Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Regime interplay in Arctic shipping governance: explaining regional niche selection

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Distinctive institutional features can make a regime particularly suited for conducting one or more generic tasks of governance: building knowledge, strengthening norms, enhancing problem-solving capacity, or enforcing rule compliance. Each of those governance tasks constitutes a potential “niche” that a regime can specialize in within a larger institutional complex. Applying this niche-oriented approach to the case of Arctic marine transport helps to explain the emerging division of labor between regional and global institutions in an issue area marked by rapid change. Drawing on earlier regime-effectiveness research, the article examines the potential of regional institutions, especially the Arctic Council, to contribute to strengthening the international governance system for shipping, based on the UN International Maritime Organization (IMO). Although the Arctic Council is not well positioned to regulate regional shipping activities, it may facilitate regulatory advances in the IMO, in part by knowledge-building and in part by helping Arctic states to find common ground on matters of controversy. The Council is also well equipped to enhance regional maritime infrastructure, like capacities for responding to oil spills, and search and rescue operations. Should binding region-specific international rules on Arctic shipping be adopted, Arctic institutions could play a role in coordinating port-state enforcement measures—but existing institutions with broader participation are better suited and will probably remain dominant. The larger question of achieving cross-institutional interplay that can promote effectiveness is relevant in any region or issue area, because efforts to solve specific problems usually involve more than one institution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. LOSC, Art. 211, para 4 (providing for innocent passage) and Art. 21, para 2 (restricting rules on design, construction, manning and equipment). Passage is “innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State;” among the acts considered as prejudicial in those respects are “wilful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention” (Art. 19, paras 1 and 2(h)).

  2. See LOSC Arts. 34–36 (straits) and 234 (ice-covered areas).

  3. World Maritime News, 29 November 2011 (http://worldmaritimenews.com/archives/40275).

Abbreviations

EEZ:

Exclusive economic zone

EPPR:

Working Group on Emergency Prevention, Preparedness, and Response

ICAO:

International Civil Aviation Organization

IMO:

International Maritime Organization

LOSC:

Law of the Sea Convention

MARPOL:

International convention for the prevention of pollution from ships

MOU:

Memorandum of understanding

PAME:

Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment Working Group

PSSA:

Particularly sensitive sea area

SAR:

Search and rescue

SOLAS:

Safety of Life and Sea

STCW:

Standards of Training and Certification of Watchkeeping

References

  • Aldridge, H. (1999). Organizations evolving. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • AMAP (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme). (2007). Assessment 2007: Oil and gas activities in the Arctic—effects and potential effects. Oslo. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme.

  • Andresen, S., Skodvin, T., Underdal, A., & Wettestad, J. (2000). Science and politics in international environmental regimes. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arctic Council. (1998a). Rules of procedure of the Arctic council. http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about/documents/category/4-founding-documents. Accessed January 2, 2012.

  • Arctic Council. (1998b). Iqualit declaration. http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about/documents/category/5-declarations. Accessed January 2, 2012.

  • Arctic Council. (2000). Barrow declaration. http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about/documents/category/5-declarations. Accessed January 2, 2012.

  • Arctic Council. (2009). Tromsø declaration. http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about/documents/category/5-declarations. Accessed January 2, 2012.

  • Arctic Council. (2011). Nuuk declaration. http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about/documents/category/5-declarations. Accessed January 2, 2012.

  • Barrett, S. (2003). Environment and statecraft: The strategy of environmental treaty-making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartenstein, K. (2011). The “Arctic exception” in the Law of the Sea Convention: A contribution to safer navigation in the Northwest Passage? Ocean Development and International Law, 42, 22–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BEATA (Steering Committee for the Barents Euro-Arctic Pan-European Transport Area). (2011). Norwegian Chair BEATA SC 2012–2014. Presentation to the Committee of Senior Officials of the Barents Euro-Arctic Council, Oslo, 7–8 December 2011. http://www.barentsinfo.fi/beac/docs/BEATA_presentation_at_CSO_Oslo_7_December_2011.pdf. Accessed January 2, 2012.

