arctic. Marine Policy, 110, 103666. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X19303185
Polar Code. (2017). International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar Code). Marine Environmental Protection Committee, MEPC 68/21/Add. 1, Annex 10. International Maritime Organization. Entry into Force 1 January 2017. http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/polar/Pages/default.aspx
National Park Service. (2020). The United Nations Memorial Service at Muir Woods. United States National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/articles/the-united-nations-memorial-service-at-muir-woods.htm
Pan, M., & Huntington, H. P. (2016). A precautionary approach to fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean: policy, science, and China. Marine Policy, 63, 153–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.10.015
Petrov, A. N., BurnSilver, S., Chapin, F. S., Fondahl, G., Graybill, J. K., Keil, K., Nilsson, A. E., Riedlsperger, R., & Schweitzer, P. (2017). Arctic sustainability research past, present and future. Routledge.
Pistone, K., Eisenman, I., & Ramanathan, V. (2014). Observational determination of albedo decrease caused by vanishing Arctic Sea ice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(9), 3322–3326. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1318201111
Pongrácz, E., Pavlov, V., & Hänninen, N. (Eds.). (2020). Arctic marine sustainability Arctic maritime businesses and the resilience of the marine environment. Springer.
Roberts, A., Hinzman, L., Walsh, J. E., Holland, M., Cassano, J., Döscher, R., Mitsudera, H., & Sumi, A. (2010). A science plan for regional Arctic system modeling. A report to the National Science Foundation from the International Arctic Science Community. International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks
Roston, E. (2016). The world has discovered a $1 Trillion Ocean. Bloomberg 21 January 2016
Rowley, J. (2007). The wisdom hierarchy: representations of the DIKW hierarchy. Journal of Information Science, 33(2), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551506070706
Ruffert, M., & Steinecke, S. (2011). The global administrative law of science. In Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht (Veröffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht), Volume 228. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21359-5_2
Schatz, V. J., Proelss, A., & Liu, N. (2019). The 2018 Agreement to prevent unregulated high seas fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean: A critical analysis. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 34(2), 195–244. https://brill.com/view/journals/estu/34/2/article-p195_2.xml
Shakhova, N., Semiletov, I., Salyuk, A., Yusupov, V., Kosmach, D., & Gustafsson, Ö. (2010). Extensive methane venting to the atmosphere from sediments of the east Siberian Arctic shelf. Science, 327, 1246–1250. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1246
Shupe, M. D., Rex, M., Dethloff, K., Damm, E., Fong, A. A., Gradinger, R., Heuzé, C., Loose, B., Makarov, A., Maslowski, W., Nicolaus, M., Perovich, D., Rabe, B., Rinke, A., Sokolov, V., & Sommerfeld, A. (2020). The MOSAiC expedition: a year drifting with the Arctic sea ice. In Arctic Report Card, Update for 2020. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/27898
Steil, B. (2013). The Battle of Bretton woods: John Maynard Keynes, Harry Dexter white, and the making of a New World order. Princeton University Press.
