Arctic environmental cooperation in transition

Scrivener, David

doi:10.1017/s0032247400026334

Cited by 26 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Many of the pollution issues to 33 be addressed tied into testing, transport, storage and decommissioning of nuclear weapons and nuclear-powered vessels, and thus were only possible to address in the radically changed post-Cold War geopolitical climate (Roginko and LaMourie, 1992;Keskitalo, 2004). The AEPS focused on six key pollution issues: (1) acidification in the Arctic; (2) persistent organic pollutants (POPs); (3) oil pollution in the Arctic (from vessels, offshore development); (4) radioactivity in the Arctic; (5) heavy metal pollution through long-range atmospheric transport; and (6) the monitoring and conservation of flora and fauna (Scrivener, 1999;Caron, 1993).…”

Section: Letting the Lines Cross: Actors In Arctic Governance Todaymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Later the AEPS became absorbed into/ served as a partial structural basis for the Arctic Council in 1997 (Scrivener, 1999). The five Arctic Council WGs came directly from the AEPS: AMAP, PAME, the Working Group on the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF), the Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response Working Group (EPPR), and a sustainable development working group.…”

Section: Letting the Lines Cross: Actors In Arctic Governance Todaymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This last group had been contested by those concerned that including a sustainable development group would water down the environment/ conservation focus of circumpolar cooperation. However, the sustainability focus was championed by the ICC and they carried the day (Scrivener, 1999).…”

Section: Letting the Lines Cross: Actors In Arctic Governance Todaymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These included that the AEPS WGs be incorporated into the Arctic Council (thus eliminating duplication of efforts), that the body be consensusrather than voting-based, and that there be no permanent secretariat or work on overarching Arctic treaties (English, 2013: 205). One scholar describes the USA's position as a 'take it or leave it one' on the points of a looser declaration rather than by a charter or convention document, and functioning without a secretariat (Scrivener, 1999). In the same negotiations process, the US also insisted on the inclusion of additional indigenous peoples' organisations from Alaska Athabaskan and Aleut groups, over the objections of the indigenous peoples' organisations already within AEPS who were concerned about the watering out of their positions with added numbers (Scrivener, 1999: 54).…”

Section: Resting Great Powersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Section: Letting the Lines Cross: Actors In Arctic Governance Todaymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Letting the Lines Cross: Actors In Arctic Governance Todaymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Letting the Lines Cross: Actors In Arctic Governance Todaymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resting Great Powersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Arctic governance

Rowe¹

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the cooperative international environment that emerged at the end of the Cold War, academic attention turned to comparing potential institutional arrangements that would lay the basis for regional governance in the Arctic. The diplomatic efforts that led to creation of the Arctic Council are examples of this phenomenon (Scrivener, 1999;Roussel and Fossum, 2010).…”

Section: Canada As An Arctic Countrymentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Opinion on Canadian Arctic Sovereignty and Security

Landriault¹

2016

ARCTIC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Previous research on Canadian Arctic sovereignty and security has focused on governmental actions and policy recommendations. While these studies have produced some fine scholarship on those matters, Canadian public opinion on Arctic issues has been mostly assumed or analyzed on an anecdotal basis. This paper aims to correct this shortcoming by drawing the contours of public preferences on Arctic issues and assessing the impact of government activism on those preferences. An examination of 18 opinion polls conducted between 2006 and 2015 that questioned respondents directly or indirectly on circumpolar affairs concluded that Canadians do not prioritize the Arctic among other national priorities, although they rank it high as a foreign policy and defense priority. Additionally, even though increasing military presence in the Arctic seems at first glance to receive an exceptionally high level of support, a more careful examination of the data suggests that a majority of Canadians supports an approach to Arctic sovereignty that is rooted in compromises and negotiations.Key words: Arctic sovereignty; Arctic security; Canadian Arctic; public opinion; public preferences; Canadian foreign policy; circumpolar region; opinion polls; issue saliency; military sovereignty RÉSUMÉ. Par le passé, les études effectuées en matière de souveraineté et de sécurité dans l'Arctique canadien portaient principalement sur les actions du gouvernement et sur les recommandations de politiques. Bien que ces études aient permis d'obtenir de l'excellente information à ce sujet, l'opinion publique des Canadiens à propos des enjeux de l'Arctique a été soit largement présumée, soit analysée en fonction d'anecdotes. Ce document vise à remédier à ce manque en présentant les grandes lignes des préférences du public au sujet des enjeux propres à l'Arctique et en évaluant les incidences de l'activisme du gouvernement à l'égard de ces préférences. L'examen de 18 sondages d'opinion réalisés entre 2006 et 2015, sondages comprenant des questions directes ou indirectes à l'égard des affaires circumpolaires, a permis de conclure que les Canadiens ne classent pas l'Arctique au rang des autres priorités nationales, et ce, même s'ils considèrent l'Arctique comme un sujet important en matière de politique étrangère et de priorité de défense. En outre, même si, a priori, l'intensification de la présence militaire dans l'Arctique semble recevoir un soutien exceptionnellement grand, l'examen plus approfondi des données suggère que la majorité des Canadiens appuie une approche envers la souveraineté de l'Arctique qui est enracinée dans les compromis et les négociations.Mots clés : souveraineté dans l'Arctique; sécurité dans l'Arctique; Arctique canadien; opinion publique; préférences du public; politique étrangère du Canada; région circumpolaire; sondages d'opinion; importance de l'enjeu; souveraineté militaire Traduit pour la revue Arctic par Nicole Giguère.

show abstract

The Climate Policy of the Arctic Council

Koivurova

Hasanat²

2009

Climate Governance in the Arctic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Arctic environmental cooperation in transition

Cited by 26 publications

References 2 publications

Arctic governance

Arctic governance

Public Opinion on Canadian Arctic Sovereignty and Security

The Climate Policy of the Arctic Council

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About