  • Beluga Shipping. (2010). The Arctic shortcut. www.northnorway.org/files/beluga.pdf. Accessed January 2. 2012.

  • Borgerson, S. G. (2008). Arctic meltdown: The economic and security implications of global warming. Foreign Affairs, 87, 63–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, A. (2000). Globalism and regionalism in the protection of the marine environment. In D. Vidas (Ed.), Protecting the polar marine environment: Law and policy for pollution prevention (pp. 19–33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brigham, L. W. (2000). The emerging international polar navigation code: Bi-polar relevance? In D. Vidas (Ed.), Protecting the polar marine environment: Law and policy for pollution prevention (pp. 221–243). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brigham, L. W. (2011). Globalization and challenges for the maritime Arctic. In D. Vidas & P. J. Schei (Eds.), The world ocean in globalization: Climate change, sustainable fisheries, biodiversity, shipping, regional issues (pp. 305–320). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brubaker, R. D. (2001). Straits in the Russian Arctic. Ocean Development and International Law, 32, 263–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campe, S. (2009). The secretariat of the international maritime organization: A tanker for tankers. In F. Biermann & B. Siebenhüner (Eds.), Managers of global change: The influence of environmental bureaucracies (pp. 143–168). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chircop, A. (2005). Particularly sensitive sea areas and international navigation rights: Trends, controversies and emerging issues. In I. Davies (Ed.), Issues in international commercial law (pp. 217–243). Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chircop, A. (2009). The growth of international shipping in the Arctic: Is a regulatory review timely? International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 24, 355–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deggim, H. (2009). International requirements for ships operating in polar waters. London: International Maritime Organization. http://www.imo.org/KnowledgeCentre/PapersAndArticlesByIMOStaff/Documents/International%20requirements%20for%20ships%20operating%20in%20polar%20waters%20-%20H.%20Deggim.pdf. Accessed January 2, 2012.

  • DNV (Det Norske Veritas). (2006). Port reception facilities in the PAME region. Technical Report 2006–1517. Høvik, Norway: Det Norske Veritas.

  • DNV (Det Norske Veritas). (2011). Heavy fuel in the Arctic (phase 1). Technical Report 2011–0053. Høvik, Norway: Det Norske Veritas.

  • de La Fayette, L. A. (2001). The Marine Environmental Protection Committee: The conjunction of the Law of the Sea and international environmental law. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 16, 155–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fauchald, O. K. (2011). Regulatory frameworks for maritime transport in the Arctic: Will a polar code contribute to resolve conflicting interests? In J. Grue & R. H. Gabrielsen (Eds.), Marine transport in the high north (pp. 7–91). Oslo: Det norske vitenskaps-akademi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franck, T. M. (1990). The power of legitimacy among nations. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas, P. M. (1989). Do regimes matter? Epistemic communities and Mediterranean pollution control. International Organization, 43, 377–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 929–964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasanat, W. (2010). Cooperation in the Barents Euro-Arctic Region in the light of international law. Yearbook of Polar Law, 2, 279–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, G. (2002). The Arctic Ocean—the management of change in the northern seas. Ocean and Coastal Management, 45, 841–851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hovi, J., Stokke, O. S., & Ulfstein, G. (2005). Introduction and main findings. In O. S. Stokke, J. Hovi, & G. Ulfstein (Eds.), Implementing the climate regime: International compliance (pp. 1–14). London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • IMO (International Maritime Organization). (2011a). Outcome of DE 55—Legal opinion on making the Polar Code mandatory: Note by the Secretariat. MEPC 62/11/4/Add.1, 6 May 2011. London: IMO.

  • IMO (International Maritime Organization). (2011b). Development of a mandatory code for ships operating in polar waters: Report of the working group (Part 2). DE 56/10, 7 July 2011. London: IMO.