Steinveg, B. (2020). The role of conferences within Arctic governance. Polar Geography, 43. https://doi.org/10.1080/1088937X.2020.1798540
Støre, J. G. (2010). The Norwegian high north policy. Foreign Minister Speech, Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Oslo 7 June 2010. https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/m/id609025/
Stuecker, M. F., Bitz, C. M., Armour, K. C., Proistosescu, C., Kang, S. M., Xie, S. P., Kim, D., McGregor, S., Zhang, W., Zhao, S., Cai, W., Dong, Y., & Jin, F. F. (2018). Polar amplification dominated by local forcing and feedbacks. Nature Climate Change, 8, 1076–1081. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0339-y
Sultan, N., Plaza-Faverola, A., Vadakkepuliyambatta, S., Buenz, S., & Knies, J. (2020). Impact of tides and sea-level on deep-sea Arctic methane emissions. Nature Communications, 11, 5087. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18899-3
Tunnicliffe, V., Metaxas, A., Jennifer Le, J., Ramirez-Llodra, E., & Levin, L. A. (2020). Strategic environmental goals and objectives: setting the basis for environmental regulation of deep seabed mining. Marine Policy, 114, 103347. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X1830321X
UArctic. (2017). Science diplomacy thematic network. University of the Arctic. https://www.uarctic.org/organization/thematic-networks/science-diplomacy/
UNITAR. (2019a). Retreat for directors of Arab diplomatic academies and institutes. United Nations Institute for Training and Research. https://www.unitar.org/event/full-catalog/retreat-directors-arab-diplomatic-academies-and-institutes
UNITAR. (2019b). Diplomacy 4.0 training programme. Geneva: United Nations Institute for Training and Research. https://unitar.org/about/news-stories/news/united-nations-diplomacy-40-training-programme
UNITAR. (2020a). Science diplomacy and informed decision-making during our global pandemic. United Nations Institute for Training and Research. https://www.unitar.org/event/full-catalog/science-diplomacy-and-informed-decision-making-during-our-global-pandemic
UNITAR. (2020b). Executive diploma on international law. United Nations Institute for Training and Research. https://www.unitar.org/event/full-catalog/executive-diploma-international-law-online
UNITAR. (2021). Executive summer programme on innovations in science diplomacy. United Nations Institute for Training and Research. https://www.unitar.org/event/full-catalog/unitar-executive-summer-programme-innovations-science-diplomacy
United Nations. (1945). United Nations Archive: United Nations Conference on International Organization (UNCIO) (1945) – AG-012. https://search.archives.un.org/united-nations-conference-on-international-organization-uncio-1945
United Nations. (1982). United Nations Convention on the law of the sea. (Signed: Montego Bay, 10 December 1982; entry into force: 16 November 1994). https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf
United Nations. (1987). Our common future: from one earth to one world. Report Transmitted to the General Assembly as an Annex to Resolution A/RES/42/187. World Commission on Environment and Development, New York. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf
United Nations. (1992). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (Signed: Rio de Janeiro, 9 May 1992; Entry into Force: 21 March 1994). https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/convention_text_with_annexes_english_for_posting.pdf
United Nations. (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Res. A/RES/70/1 (25 September 2015). United Nations General Assembly, New York. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld/publication
Verne, J. (1865). De la Terre á la Lune. Pierre-Jules Hetze.
Vienna Convention (1969) Vienna convention on the law of treaties. Signed: 23 May 1969, Vienna, Austria; Entry into Force: 27 January 1980
Vienna Dialogue Team. (2017). A global network of science and technology advice in foreign ministries. Science Diplomacy Action, 1, 1–20. https://scidiplo.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Synthesis_1.pdf
Vincent, W. F., Canário, J., & Boike, J. (2019). Understanding the terrestrial effects of Arctic Sea ice decline. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union (Eos) 100, 17 July 2019. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EO128471
Vörösmarty, C. J., McGuire, A, D., & Hobbie, J. E. (2010) Scaling studies in Arctic system science and policy support. A Call-to-Research. U.S. Arctic Research Commission. Anchorage. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc949504/
Vörösmarty, C., Rawlins, M., Hinzman, L., Francis, J., Serreze, M., Liljedahl, A., McDonald, K., Piasecki, M., & Rich, R. (2018). Opportunities and challenges in Arctic system synthesis: A consensus report from the Arctic research community. City University of New York. https://www.arcus.org/publications/28459
Vylegzhanin, A. N., Young, O. R., & Berkman, P. A. (2020). The Central Arctic Ocean fisheries agreement as an element in the evolving Arctic Ocean governance complex. Marine Policy, 118, 1–10. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308597X20301780
Winton, M. (2006). Amplified Arctic climate change: what does surface albedo feedback have to do with it? Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L03701. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL025244
