From Arctic Science to International Law: The Road towards the Minamata Convention and the Role of the Arctic Council

Platjouw, Froukje Maria; Steindal, Eirik Hovland; Borch, Trude

doi:10.23865/arctic.v9.1234

Cited by 15 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The use and handling of mercury are regulated by the Minamata Convention, which is a global, legally binding document that entered into force in 2017. The results from the AMAP monitoring mentioned above indeed contributed to speed up the international negotiations leading to the convention (Platjouw et al, 2018). This paper indeed describes the evolutionary process in which scientific knowledge, herded by an intergovernmental, regional forum, was involved and formed the basis for the agreement.…”

Section: Heavy Metalsmentioning

confidence: 81%

Masthead - Full issue pdf

2020

Chemistry International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cover: Nearly 30 years ago, an international structure was set into place with the capacity to coordinate effective environmental cooperation in the Arctic. Practically, the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) is to monitor and assess the levels, trends, and effects of pollutants and climate change on the Arctic ecosystem and the people living there, especially the indigenous peoples. A review of that programme is presented on p. 8.

show abstract

Section: Heavy Metalsmentioning

confidence: 81%

Masthead - Full issue pdf

2020

Chemistry International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A second prominent case often presented as a positive example of global norm-setting in which Arctic states participated collectively, which suggests a harmonious nexus between regional cooperation and global conventions, is the 2013 Minamata Convention on mercury. While mercury is of global concern, its levels in the Arctic can be five to 50 times higher than those usually measured in Europe and North America (Platjouw et al, 2018). While mercury does not figure as prominently in the AEPS as POPs, it rose on the agenda through later work of AMAP.…”

Section: Environmental Protection and Conservationmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Stokke also highlighted the active role played by the ICC. Moreover, it remains unclear whether the engagement of some AC member states to influence global levels of governance, in coordination with UNEP, was a consensus-based strategy from the AC or more a result of the AMAP secretariat's rather independent, proactive role (Platjouw et al, 2018). In any case, a study of the negotiation process for the convention does not show any evidence of specific Arctic collaboration (Karlaganis et al, 2001).…”

Section: Environmental Protection and Conservationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Conventions and Regional Cooperation: The Multifaceted Dynamics of Arctic Governance

Pelaudeix

Humrich

2022

Global Arctic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Arctic is a globally embedded space. This is as true for the impact of global climate change on the Arctic and the consequences of Arctic climate change for the rest of the world as it is for governance for and in the Arctic. This chapter analyzes the dynamics that structure and result from the coexistence of global and regional governance mechanisms in four issue areas: the governance of marine and maritime spaces, Indigenous Peoples, climate governance, and environmental protection and conservation. It assesses how global conventions impacted regional governance and, in turn, how regional cooperation influenced governance on the global level. In order to do this, we distinguish four ways in which the nexus between global governance and regional cooperation can be established: as harmonious, cooperative, conflictive, and indifferent. For each way, an outside-in (from the global to the regional level) and an inside-out (from the regional to the global level) perspective can be considered. This yields a typology of eight different kinds of links between regional cooperation and global conventions. Much of the previous research has focused on harmonious and cooperative links. By contrast, we intend to show that as global interest in the Arctic grows, along with the need for regulatory governance in the region, the nexus might increasingly become conflictive. In order to retain control over the region and its governance, Arctic states' cooperation seeks to limit both their own global commitments and the influence of exogenous actors or institutions.

show abstract

“…The reports and publications that result from the work at the working group level represent the perspectives of the working group, and not necessarily the Arctic Council as a whole, to ensure clear distinctions between research and policy. Nevertheless, though the working groups mainly work with knowledge production, they are not independent of the political level (Rottem, 2017;Platjouw, Steindal, & Borch, 2018). The projects that receive financial support and priority have usually done so because of political decisions.…”

Section: Who Does What In Arctic Governance: Central Differences Betw...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Soft institutions in Arctic governance—who does what?

Steinveg,

Rottem,

Andreeva

2024

Polar Record

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The linkages between the Arctic and the rest of the world have become more profound and the region is increasingly attracting attention, also from non-Arctic state actors. Parallel to this development, the discussion about the future Arctic is taking place in various arenas, forums and among an increasing number of actors with interest in the region. At a time of high tension in international relations, and an increased likelihood of spill-over to Arctic cooperation, issues of governance of the Arctic region are potentially at stake. This makes it important that scholars are accurate in their analyses; confusing the mandate, responsibilities and purposes of different arenas for cooperation can be unfortunate. This article finds support in the literature on regime complexes and aims to show and analyse the differences between three key players in the Arctic: the Arctic Council, Arctic Frontiers and the Arctic Circle Assembly. In addition to exploring their differences, we ask what role these entities play in shaping policy in and for the Arctic. From mapping out the mandates, roles and responsibilities of the Arctic Council, Arctic Frontiers and Arctic Circle Assembly, and by nuancing their formal and informal aspects, we aim to contribute to clarifying misunderstandings regarding their functions and positions vis-à-vis each other.

show abstract

From Arctic Science to International Law: The Road towards the Minamata Convention and the Role of the Arctic Council

Cited by 15 publications

References 3 publications

Masthead - Full issue pdf

Masthead - Full issue pdf

Global Conventions and Regional Cooperation: The Multifaceted Dynamics of Arctic Governance

Soft institutions in Arctic governance—who does what?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About