  • Jensen, Ø. (2008). Arctic shipping guidelines: Towards a legal regime for navigation safety and environmental protection? Polar Record, 44, 107–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kankaanpää, P., & Young, O. R. (2012). The effectiveness of the Arctic Council. Rovaniemi, Finland: Arctic Centre. www.arcticcentre.org. Accessed January 2, 2012.

  • Kao, S.-M., Pearre, N. S., & Firestone, J. (2012). Adoption of the arctic search and rescue agreement: A shift of the Arctic regime toward a hard law basis? Marine Policy, 36, 832–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koivurova, T. (2010). Governing Arctic shipping: Finding a role for the Arctic Council. Yearbook of Polar Law, 2, 115–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koivurova, T., & Molenaar, E. J. (2009). International governance and regulation of the marine Arctic. Oslo: WWF International Arctic Programme.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lasserre, F. (2011). Arctic shipping routes. International Journal, 64, 793–808.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. B. (1998). Sources of transparency: Information systems in international regimes. International Studies Quarterly, 42, 109–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. B., Clark, W. C., & Cash, D. W. (2006). Information and influence. In R. B. Mitchell, W. C. Clark, D. W. Cash, & N. M. Dickson (Eds.), Global environmental assessments: Information and influence (pp. 307–338). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molenaar, E. J. (2007). Port state jurisdiction: Towards comprehensive, mandatory and global coverage. Ocean Development and International Law, 38, 225–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molenaar, E. J. (2009). Arctic marine shipping: Overview of the international legal framework, gaps and options. Journal of Transnational Law & Policy, 18, 289–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norway (2011). Protokoll fra det 17. møte i den blandede norsk-russiske miljøvernkommisjonen. Oslo: Ministry of the Environment. http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/MD/2011/Norsk_russisk_miljovernssamarbeid/Protokoll_2011_16_kommisjonsmote.pdf. Accessed January 2, 2012.

  • Oberthür, S., & Stokke, O. S. (Eds.). (2011). Institutional interaction and global environmental change: Interplay management and institutional complexes. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • PAME (Working Group on the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment). (2009). Arctic marine shipping assessment 2009 report. http://www.pame.is/amsa/amsa-2009-report. Accessed January 2, 2012.

  • PAME (Working Group on the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment). (2011). PAME work plan 2011–2013. http://www.pame.is. Accessed January 2, 2012.

  • Pharand, D. (2007). The Arctic waters and the Northwest passage: A final revisit. Ocean Development and International Law, 38, 3–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pietri, D., Soule, A. B, I. V., Kershner, J., Soles, P., & Sullivan, M. (2008). The Arctic shipping and environmental management agreement: A regime for marine pollution. Coastal Management, 36, 508–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raustiala, K., & Victor, D. G. (2004). The regime complex for plant genetic resources. International Organization, 58, 277–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter-Menge, J. A. & Overland, J. E. (eds.), Arctic report card 2010. www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard. Accessed January 2 2012.