World Mayors Summit. (2019). C40 world mayors Summit. Copenhagen, 9–12 October 2019. https://c40summit2019.org/agenda/
World Economic Forum. (2016). Arctic investment protocol. Guidelines for responsible investment in the Arctic. World Economic Forum. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Arctic_Investment_Protocol.pdf
Young, O. R., Berkman, P. A., & Vylegzhanin, A. N. (2020a). Chapter 15: Conclusions. In O. R. Young, P. A. Berkman, & A. N. Vylegzhanin (Eds.), Informed decisionmaking for sustainability. Volume 1. Governing Arctic Seas: Regional Lessons from the Bering Strait and Barents Sea (pp. 341–353). Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-25674-6_15
Young, O. R., Berkman, P. A., & Vylegzhanin, A. N. (Eds.). (2020b). Informed decisionmaking for sustainability. Volume 1. Governing Arctic seas: regional lessons from the Bering Strait and Barents Sea. Springer. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-25674-6
Acknowledgements
This chapter and those that follow emerged with Arctic Frontiers 2020, building on the 2018 Memorandum of Understanding with the Science Diplomacy Center on behalf of the editors for the book series on Informed Decisionmaking for Sustainability. This chapter is a product of the Science Diplomacy Center through EvREsearch LTD, coordinating Arctic Options/Pan-Arctic Options and related projects with support from the United States National Science Foundation (Award Nos. NSF-OPP 1263819, NSF-ICER 1660449, NSF-OPP 1719540 and NSF-ICER 2103490) along with the Fulbright Arctic Chair 2021-2022 awarded to P.A. Berkman by the United States Department of State and Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs with funding from the United States Congress. These international projects include support also from national science agencies in Canada, China, France, Norway, Russia and United States from 2013 to 2022 in coordination with the Belmont Forum, gratefully acknowledging the collaboration with the University of California Santa Barbara, MGIMO University, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Norwegian Polar Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, University of Colorado Boulder, Carleton University, Ocean University of China and University of the Arctic among other institutions throughout this period. We also thank the Polar Institute with the Wilson Center for their leadership and support of this contribution. Knowledge-discovery application of KnoHow™ (http://knohow.co) was supported by the National Science Foundation project on “Automated Discovery of Content-in-Context Relationships from a Large Corpus of Arctic Social Science Data” (Award No. NSF-OPP 1719540).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
1.1 The Precautionary Principle or Approach
-
Possible Citation: Soto Sanchez, R. 2022. Appendix to Chapter 1. Building Common Interests with Informed Decisionmaking for Sustainability. IN: Berkman, P.A., Young, O.R., Vylegzhanin, A.N., Balton, D.A. and Øvretveit, O. (eds). Building Common Interests in the Arctic Ocean with Global Inclusion. Volume 2. Informed Decisionmaking for Sustainability. Springer, Dordrecht.
Appendix: Table 1 The precautionary principle or approach in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC)
The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) provides the widely agreed basic international law framework for balancing the rights and duties of coastal States, including protecting and preserving the marine environment in the different maritime zones, with the rights and duties of all States, including to freedom of navigation. The LOSC applies to the Arctic Ocean as it applies to other parts of the seas and oceans. Although the LOSC does not expressly refer to the precautionary principle or precautionary approach, a number of its provisions, highlighted in this table nevertheless give effect to the basic concept of precaution. The LOSC is not comprehensive in the sense of providing detailed rules for the regulation of all marine operations and shipping at sea, especially in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ). Other international instruments, included in Appendix: Table 2, build on or supplement the provisions of the LOSC relating to precaution an evolving concept that must be interpreted in accordance with the full complement of relevant international instruments.Footnote 2 | ||||
Year adopted | Instrument | Type | Provision(s) | Textual quotation |
1982 | LOSC.Footnote 3 | Multilateral, International. | Articles 194 para(s). 1 to 3; and 195. | Article 194 Measures to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment “1. States shall take, individually or jointly as appropriate, all measures consistent with this Convention that are necessary to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from any source, using for this purpose the best practicable means at their disposal and in accordance with their capabilities, and they shall endeavour to harmonize their policies in this connection. 2. States shall take all measures necessary to ensure that activities under their jurisdiction or control are so conducted as not to cause damage by pollution to other States and their environment, and that pollution arising from incidents or activities under their jurisdiction or control does not spread beyond the areas where they exercise sovereign rights in accordance with this Convention. 3. The measures taken pursuant to this Part shall deal with all sources of pollution of the marine environment. (…)” Article 195 Duty not to transfer damage or hazards or transform one type of pollution into another “In taking measures to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment, States shall act so as not to transfer, directly or indirectly, damage or hazards from one area to another or transform one type of pollution into another.” |
