Evidence For a National Approach

The current Arctic governance regime relies in large part on domestic legal regimes. This allows nations to independently apply domestic law within their Exclusive Economic Zones and to enforce their sovereignty within the region. It does not place a disproportionate monitoring cost on better-equipped nations, such as Russia. The national regime system recognizes that the Arctic is a polarized region of strategic importance to two of the world’s greatest superpowers, Russia and the United States. National regimes also allow countries to best express their individual interests and can force regional business interests to operate under the strictest set of national environmental requirements. For instance, if the hull strength requirements are more lax in Nation A than in Nation B but a shipping route runs through the internal waters of both nations, the shipping company will need to build ships under the stricter set of requirements.

The national approach also allows for the Arctic nations to develop their Arctic territory at different paces. Russia has been by far the most assertive nation in this respect to date, claiming that it wants the Arctic to become its main resource base by 2020. Many other nations, including Canada, Iceland and Denmark, are just getting their Arctic development policies off the ground. National regimes can analyze individual cases more closely. Intricate, complicated and different domestic bureaucracies increase the cost and risk of investing in the Arctic for businesses and therefore may actually on net slow development of the region relative to a streamlined regional regime. In effect, bureaucracy could actually serve to better protect the Arctic regional environment.

National regimes also allow nations to accelerate the process of modifying policies that they believe need to be changed. Currently, the Arctic Council meets only once every two years. Under a new international regime, creating new specially protected areas, implementing heightened environmental standards or performing a variety of other tasks might have to wait until this meeting. The region is changing so rapidly that the ability to take action quickly and unilaterally is important. National regimes provide this versatility more easily than an international regime.

Finally, national regimes could still be coordinated across borders. Nation-states could bargain among themselves to negotiate agreements on important topics. Separate national fisheries policies could be guided by communication between national bodies. The Arctic Council and its Working Groups already provide a forum for increased communication and cooperation amongst nations. A national regime system that is coordinated via increased cooperation accomplishes the dual goals of protecting sovereignty in the region and promoting forward-thinking development.