Evidence Against a National Approach

The national regime approach discounts the interconnectedness of the Arctic region. The Antarctic governance regime was established in the interests of all mankind; the Arctic regime should be established for the same reasons and therefore should not form under separate national frameworks. The Arctic Ocean ties the eight Arctic nations and their ecosystems together as a circumpolar group. Disequilibrium in the ecosystem of any one nation could cause a ripple effect in neighboring nations’ ecosystems. The Arctic will be developed, and it is in the collective interest of mankind that it be developed sustainably. While a national approach can apply legal regimes to much of the region, it is an unconscionable risk to allow nations to develop their own environmental regimes. Some may lead by example, but others may become free riders in an inextricably interconnected system. In addition, current international law does not provide sufficient environmental protection for areas of the Arctic outside of sovereign nations’ Exclusive Economic Zones, an issue that could be addressed by a cooperative Arctic regime but not by national policies alone.

In almost all cases, Arctic shipping will cross more than one national territorial boundary. National environmental protection regimes do not incorporate the necessary processes of institutional bargaining and negotiation that would produce a regime in the collective best interests of the Arctic nations. For instance, a negotiated regional Arctic regime might establish international legal standards for hull limits. This would eliminate confusion amongst shipbuilders. Such certainty about hull standards would decrease the risk associated with entering Arctic shipping operations while creating the opportunity for best practices to be developed and exchanged internationally. Building stronger and more environmentally friendly vessels for use in Arctic transport would also be a boon to all nations, since it would decrease the risk that they suffer a negative externality in the form of an environmental disaster.

National regimes also fail to ensure that any one nation does not benefit or suffer disproportionately from its own or other nations’ Arctic policies. For instance, a strict environmental regime in one Arctic nation could shift investment to other Arctic nations. Such redistributive effects are a strong disincentive to increased regulation in a framework of national regimes. National regimes would promote short-term profit at the expense of the region’s long-term health.

National regimes in an interconnected Arctic would also do an insufficient job of insuring intergenerational wealth transfer. The Arctic is a resource for future generations: the economic value of its fish stocks, forestry, oil and natural gas industries and shipping lanes extends well beyond the next decade or two. However, if the Arctic nations do not take the appropriate measures to protect these resources in the early stages of the region’s development, many of them will be damaged or unavailable to future generations. As with the Antarctic, an international agreement would affirm that this generation views the Arctic as a collective good for mankind.

In the Arctic, national regimes are already in place for the management of national resources, including oil, gas, minerals and the environment. However, these regimes were by and large constructed in a pre-Arctic world and therefore developed to regulate land-based operations. Arctic policy’s focus is ocean-based. An international agreement that formalizes the mandates of the Arctic Council and its Working Groups would provide better long-term protection than national regimes and in the short term be a quicker solution to implementing sustainable development policies in the Arctic region. The basis for cooperation exists: Arctic framework needs to be expanded on and endowed with real powers in order to effectively and sustainably protect the Arctic.