Articles 207 to 212. | Article 207 Pollution from land-based sources “1. States shall adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources, including rivers, estuaries, pipelines and outfall structures, taking into account internationally agreed rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures. 2. States shall take other measures as may be necessary to prevent, reduce and control such pollution. 3. States shall endeavour to harmonize their policies in this connection at the appropriate regional level. 4. States, (…), shall endeavour to establish global and regional rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources, (…). Such rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures shall be re-examined from time to time as necessary. 5. Laws, regulations, measures, rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 shall include those designed to minimize, to the fullest extent possible, the release of toxic, harmful or noxious substances, especially those which are persistent, into the marine environment.” | |||
Article 208 Pollution from seabed activities subject to national jurisdiction “1. Coastal States shall adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment arising from or in connection with seabed activities subject to their jurisdiction and from artificial islands, installations and structures under their jurisdiction, (…). 2. States shall take other measures as may be necessary to prevent, reduce and control such pollution. 3. Such laws, regulations and measures shall be no less effective than international rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures. 5. (…) Such rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures shall be re-examined from time to time as necessary.” | ||||
Article 209 Pollution from activities in the Area “1. International rules, regulations and procedures shall be established in accordance with Part XI to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from activities in the Area. Such rules, regulations and procedures shall be re-examined from time to time as necessary. 2. Subject to the relevant provisions of this section, States shall adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from activities in the Area undertaken by vessels, installations, structures and other devices flying their flag or of their registry or operating under their authority, as the case may be. The requirements of such laws and regulations shall be no less effective than the international rules, (…).” | ||||
Article 210 Pollution by dumping “1. States shall adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment by dumping. 2. States shall take other measures as may be necessary to prevent, reduce and control such pollution. 3. Such laws, regulations and measures shall ensure that dumping is not carried out without the permission of the competent authorities of States. 4. (…) Such rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures shall be re-examined from time to time as necessary. 5. Dumping within the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone or onto the continental shelf shall not be carried out (…) after due consideration of the matter with other States which by reason of their geographical situation may be adversely affected thereby. 6. National laws, regulations and measures shall be no less effective in preventing, reducing and controlling such pollution than the global rules and standards.” | ||||
Article 211 Pollution from vessels “1. States, (…), shall establish international rules and standards to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from vessels (…). Such rules and standards shall, in the same manner, be re-examined from time to time as necessary. 2. States shall adopt laws and regulations for the prevention, reduction and control of pollution of the marine environment from vessels flying their flag or of their registry. Such laws and regulations shall at least have the same effect as that of generally accepted international rules and standards established through the competent international organization or general diplomatic conference. (…)” | ||||
Article 212 Pollution from or through the atmosphere “1. States shall adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from or through the atmosphere, applicable to the air space under their sovereignty and to vessels flying their flag or vessels or aircraft of their registry, taking into account internationally agreed rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures and the safety of air navigation. 2. States shall take other measures as may be necessary to prevent, reduce and control such pollution. (…)” | ||||
