La politique internationale dans l’Arctique : une perspective américaine

The Arctic is emerging today as an international region whose importance in political, economic, and environmental terms rivals that of the world's other major regions. What remains in doubt, at this juncture, is how the Arctic states -not to mention others — will respond to this development in policy terms. Are these states likely to upgrade their capacity to handle Arctic issues by adding substantial Arctic expertise to their policy planning staffs; creating bureaux of Arctic or northern affairs in their foreign ministries; establishing effective interagency coordinating mechanisms to handle complex Arctic issues, or devising new Arctic policies to replace the policies of benign neglect they have long relied on in dealing with Arctic matters ? These are serious concerns whose resolution will take time and may differ from state to state. Just as the recognition of the Arctic as a distinctive international region has been a major development of the 1980s, the formulation of appropriate public responses to this development seems likely to become a central Arctic concern of the 1990s

Brief 2: Overcoming Fragmented Governance: The Case of Climate Change and the MDGs

Fragmented governance hampers efforts to address tightly coupled challenges, like coming to grips with climate change and fulfilling the Millennium Development Goals. The way forward is to launch programmatic initiatives focusing on adaptation to climate change and the transition to a green economy that appeal to many separate bodies as win-win opportunities

Avoiding Institutional Failure: Risk Factors and Response Strategies

publishedVersio

The Paris Agreement: Destined to Succeed or Doomed to Fail?

Is the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change destined to succeed or doomed to fail? If all the pledges embedded in the intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) are implemented fully, temperatures at the Earth’s surface are predicted to rise by 3–4 °C, far above the agreement’s goal of limiting increases to 1.5 °C. This means that the fate of the agreement will be determined by the success of efforts to strengthen or ratchet up the commitments contained in the national pledges over time. The first substantive section of this essay provides a general account of mechanisms for ratcheting up commitments and conditions determining the use of these mechanisms in international environmental agreements. The second section applies this analysis to the specific case of the Paris Agreement. The conclusion is mixed. There are plenty of reasons to doubt whether the Paris Agreement will succeed in moving from strength to strength in a fashion resembling experience with the Montreal Protocol on ozone depleting substances. Nevertheless, there is more room for hope in this regard than those who see the climate problem as unusually malign, wicked, or even diabolical are willing to acknowledge

Arctic Governance - Pathways to the Future

The Arctic has become a highly dynamic socio-ecological system due largely to the interacting forces of climate change and a suite of factors that we commonly group together under the rubric of globalization. The result is a cascade of developments that are accentuating the links between Arctic processes and global systems and generating new needs for governance to maintain sustainable human-environment relationships in the circumpolar north. This article addresses the resultant challenge of Arctic governance with particular reference to five themes: (i) the underlying drivers of change in the Arctic, (ii) the identity of legitimate stakeholders in responding to emerging issues of governance, (iii) the framing of Arctic issues for purposes of policymaking, (iv) calls for an international agreement for the Arctic Ocean, and (v) proposals for a comprehensive and legally binding treaty for the Arctic as a whole. The analysis yields negative conclusions regarding some popular proposals (e.g. calls for an Arctic Treaty). But this does not mean there is no need or no scope for innova- tive initiatives relating to Arctic governance. The conclusion sets forth a series of more modest but also more realistic recommendations aimed at enhancing good governance in this dynamic setting.Keywords: Arctic, Arctic Council, Arctic Treaty, governance, policy discourses, stakeholdersCitation: Arctic Review on Law and Politics, vol. 1, 2/2010 p. 164-185. ISSN 1891-625

Overview: Will Great Power Politics Threaten Arctic Sustainability?

The eight Arctic states (Canada, Denmark/Greenland, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, the Russian Federation, and the United States) wish to maintain a position of preeminence when it comes to dealing with matters of Arctic Ocean governance. However, major non-Arctic states, while recognizing the sovereign rights of the coastal states in their economic zones and on their continental shelves, have growing interests in the maritime Arctic relating to activities such as commercial shipping, oil and gas development, fishing and ship-based tourism. They are increasingly claiming to have a legitimate interest in being consulted when it comes to addressing matters relating to the governance of such activities. Many questions arise from these new formulations: What is the appropriate mechanism for introducing the concerns of the non-Arctic North Pacific countries in forums dealing with Arctic issues? Can they achieve a significant voice in the deliberations of the Arctic Council? Can they address these issues through other mechanisms

The Arctic in World Affairs: A North Pacific Dialogue on Will Great Power Politics Threaten Arctic Sustainability

The eight Arctic states (Canada, Denmark/Greenland, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, the Russian Federation, and the United States) wish to maintain a position of preeminence when it comes to dealing with matters of Arctic Ocean governance. However, major non-Arctic states, while recognizing the sovereign rights of the coastal states in their economic zones and on their continental shelves, have growing interests in the maritime Arctic relating to activities such as commercial shipping, oil and gas development, fishing and ship-based tourism. They are increasingly claiming to have a legitimate interest in being consulted when it comes to addressing matters relating to the governance of such activities. Many questions arise from these new formulations: What is the appropriate mechanism for introducing the concerns of the non-Arctic North Pacific countries in forums dealing with Arctic issues? Can they achieve a significant voice in the deliberations of the Arctic Council? Can they address these issues through other mechanisms