 |
Current Issues
How can existing Arctic governance systems be structured
to minimize problems arising from gaps and overlaps? |
| |
If the creation of a comprehensive
Arctic regime does not occur during the foreseeable future, it may
still be worth investing some time and energy to minimize problems
of institutional interplay occurring in this realm. There is nothing
unique about this issue; it arises in one form or another with respect
to many human endeavors [16]. A
number of strategies are available to deal with such matters. One
centers on the concept of subsidiarity. It should be easy enough
for the Arctic Council, for instance, to leave matters pertaining
to whales in the North Atlantic to NAMMCO. Another involves establishing
procedures to render authoritative interpretations when the activities
of two or more distinct regimes interfere with one another. It is
imaginable that the Arctic Council could assume this role, although
there may well be opposition to such an essentially statist development
among subnational and nonstate actors that are important stakeholders
in the Arctic. Yet another strategy involves functional mergers
that do not amount to efforts to create a comprehensive regime for
the Arctic. The effort now underway on the part of the Arctic Council
to devise an integrated approach to environmental protection and
sustainable development in the Circumpolar North constitutes an
interesting experiment along these lines. Undoubtedly, there will
be false starts and even outright failures in efforts to deploy
these strategies. Yet it is apparent that there is much work to
be done in avoiding gaps and overlaps short of negotiating a constitutional
contract for the Arctic. |
|
Previous
Chapter 