Article 234. | Article 234 Ice-covered areas “Coastal States have the right to adopt and enforce non-discriminatory laws and regulations for the prevention, reduction and control of marine pollution from vessels in ice-covered areas within the limits of the exclusive economic zone, where particularly severe climatic conditions and the presence of ice covering such areas for most of the year create obstructions or exceptional hazards to navigation, and pollution of the marine environment could cause major harm to or irreversible disturbance of the ecological balance. Such laws and regulations shall have due regard to navigation and the protection and preservation of the marine environment based on the best available scientific evidence.” |
Table 2 Existing instruments that embody the precautionary principle or approach
This table sets forth key provisions from international instruments that relate to the precautionary principle or precautionary approach, and that build on or supplement the provisions of the LOSC contained in Table 1.Footnote 4 | ||||
Year adopted | Instrument | Type | Provision(s) | Textual quotation |
1969 | OPRC Convention.Footnote 5 | Multilateral, International. | Article V. | Article V. “1. Measures taken by the coastal State in accordance with Article I shall be proportionate to the damage actual or threatened to it. 2. Such measures shall not go beyond what is reasonably necessary to achieve the end mentioned in Article I and shall cease as soon as that end has been achieved; they shall not unnecessarily interfere with the rights and interests of the flag State, third States and of any persons, physical or corporate, concerned. 3. In considering whether the measures are proportionate to the damage, account shall be taken of: (a) the extent and probability of imminent damage if those measures are not taken; and (b) the likelihood of those measures being effective; and (c) the extent of the damage which may be caused by such measures.” |
1973 | CITES.Footnote 6 | Multilateral, International. | Articles VIII, XIII and XIV. | Article VIII Measures to be Taken by the Parties “1. The Parties shall take appropriate measures to enforce the provisions of the present Convention and to prohibit trade in specimens in violation thereof. (…)” Article XIII International Measures “1. When the Secretariat in the light of information received is satisfied that any species included in Appendix I or II is being affected adversely by trade in specimens of that species or that the provisions of the present Convention are not being effectively implemented, it shall communicate such information to the authorized Management Authority of the Party or Parties concerned. 2. When any Party receives a communication as indicated in paragraph 1 of this Article, it shall, as soon as possible, inform the Secretariat of any relevant facts insofar as its laws permit and, where appropriate, propose remedial action. Where the Party considers that an inquiry is desirable, such inquiry may be carried out by one or more persons expressly authorized by the Party. (…)” Article XIV Effect on Domestic Legislation and International Conventions “1. The provisions of the present Convention shall in no way affect the right of Parties to adopt: (a) stricter domestic measures regarding the conditions for trade, taking, possession or transport of specimens of species included in Appendices I, II and III, or the complete prohibition thereof; or (b) domestic measures restricting or prohibiting trade, taking, possession or transport of species not included in Appendix I, II or III. (…) 6. Nothing in the present Convention shall prejudice the codification and development of the law of the sea by the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea convened pursuant to Resolution 2750 C (XXV) of the General Assembly of the United Nations nor the present or future claims and legal views of any State concerning the law of the sea and the nature and extent of coastal and flag State jurisdiction.” |
1980 | CAMLR Convention.Footnote 7 | Multilateral, Regional. | Article II, para. 3, item c). | Article II. “1. The objective of this Convention is the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources. (…) 3. Any harvesting and associated activities in the area to which this Convention applies shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and with the following principles of conservation: (…) (c)revention of changes or minimisation of the risk of changes in the marine ecosystem which are not potentially reversible over two or three decades, taking into account the state of available knowledge of the direct and indirect impact of harvesting, the effect of the introduction of alien species, the effects of associated activities on the marine ecosystem and of the effects of environmental changes, with the aim of making possible the sustained conservation of Antarctic marine living resources.” |
1982 | World Charter for Nature.Footnote 8 | United Nations’ General Assembly Resolution. | GENERAL PRINCIPLES “1. Nature shall be respected and its essential processes shall not be impaired. 2. (…) habitats shall be safeguard. 3. All areas of the earth, both land and sea, shall be subject to these principles of conservation; special protection shall be given to unique areas, (…) to the habitats of rare or endangered species. (…) 5. Nature shall be secured against degradation caused by (…) hostile activities.” | |
1985 | Vienna Convention.Footnote 9 | Multilateral. | Article 2, para.1. | Article 2: General obligations “1. The Parties shall take appropriate measures in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and of those protocols in force to which they are party to protect human health and the environment against adverse effects resulting or likely to result from human activities which modify or are likely to modify the ozone layer. (…)” |
1987 | Declaration on the Second International Conference on the Protection of the North Sea.Footnote 10 | Regional Declaration. | Articles VII; XV item(ii); and XVI para.(1). | Ministerial Declaration “(…) VII. Accepting that, in order to protect the North Sea from possibly damaging effects of the most dangerous substances, a precautionary approach is necessary which may require action to control inputs of such substances even before a causal link has been established by absolutely clear scientific evidence; (…) XV. Decide to: (…) (ii) accept that by combining, simultaneously and complementarily, approaches based on emission standards and environmental quality objectives, a more precautionary approach to dangerous substances will be established; (…) XVI. Therefore agree to: (…) l. accept the principle of safeguarding the marine ecosystem of the North Sea by reducing polluting emissions of substances that are persistent, toxic and liable to bioaccumulate at source by the use of the best available technology and other appropriate measures. This applies especially when there is reason to assume that certain damage or harmful effects on the living resources of the sea are likely to be caused by such substances, even where there is no scientific evidence to prove a causal link between emissions and effects (“the principle of precautionary action”); (…)” |
1987 | The Montreal Protocol.Footnote 11 | Protocol, Multilateral. | Preamble, para(s). 6 and 8. | Preamble. “(…) Determined to protect the ozone layer by taking precautionary measures to control equitably total global emissions of substances that deplete it, with the ultimate objective of their elimination on the basis of developments in scientific knowledge, taking into account technical and economic considerations and bearing in mind the developmental needs of developing countries, (…) Noting the precautionary measures for controlling emissions of certain chlorofluorocarbons that have already been taken at national and regional levels, (…)” |
1992 | United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.Footnote 12 | Multilateral. | Article 3. | Article 3. PRINCIPLES. “(…) 3. The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures, taking into account that policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost. To achieve this, such policies and measures should take into account different socio-economic contexts, be comprehensive, cover all relevant sources, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases and adaptation, and comprise all economic sectors. Efforts to address climate change may be carried out cooperatively by interested Parties. (…)” |
1992 | The Water Convention.Footnote 13 | Regional. | Article 2, para. 5, item (a). | Article 2. General Provisions. “(...)5. (…) the Parties shall be guided by the following principles: (a) The precautionary principle, by virtue of which action to avoid the potential transboundary impact of the release of hazardous substances shall not to be postponed on the ground that scientific research has not fully proved a causal link between those substances, on the one hand, and the potential transboundary impact, on the other hand; (…)” |
1992 | Rio Declaration.Footnote 14 | International. | Principle 15. | Principle 15. “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” |
1992 | The Maastricht Treaty.Footnote 15 | Regional. | Article 130r, para. (2). | Title XVI Environment Article 130r “(…) 2. Community policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection taking into account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Community. It shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay. Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of other Community policies. (…)” |
1992 | Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents.Footnote 16 | Regional. | Article 3, para. 1. | Article 3 General provisions “1. The Parties shall, taking into account efforts already made at national and international levels, take appropriate measures and cooperate within the framework of this Convention, to protect human beings and the environment against industrial accidents by preventing such accidents as far as possible, by reducing their frequency and severity and by mitigating their effects. To this end, preventive, preparedness and response measures, including restoration measures, shall be applied. (…)” |