  • Ringbom, H. (2011). Regulatory layers in shipping. In D. Vidas & P. J. Schei (Eds.), The world ocean in globalization: Climate change, sustainable fisheries, biodiversity, shipping, regional issues (pp. 345–370). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skjærseth, J. B., Stokke, O. S., & Wettestad, J. (2006). Soft law, hard law, and effective implementation of international environmental norms. Global Environmental Politics, 6, 104–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stenlund, P. (2002). Lessons in regional cooperation from the Arctic. Ocean and Coastal Management, 45, 835–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokke, O. S. (1990). The northern environment: Is cooperation coming? Annals of the American Academy for Political and Social Science, 512, 58–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokke, O. S. (2000). Sub-regional cooperation and protection of the Arctic marine environment: The Barents Sea. In D. Vidas (Ed.), Protecting the polar marine environment: Law and policy for pollution prevention (pp. 124–148). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stokke, O. S. (2007). A legal regime for the Arctic? Interplay with the Law of the Sea Convention. Marine Policy, 31, 402–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokke, O. S. (2011a). Interplay management, niche selection, and Arctic environmental governance. In S. Oberthür & O. S. Stokke (Eds.), Institutional interaction and global environmental change: Interplay management and institutional complexes. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokke, O. S. (2011b). Environmental security in the Arctic: The case for multilevel governance. International Journal, 66, 835–848.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokke, O. S., & Hønneland, G. (Eds.). (2007). International cooperation and Arctic governance: Regime effectiveness and northern region building. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokke, O. S., & Tunander, O. (Eds.). (1994). The Barents region: Cooperation in Arctic Europe. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokke, O. S., & Vidas, D. (1996). The effectiveness and legitimacy of international regimes. In O. S. Stokke & D. Vidas (Eds.), Governing the Antarctic: The effectiveness and legitimacy of the Antarctic Treaty System (pp. 13–31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, A. K.-J. (2006). Vessel-source marine pollution: The law and politics of international regulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thürer, D. (2000). Soft law. In R. Bernhardt (Ed.), Encyclopedia of public international law (pp. 452–460). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Underdal, A. (1989). The politics of science in international resource management: A summary. In S. Andresen & W. Østreng (Eds.), International resource management: The role of science and politics (pp. 253–268). London: Belhaven Press.

  • Underdal, A. (2002). One question, two answers. In E. L. Miles, A. Underdal, S. Andresen, J. Wettestad, J. B. Skjærseth, & E. M. Carlin (Eds.), Environmental regime effectiveness: Confronting theory with evidence (pp. 3–45). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • VanderZwaag, D., Chircop, A., Franckx, E., Kindred, H., & MacInnis, K. et al. (2009). Governance of Arctic marine shipping. Arctic Council. http://arcticportal.org/uploads/bC/JU/bCJUaKAo52XTtHDZ359QNA/5.novAMSA-Governance-of-Arctic-Marine-Shipping-Final-Report-1-Aug.pdf. Accessed January 2, 2012.

  • Verhaag, M. A. (2003). It is not too late: The need for a comprehensive international treaty to protect the Arctic environment. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 15, 555–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wergeland, T. (2011). Historical transit passage through the Northern sea route—August 2010. Mercator, September 2011. www.mercatorinfo.dk. Accessed January 2 2012.

  • Young, O. R. (1985). The age of the Arctic. Foreign Policy, 61, 160–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, O. R. (1991). Political leadership and regime formation: On the development of institutions in international society. International Organization, 45, 281–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, O. R. (1996). Institutional linkages in international society: Polar perspectives. Global Governance, 2, 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, O. R. (1997). Rights, rules and resources in international society. In O. R. Young (Ed.), Global governance: Drawing insights from the environmental experience (pp. 1–23). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, O. R. (1998). Creating regimes: Arctic accords and international governance. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, O. R. (1999). Regime effectiveness: Taking stock. In O. R. Young (Ed.), The effectiveness of international regimes (pp. 249–279). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would in particular like to thank Oran Young for providing candid criticism, constructive advice, and generous support of my work over the past 25 years. Many thanks also to Ole Kristian Fauchald, Øystein Jensen, Timo Koivurova, Ronald Mitchell, Erik Molenaar, David VanderZwaag, Davor Vidas, and two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments on this article. The work has been financed by the Research Council of Norway under the Geopolitics of the High North program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fridtjof Nansen Institute, PB 326, 1366, Lysaker, Norway

    Olav Schram Stokke

Authors
  1. Olav Schram Stokke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olav Schram Stokke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stokke, O.S. Regime interplay in Arctic shipping governance: explaining regional niche selection. Int Environ Agreements 13, 65–85 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-012-9202-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-012-9202-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation