International organizations - towards the joint sustainable development

Control over the Arctic zone is a prerogative not only of nation-states, but also of international organizations. Their main purpose is to provide effective cooperation between the states. International organizations involved in Arctic politics are heterogeneous in their functions, powers, composition and influence^[22]. The most influential four organizations are the Arctic Council (AC), the Barents Euro-Arctic Council (BEAC), the EU and NATO.

Arctic Council (AC) members are five Arctic states and three subarctic ones (Iceland, Finland, Sweden). For the construction of the system of checks and balances, there is an observer status in the AC. The main responsibilities of the AC include Arctic monitoring and assessment, conservation of Arctic flora and fauna, prevention of emergencies^[23]. The Barents Euro-Arctic Council (BEAC) is a forum for regional cooperation. Here, as well as in the Arctic Council, the participants are five Arctic states and nine states that have observer status. BEAC has become a platform for regional cross-border cooperation and sustainable development^[24]. The European Union (EU) started to show an active interest in the Arctic, justifying it with the concern about the competition of various powers for the natural resources of the Arctic, territorial disputes and claims for control over the Arctic, as well as the deteriorating environment in the region^[25]. In particular, there are three main priorities for the EU policy in the region: protection of the environment and indigenous peoples of the Arctic; insurance of sustainable development and rational use of natural resources of the region and the development of a multilateral mechanism cooperation in the Arctic^[26]. As for NATO, its attention is focused on the sphere of "soft" security - the environmental consequences of global warming and human activity in the Arctic, the risk of environmental and man-made disasters^[27]. However, this does not exclude a purely military component of NATO’s policy. A potential conflict is possible, first of all, between the Arctic states themselves.

As it is seen, the decision-making process in the Arctic region is complex and multi-level. This fact leaves an open question: what form of control over the Arctic region is the most effective - national or international?

Comparative analysis

The development of the Arctic region has several major aims: mining of natural resources and guarantee of regions ecological sustainability. There are two main criteria following which we can measure the effectiveness of an international and national form of organization.

The first criteria are the speed of the decision-making process and implementation. It is important on two levels. In terms of normal natural resource mining, it shapes the amount of final product that you get in a limited amount of time. Moreover, speed is crucial in extreme situations when even a little delay could lead to a catastrophe. The national form is more effective in that because the final solution is made by a comparatively small number of actors. It is common for international organizations to have a complex structure of decision-making units. That, in turn, reduces the speed of implementation.

The second criteria is the ability and level of control. The comparison on the basis of this criteria will not be unambiguous due to the high variability of different scenarios that may occur in the Arctic. However, many factors are controlled more effectively if there is internal accountability, which leads to a more effective and objective assessment of decisions which was made and not made. Internal accountability is possible only when the powers are divided between a large number of actors who can make or at least to some extent influence the decisions.

Also, in the case of multi-actor control, the probability of abuse of their powers by any factors is significantly reduced because it would be identified much faster due to independent investigations. Thus, it is easier to apply the prevention mechanisms from abuse of power. Risks of losing control or image costs are valuable for countries who have more power in the region.

To conclude, this paper considers the issue of Arctic’s international legal status. As a region full of natural wealth, five Arctic countries, namely, Russia, Canada, Norway, Denmark and the United States, strive to exercise control over the region. Therefore, the relationship among them has to be organized in a proper way. Firstly, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was adopted in order to determine states’ rights and responsibilities in the use of oceans and marine resources. However, it failed to legally regulate the interstate territorial disputes in the Arctic such as, for instance, the Hans Island dispute between Canada and Denmark; and the case of Lomonosov ridge between Russia and Canada. Besides, the US appeared to be the only state which did not ratify the convention due to its inconsistency with the country’s interests.

Secondly, the Arctic is the area of responsibility of international organizations as well. The Arctic Council, the Barents Euro-Arctic Council, the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are the key actors on the global arena ensuring the region’s sustainable development, protection of flora and fauna, and indigenous peoples through the mechanisms of cooperation between regions and states. Nonetheless, the issues of mining of natural resources and guarantee of ecological sustainability require both effective and efficient governance. The question regarding the most relevant form of control over the Arctic region - national or international - is the rhetorical one. While current arrangements allow for faster decision-making due to the small number of actors involved (mainly the Arctic states); the multi-actor organization with the international scale provides higher levels of accountability and leaves little space for states’ abuse of power damaging the environment in the region. So, whether to preserve the status quo or to reform the system in the future is a hot topic for a debate for the global community.

Bibliography

1. Вылегжанин, А.Н. Конвенция ООН по морскому праву и правовой режим арктического шельфа /А.Н.Вылегжанин, И.П.Дудыкина// Вестник Воронежского государственного университета. Серия: Право. 2017. 1(28):284-302.
2. Константинова, A."Остров ганса: территориальный конфликт между Канадой и Данией." in в мире исследований, 2017.47-69.
3. Konyshev, V.. "International organizations and Arctic cooperation." INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS RESEARCH JOURNAL. 2011. 6(3): 27-36.
4. Mazur, I. “Arctic as a bifurcation point in the development of the global world.” Age of Globalization. 2010. 2(6): 93-104.
5. Mraz, C. "Правовой режим Арктики–новые вызовы и размеры." Journal of actual problems of jurisprudence. 2019. 63 (3): 235-244.
6. Morozov, A.I. International Legal Regime of the Arctic: Negotiation Process. Post-Soviet Issues. 2016. (2):117-126.

Electronic resources

1. “Международно-правовой статус Арктики. Досье.” ТАСС. https://tass.ru/info/895685
2. Hossain,Kamrul, Yana Ovsyannikova. “The Arctic Is a Complex Region Which Cannot Be Designated with a Single Status.” Russian International Affairs Council. https://russiancouncil.ru/en/amp/analytics-and-comments/interview/the-arctic-is-a-complex-region-which-cannot-be-designated-with-a-single-status/.
3. Northern Institute of Environmental and Minority Law. “International Arctic Law –IntArcticLaw.” Projects International Arctic Law. https://www.arcticcentre.org/EN/research/NIEM/Projects/International-Arctic-Law#:~:text=Unlike%20Antarctica%2C%20the%20Arctic%20has,the%20territories%20of%20sovereign%20states
4. the Arctic. “International cooperation.” Accessed November 27, 2020. https://arctic.ru/international/
5. Виски против шнапса. Как Канада и Дания ведут "войну" алкоголем за спорный остров. November 27, 2020, https://tsn.ua/ru/svit/viski-protiv-shnapsa-kak-kanada-i-daniya-vedut-voynu-alkogolem-za-spornyy-ostrov-1484292.html
6. Бурдина Алёна. Хребет преткновения, accessed November 28, 2020, https://ru.arctic.ru/analitic/20181115/804531.html
7. "Overview - Convention & Related Agreements". 2020. Un.Org. https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm
8. "PREAMBLE TO THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA". 2020. Un.Org. https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/annex2.htm
9. Bromund, Theodore. 2020. "7 Reasons U.S. Should Not Ratify UN Convention On The Law Of The Sea". The Heritage Foundation. https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/7-reasons-us-should-not-ratify-un-convention-the-law-the-sea

^[1] Kamrul Hossain, Yana Ovsyannikova, “The Arctic Is a Complex Region Which Cannot Be Designated with a Single Status,” Russian International Affairs Council, October 16, 2020, https://russiancouncil.ru/en/amp/analytics-and-comments/interview/the-arctic-is-a-complex-region-which-cannot-be-designated-with-a-single-status/

^[2] “International Arctic Law –IntArcticLaw,” Projects International Arctic Law, Northern Institute of Environmental and Minority Law, accessed November 27, 2020, https://www.arcticcentre.org/EN/research/NIEM/Projects/International-Arctic-Law#:~:text=Unlike%20Antarctica%2C%20the%20Arctic%20has,the%20territories%20of%20sovereign%20states

^[3] “Международно-правовой статус Арктики. Досье,” ТАСС,18 января 2014, https://tass.ru/info/895685

^[4] Ivan Mazur, “Arctic as a bifurcation point in the development of the global world,” Age of Globalization 2.6 (2010): 93.

^[5] “Международно-правовой статус Арктики. Досье,” ТАСС,18 января 2014, https://tass.ru/info/895685

^[6] “International cooperation,” the Arctic, accessed November 27, 2020, https://arctic.ru/international/

^[7] Morozov A.I. International Legal Regime of the Arctic: Negotiation Process. Post-Soviet Issues. 2016;(2):119.

^[8] "Overview - Convention & Related Agreements". 2020. Un.Org. https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm

^[9] Ibid.

^[10] "PREAMBLE TO THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA". 2020. Un.Org. https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/annex2.htm

^[11]Bromund, Theodore. 2020. "7 Reasons U.S. Should Not Ratify UN Convention On The Law Of The Sea". The Heritage Foundation. https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/7-reasons-us-should-not-ratify-un-convention-the-law-the-sea

^[12] Вылегжанин, А. Н., and И. П. Дудыкина. "Конвенция ООН по морскому праву и правовой режим арктического шельфа." Вестник Воронежского государственного университета. Серия: Право 1 (2017): 285.

^[13] Mraz, C. "Правовой режим Арктики–новые вызовы и размеры." Journal of actual problems of jurisprudence 63, no. 3 (2019): 287.

^[14] Виски против шнапса. Как Канада и Дания ведут "войну" алкоголем за спорный остров. November 27, 2020, https://tsn.ua/ru/svit/viski-protiv-shnapsa-kak-kanada-i-daniya-vedut-voynu-alkogolem-za-spornyy-ostrov-1484292.html

^[15] C.Mraz, "Правовой режим Арктики–новые вызовы и размеры." Journal of actual problems of jurisprudence 63, no. 3 (2019): 238

^[16]Анастасия Константинова."Остров ганса: территориальный конфликт между Канадой и Данией." in в мире исследований, 2017. P. 69.

^[17] Бурдина Алёна. Хребет преткновения, accessed November 28, 2020, https://ru.arctic.ru/analitic/20181115/804531.html

^[18] Ibid

^[19] Ibid

^[20] Ibid

^[21] Вылегжанин, А. Н., and И. П. Дудыкина. "Конвенция ООН по морскому праву и правовой режим арктического шельфа." Вестник Воронежского государственного университета. Серия: Право 1 (2017): 285.

^[22]Konyshev, V. "International organizations and Arctic cooperation," INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS RESEARCH JOURNAL 6.3 (2011): 28.

^[23]Ibid.

^[24] Ibid, 30.

^[25]Ibid, 31.

^[26]Ibid.

^[27] Ibid, 33.