Managing Fisheries in the Barents Sea Loophole: Interplay with the UN Fish Stocks Agreement

Stokke, Olav Schram

doi:10.1080/009083201750397592

Cited by 12 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Neither case constitution nor model specification receive much attention here, as they feature in intensive case studies reported elsewhere -on the Barents Sea cases, see Stokke et al (1999) and Stokke (2001); on the Antarctic cases, see ; and on the Northwest Atlantic cases, see Stokke (2000) and Gezelius (1998). Cases revolve around situations when international regimes serve as platforms for efforts to shape problem-relevant behavior in one of the three realms of resource management: science, regulation, and compliance stimulation.…”

Section: Applying Qca In Empirical Analysismentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Around 1990, a change in the migration pattern made cod increasingly available in the so-called Loophole, a sector of international waters located in-between the Norwegian and the Russian zones. Icelandic vessels, troubled by poor harvests in domestic waters, began a substantial fishery here, backed by their government, which pointed out that international law obliges coastal states to cooperate with other user states in the management of stocks that straddle national waters into the high seas (Stokke, 2001). A period of intense shaming began, in which Norway and Russia refused to negotiate the issue with Iceland.…”

Section: The Barents Seamentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Qualitative comparative analysis, shaming, and international regime effectiveness

Stokke

2007

Journal of Business Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Applying Qca In Empirical Analysismentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: The Barents Seamentioning

confidence: 98%

Qualitative comparative analysis, shaming, and international regime effectiveness

Stokke

2007

Journal of Business Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In the case of Arctic fisheries this can mean that an increasing number of fishing vessels will operate under the "flags of convenience", i.e., of nations that are not part of international agreements [96]. The presence of such fleets can decrease the efficiency of traditional diplomatic channels in fisheries management, as was observed in the case of cod fishing by third-parties in the Barents Sea "loophole" High Seas area in mid 1990s [97].…”

Section: Fisheries Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global connectivity and cross-scale interactions create uncertainty for Blue Growth of Arctic fisheries

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TThe Arctic faces high expectations of Blue Growth due to future projections of easier access and increased biological productivity. These expectations are, however, often based on global and regional climate change projections and largely ignore the complexity of social-ecological interactions taking place across different temporal and spatial scales. This paper illustrates how such cross-scale interactions at, and across, different dimensions (e.g., ecological, socioeconomic and governance) can affect the development of Arctic fisheries; and potentially create uncertainties for future Blue Growth projections. Two Arctic marine systems, The Barents Sea and the Central Arctic Ocean (CAO), are used as focus areas. The former hosts productive fisheries and is mostly covered by the EEZs of Norway and Russia, while the latter is still mainly covered by sea-ice and is a high seas area with no multilevel governance system in place. The examples show that, both systems are affected by a number of processes, beyond the environmental change, spanning a wide range of dimensions, as well as spatial and temporal scales. To address the complexity of the Arctic marine systems calls for an increase in holistic scientific understanding together with adaptive management practices. This is particularly important in the CAO, where no robust regional management structures are in place. Recognizing how cross-scale dynamics can cause uncertainties to the current fisheries projections and implementing well-functioning adaptive management structures across different Arctic sub-systems can play a key role in whether the Blue Growth potential in Arctic fisheries is realized or lost.

show abstract

“…Like in the Bering Sea, international agreements were forged in 1993 to help stop the incidents of illegal fishing and protect the resource (Goltz, 1995). Another example can be found in the Barents Sea Loophole, which is an ongoing political contestation for fishing rights between Norway and Russia in the swath of international waters enclosed within the Barents Sea (Stokke, 2001). Like the Bering, the Barents Sea has sea ice present for a portion of the year, although to a lesser spatial extent.…”

Section: Bering Seamentioning

confidence: 99%

(Un)frozen Spaces: Exploring the Role of Sea Ice in the Marine Socio-legal Spaces of the Bering and Beaufort Seas

Shake

Frey

Martin

et al. 2017

Journal of Borderlands Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

2018) '(Un)frozen spaces : exploring the role of sea ice in the marine socio-legal spaces of the Bering and Beaufort Seas.', Journal of borderlands studies., 33 (2). pp. 239-253.The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. AbstractSea ice is a dynamic physical element of the greater Arctic marine system, one that has myriad connections to human systems on a variety of spatial and temporal scales. Changes to the spatial extent of sea ice simultaneously permits and endangers maritime operations, as well as impacts current debates over maritime boundaries, presenting an interesting challenge for international law. Sea ice is not a stationary object; it moves through time and space in response to the physical forces of wind, ocean currents, and heating. It has a tangible, material and substantive role in contestations over territory, resources and marine boundaries in both the Beaufort and Bering Seas. We suggest here that sea ice's material nature in these marine regions continuously challenges stationary conceptions of law in complex and sometimes contradictory ways. Building on recent work on the human geographies of sea ice, the dynamic field of legal geography and recent contributions in ocean-space geography, we outline how the dynamism of sea ice could influence notions of boundary, resources and climate change in ocean-spaces of the greater Arctic region.

show abstract

Managing Fisheries in the Barents Sea Loophole: Interplay with the UN Fish Stocks Agreement

Cited by 12 publications

References 0 publications

Qualitative comparative analysis, shaming, and international regime effectiveness

Qualitative comparative analysis, shaming, and international regime effectiveness

Global connectivity and cross-scale interactions create uncertainty for Blue Growth of Arctic fisheries

(Un)frozen Spaces: Exploring the Role of Sea Ice in the Marine Socio-legal Spaces of the Bering and Beaufort Seas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About