1992 | Helsinki Convention.Footnote 17 | Regional. | Article 3, para. 2. | Article 3. Fundamental principles and obligations. “(…) 2. The Contracting Parties shall apply the precautionary principle, i.e., to take preventive measures when there is reason to assume that substances or energy introduced, directly or indirectly, into the marine environment may create hazards to human health, harm living resources and marine ecosystems, damage amenities or interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea even when there is no conclusive evidence of a causal relationship between inputs and their alleged effects. (…)” |
1992 | OSPAR Convention.Footnote 18 | Multilateral, Regional. | Article 2, para. 2, item a). | Article 2. “(…) The Contracting Parties shall apply: a) the precautionary principle, by virtue of which preventive measures are to be taken when there are reasonable grounds for concern that substances or energy introduced, directly or indirectly, into the marine environment may bring about hazards to human health, harm living resources and marine ecosystems, damage amenities or interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea, even when there is no conclusive evidence of a causal relationship between the inputs and the effects; (…)” |
1994 | Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Further Reduction of Sulphur Emissions.Footnote 19 | Protocol, Multilateral. | Preamble. | Preamble. “(…) Resolved to take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize emissions of air pollutants and mitigate their adverse effects, Convinced that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures, taking into account that such precautionary measures to deal with emissions of air pollutants should be cost-effective, (…)” |
1994 | Energy Charter Treaty. | Multilateral. | Article 19, para. (1). | Article 19: Environmental Aspects “(1) In pursuit of sustainable development and taking into account its obligations under those international agreements concerning the environment to which it is party, each Contracting Party shall strive to minimise in an economically efficient manner harmful Environmental Impacts occurring either within or outside its Area from all operations within the Energy Cycle in its Area, taking proper account of safety. In doing so each Contracting Party shall act in a Cost-Effective manner. In its policies and actions each Contracting Party shall strive to take precautionary measures to prevent or minimise environmental degradation.(…)” |
1995 | UN Fish Stocks Agreement.Footnote 20 | Multilateral, Regional. | Article 6. | Article 6. Application of the precautionary approach. “1. States shall apply the precautionary approach widely to conservation, management and exploitation of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks in order to protect the living marine resources and preserve the marine environment. 2. States shall be more cautious when information is uncertain, unreliable or inadequate. The absence of adequate scientific information shall not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take conservation and management measures. 3. In implementing the precautionary approach, States shall: (a) improve decision-making (…) by obtaining and sharing the best scientific information available and implementing improved techniques for dealing with risk and uncertainty; (…) (c) take into account, inter alia, uncertainties (…) and the impact of fishing activities on non-target and associated or dependent species, as well as existing and predicted oceanic, environmental and socio-economic conditions; (d) develop data collection and research programmes to assess the impact of fishing on non-target and associated or dependent species and their environment, and adopt plans which are necessary to ensure the conservation of such species and to protect habitats of special concern. (…) 6. For new or exploratory fisheries, States shall adopt as soon as possible cautious conservation and management measures, including, inter alia, catch limits and effort limits. Such measures shall remain in force until there are sufficient data to allow assessment of the impact of the fisheries on the long-term sustainability of the stocks, whereupon conservation and management measures based on that assessment shall be implemented. The latter measures shall, if appropriate, allow for the gradual development of the fisheries. 7. If a natural phenomenon has a significant adverse impact on the status of straddling fish stocks or highly migratory fish stocks, States shall adopt conservation and management measures on an emergency basis to ensure that fishing activity does not exacerbate such adverse impact. States shall also adopt such measures on an emergency basis where fishing activity presents a serious threat to the sustainability of such stocks. (…)” |
1996 | London Protocol.Footnote 21 | Protocol, Multilateral. | Article 3, para. 1. | Article 3. General Obligations “1. In implementing this Protocol, Contracting Parties shall apply a precautionary approach to environmental protection from dumping of wastes or other matter whereby appropriate preventative measures are taken when there is reason to believe that wastes or other matter introduced into the marine environment are likely to cause harm even when there is no conclusive evidence to prove a causal relation between inputs and their effects. (…)” |
1999 | Convention on the Protection of the Rhine.Footnote 22 | Regional. | Article 4, item (a). | Article 4 Principles “To this end, the Contracting Parties shall be guided by the following principles: (a) precautionary principle; (…)” |
