Fragmented International Governance of Arctic Offshore Oil: Governance Challenges and Institutional Improvement (original) (raw)
Related papers
Governance of Arctic Offshore Oil & Gas Activities: Multilevel Governance & Legal Pluralism at Stake
2015
This article analyses the governance process of offshore oil and gas activities in the Arctic with the concept of multilevel governance and legal pluralism to address both issues of management of the environment and public participation. The analysis goes beyond the single issue of fragmentation pertaining to the international and supranational levels, to encompass national and regional levels and evaluate how the interactions between those levels structure the policy process and impact the efficiency of environmental management and public participation. Four paths of reflection arise from the analysis. First it is unlikely that a dualistic vision opposing a normative option and an enabling option opens new avenues for solutions but the evolution of international law and customary international law deserves attention and a certain level of harmonisation may be welcome, for instance to cooperate efficiently on the prevention of an oil spill and the response to it. A second path relat...
Marine Policy, 2017
There has been global interest in the exploitation of rich hydrocarbon resources in the Arctic for decades. However, recent low oil prices, a low carbon economy climate agenda, and technical challenges of Arctic oil extraction have curbed interest in these Arctic resources. Despite a recent reluctance to explore and develop an offshore Arctic drilling industry, a resurgence in oil and gas prices could spark renewed interests that could pose unacceptable risks of pollution from oil spills. These risks are further compounded by complex governance and sovereignty issues between circumpolar nations. This paper (i) compares cycles of Arctic hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation activity with global energy prices; (ii) outlines current pollution abatement techniques under pan-Arctic national regulations to identify potential gaps; (iii) describes current international frameworks for Arctic governance to highlight how problems could arise if offshore oil drilling returns to the Arctic and associated spills migrate to international waters; and (iv) provides policy recommendations to aid both national and international policy-makers regarding pollution abatement methods for future Arctic drilling.
The updated version will appear in E. Pongrácz, V. Pavlov and N. Hänninen (eds) In Search for Arctic Marine Sustainability: Arctic Maritime Businesses and Resilience of the Marine Environment (forthcoming Springer, 2019), 2019
Following the announcement of vast petroleum resources in the Arctic waters, politicians and commentators called for the adoption of an Arctic treaty establishing a harmonised approach to developing petroleum resources in the fragile and harsh circumpolar environment. Five Arctic Ocean coastal States (Canada, Greenland/Denmark, Norway, Russian Federation, and the United States) have all either expressed interest in developing or are already producing Arctic offshore resources. While some of these States have an established history of offshore petroleum development, the development in the Arctic waters presents a unique set of challenges requiring additional regulation. In addition to the general petroleum legal regime, each of these four States has developed some Arctic-specific regulations to establish more stringent safety and environmental rules compared to more conventional locations. The chapter identifies such Arctic-specific rules and provides a comparative analysis of safety and environmental rules developed specifically for the Arctic.
Revisiting the governance triangle in the Arctic and beyond
Indigenous Peoples, Natural Resources and Governance, 2021
From the governance triangle to meta-governance Large-scale projects to extract energy resources, minerals and fish are attractive to governments as well as for local communities. They promise to bring income, employment and well-being, while concerns over social and environmental consequences of such projects are also widely known and shared. Our cases in this book-of wind power development, aquaculture and mining-represent extractive industries. Recent Arctic research has focused on the conflicts between extractivism, Indigenous self-determination and government policies (
From Meltdown to Showdown? Challenges and options for governance in the Arctic
The report identifies three normative requirements for governance in the Arctic, peace, freedom and self-determination, and sustainable development. These requirements are challenged by recent developments, and thus the need for regulative policies arises. The challenges are briefly sketched in regard to the issue areas of sovereign control, security, shipping, living resources and biodiversity, pollutants and climate change, resource extraction and living conditions of indigenous peoples. After briefly accounting for the status of the Arctic governance architecture as fragmented multi-level system, the report explores six future scenarios for governance: Back to Cold War, nationalization of the Arctic sea-space, an Arctic Treaty System, a regional seas governance mechanism, a regional organization and integrated multi-level governance. The report argues that the last option is the most feasible and also desirable.
Of whales and oil: Inuit resource governance and the Arctic Council
This article takes a normative approach to explore what and how we might learn from existing indigenous governance arrangements in the Arctic and how they may contribute to the larger debates over Arctic governance and who decides. It begins with a brief exploration of the existing literature regarding co-management; particularly what some legal scholars have defined as post-Westphalian resource management as well as engaging ongoing discussions about co-management as it pertains to the Arctic. It then turns to the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) as a case study and possible starting point for governing newly emerging resource management issues in the Arctic. Specifically, this article will look at how the governance framework of the AEWC might be applicable for the current governance discussions regarding Arctic offshore oil and gas development. Lastly, this paper will offer preliminary reflections as to how a post-sovereign resource management approach could contribute to the broader theoretical debates concerning who owns the Arctic and who decides. Specifically it offers one possible way to envisage the future of a strengthened Arctic Council operating in a world where states are not the only actors participating in the governance of the Arctic.