Coping with Institutional Challenges for Arctic Environmental Governance

Humrich, Christoph

doi:10.1057/978-1-137-50884-3_5

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The level of cooperation and coordination between different sub-regional governance mechanisms also varies widely within the regions. Within the broader marine Arctic region, there are the Arctic Council, the Nordic Council, and the Barents Euro-Arctic Council, as well as OSPAR (regarding Denmark and Norway), all of which cover issues of marine environmental protection but propound partly differing norms (Humrich, 2017).…”

Section: Marine Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Authority in Ocean Governance Architecture

Mondré

Kuhn²

2022

PaG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we demonstrate that the ocean is a space of politics and explore the what, who, and how of ocean governance. We first sketch the governance architecture and examine challenges and shortcomings concerning political authority. Starting from a definition of “ocean governance,” we highlight that two fundamentally different regulatory approaches are applied to the ocean: a spatial ordering on the one hand and a sectoral segmentation on the other. States are the central actors regulating the use and protection of marine areas, but state sovereignty is stratified, with diminishing degrees of authority farther from the shoreline. As vast marine spaces are beyond the exclusive control of any given territorial state, political authority beyond areas of national jurisdiction must first be created to enable collective decision-making. Consequently, a multitude of authorities regulate human activities in the ocean, producing overlaps, conflicting policies, and gaps. Based on recent contributions to the fast-growing ocean governance research field, we provide a thematic overview structured along the dimensions of maritime security, protection of the marine environment, and economics to unveil patterns of authority in ocean governance.

show abstract

Section: Marine Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Authority in Ocean Governance Architecture

Mondré

Kuhn²

2022

PaG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bankes and Koivurova, 2014;Beyers, 2014; Koivurova and Alfredsson, 2014;Humrich, 2017;Jensen, 2015). Pan-Arctic social and economic assessments also tend to include useful overview chapters on 'governance' that present formal Arctic political structures; their competencies; and challenges relating to the division of responsibility between non-regional governance and national, local and indigenous governance structures (Nymand Larsen and Fondahl, 2015;Poelzer and Wilson, 2015).…”

Section: Regional Arctic Institutions/ Legal Framework/ Regimesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Arctic governance

Rowe¹

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This electronic version has been made freely available under a Creative Commons (CC-BY-NC-ND) licence, which permits non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction provided the author(s) and Manchester University Press are fully cited and no modifications or adaptations are made. Details of the licence can be viewed at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. The publisher has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for any external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. Typeset by Out of House Publishing AcknowledgementsThis book would have been impossible to carry out without the contributions of others.I am grateful to all of the interviewees from many years from Moscow; Murmansk; Ottawa; Washington, DC; Iqaluit; Copenhagen; Oslo; Anchorage; and elsewhere. All of these interviewees are busy practitioners, whose responsibilities and schedules are not necessarily designed to accommodate discussing questions with a researcher. Yet they found the time and energy to meet with me, and their insights have been invaluable.The enthusiasm of these practitioners is matched by a thriving world of Arctic social-science scholars, who continuously produce so much new, interesting research that I had to keep updating the references of this book until the very last minute. Discussions with this community of scholars, established and junior, at project workshops, at the International Congress of Arctic Social Sciences, Arctic Circle and Arctic Frontiers have been inspiring and formative. My 'long ago' friends and teachers from student days at the Scott Polar Research Institute continue to shape my thinking. My 'part-time' colleagues, Frode Mellemvik, Anatoli Bourmistrov and Elena Dybtsyna, as well as students at the High North Centre for Business at Nord University in Bodø, have increased my understanding of Arctic politics.I also appreciate the efforts of the anonymous reviewers who took time to comment, and of Jessica Shadian, who looked closely at the manuscript for me at an important juncture. From the days of the Greek cartographers dreaming about Ultima Thule at the edges of the known world, the cold reaches of the northern hemisphere have inspired grandiose caricatures of risk and opportunity. The region is often imagined from a distance as sublime, exceptional and prone to extremes. Out of space and out of time, as Poe put it, the circumpolar North is frequently envisioned as fundamentally apart from the complexities, indeterminacies and intricacies of life and politics in other parts of the globe. We see some of this exceptionalism in the application of dichotomies to the Arctic: the Arctic will either be preserved as humanity's last wilderness, or plundered by coastal states jealously guarding their natural resource treasure chests. All Arctic states are completely equal in Arctic governance, or the USA and Russia dominate militarily and diplomatically against a ve...

show abstract