2000 | Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.Footnote 23 | Multilateral. | Preamble, and Articles 1; 10 para. 6; and 11 para. 8. | Preamble “(…) Reaffirming the precautionary approach contained in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development,(…)” Article 1 OBJECTIVE In accordance with the precautionary approach contained in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the objective of this Protocol is to contribute to ensuring an adequate level of protection in the field of the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health, and specifically focusing on transboundary movements. Article 10 DECISION PROCEDURE “(…) 6. Lack of scientific certainty due to insufficient relevant scientific information and knowledge regarding the extent of the potential adverse effects of a living modified organism on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in the Party of import, taking also into account risks to human health, shall not prevent that Party from taking a decision, as appropriate, with regard to the import of the living modified organism in question as referred to in paragraph 3 above, in order to avoid or minimize such potential adverse effects. (…)” Article 11 PROCEDURE FOR LIVING MODIFIED ORGANISMS INTENDED FOR DIRECT USE AS FOOD OR FEED, OR FOR PROCESSING “(…) 8. Lack of scientific certainty due to insufficient relevant scientific information and knowledge regarding the extent of the potential adverse effects of a living modified organism on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in the Party of import, taking also into account risks to human health, shall not prevent that Party from taking a decision, as appropriate, with regard to the import of that living modified organism intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing, in order to avoid or minimize such potential adverse effects. (…)” |
2001 | Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.Footnote 24 | Multilateral. | Preamble para. 8; and Articles 1, and 8 para. 9. | Preamble “(…) Acknowledging that precaution underlies the concerns of all the Parties and is embedded within this Convention, (…)” Article 1 Objective Mindful of the precautionary approach as set forth in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the objective of this Convention is to protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants. Article 8 “(…) 9. The Committee shall, based on the risk profile referred to in paragraph 6 and the risk management evaluation referred to in paragraph 7 (a) or paragraph 8, recommend whether the chemical should be considered by the Conference of the Parties for listing in Annexes A, B and/or C. The Conference of the Parties, taking due account of the recommendations of the Committee, including any scientific uncertainty, shall decide, in a precautionary manner, whether to list the chemical, and specify its related control measures, in Annexes A, B and/or C.” |
2003 | Framework Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Caspian Sea.Footnote 25 | Regional. | Article 5, para. (a). | Article 5. Principles “In the actions for goal achievement of this Convention and accomplishment of its provisions Contracting Parties are guided, including: (a) the principle of taking measures of precaution according to which, in the presence of threat of serious or irreversible damage for the marine environment of the Caspian Sea, references to lack of complete scientific confidence are not used as the reason for delay of cost-efficient measures for the prevention of similar damage; (…)” |
2014 | The Polar Code.Footnote 26 | Multilateral, Regional (Polar waters). | Part II-A and Part II-B Pollution Prevention Measures. | See the Chapter 1 text with reference to “information” needs and applications from the Polar Code (2017) |
2018 | The CAO Fisheries Agreement.Footnote 27 | Multilateral, Regional. | Article 5, para. 1, item c). | Article 5. Review and Further Implementation. “(…) c) on the basis of the scientific information derived from the Joint Program of Scientific Research and Monitoring, from the national scientific programs, and from other relevant sources, and taking into account relevant fisheries management and ecosystem considerations, including the precautionary approach and potential adverse impacts of fishing on the ecosystems, consider, inter alia, whether the distribution, migration and abundance of fish in the Agreement Area would support a sustainable commercial fishery and, (…).” |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Berkman, P.A., Young, O.R., Vylegzhanin, A.N., Balton, D.A., Øvretveit, O.R. (2022). (Research): Introduction: Building Common Interests with Informed Decisionmaking for Sustainability. In: Berkman, P.A., Vylegzhanin, A.N., Young, O.R., Balton, D.A., Øvretveit, O.R. (eds) Building Common Interests in the Arctic Ocean with Global Inclusion. Informed Decisionmaking for Sustainability. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89312-5_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89312-5_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-89311-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-89312-5
eBook Packages: Physics and AstronomyPhysics and Astronomy (R0)