rethinking the concept of territories

PARTNERSHIP As explained in the previous chapter, several bodies work together at various scales to govern the Arctic. The bodies consist of the surrounding nations as well as the indigenous people, the commercial actors and the scientist. To bring the interest points of each of these groups together, the bodies I touched upon earlier try to built a frame in which the voices of each party can be heard. I will use the term ‘partnership’, from Mitchell James to propose a solution to govern the changing environment of the Arctic region. A region that needs to deal with political uncertainty, social and demographic change, and shifting landscapes. ‘Partnership’ can give structure to maintain peace and bring all the different voices existing in the region together. LVI

Currently, the factors that need to be tackled within the Arctic poses challenges for humans to respond, but at the same time also open the field for new ideas and approaches. The notion of partnership has proven to be very efficient in reducing hazards. For exemple, during Hurricane Katrina it worked as a efficient and potential instrument for change. It brings together several voices and bridges the gap between public and privat sectors as well as between experts and laypersons.LVII These charasteristics show that within the Arctic, this notion can work as a potential instrument of change and bring together the priorities of all actors to govern the area.

The disadvantage of partnership is that it only lasts as long as these nations have the same interest and experience a similar benefit. Within the Arctic, this is a delicate balance since the environment is rapidly changing, which poses different benefits for the various parties. Therefore, the connection will probably weaken or disappear.LVIII Now, the Arctic Five and Arctic Council try to govern this delicate balance. They use soft laws to establish a global habitat, a place that is influenced by different actors from around the whole world; in the Arctic Council, these actors got the status of observers.LIX As such, China and France both called itself a ‘near-Arctic state,’ and other nations such as Swiss expressed itself to be a ‘vertical Arctic country’; even Scotland said they were the ‘closest Arctic neighbour.’LX The difference between the type of law that is implemented, influences the degree of rigidness. A soft law is comparable with an agreement, as such it is used when several parties share the same opinion, but it doesn’t necessarily forces you to follow this agreement. While, a hard law forces you to strictly follow the descisions made and written down.LXI To explain how the combination of both can lead to a binding agreement, I will use an example of soft law constructed within the Arctic Council, namely the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA)22. Because of the increased international interest paid to the Northwest Passage (NWP)23, the AMSA report, which is soft law, stressed the need for a Polar Code, a hard law. As a consequence, the Polar Code24 entered into force to deal with the possible increased traffic within NWP. This example explains a positive effect on the creation of a binding agreement through soft law. Unfortunately, this isn’t always the case. Some of the reports don’t lead to actions; this is due to the way various groups -scientists, media, law, politics- relate to each other. Only if these groups work together on every level, it is possible to construct a binding law.LXII

22 The Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment was approves at the 2009 Ministrial meeting in Tromsø. The focus of the AMSA is marine safety and marine environmental protection, which is consistent with the Arctic Council’s mandates of environmental protection and sustainable development. Based on the findings of the AMSA, recommendations were developed to provide a guide for future action by the Arctic Council, Arctic states and many others. The report was conductued by the Council’s Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) working group, under the guidance of Canada, Finland and the United States as lead countries and in collaboration with the Emergency Prevention.CV 23 The NWP is the name given to the various marine routes between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans along the northern coast of North America that span the Canadian Arctic Archipelago.CVI 24 IMO’s International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar Code) is mandatory under both the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). The Polar Code covers the full range of design, construction, equipment, operational, training, search and rescue and environmental protection matters relevant to ships operating in the inhospitable waters surrounding the two poles. The Polar Code entered into force on 1 January 2017.CVII

THE ‘LAW OF THE SEA’ - UNCLOS Another law that creates the political field within the Arctic ocean is the ‘law of the sea,’ which is also called the UNCLOS convention. All the surrounding nations signed this convention in 1982. From this moment on, up till now, it keeps the relations in the high Arctic stable. This convention came into view when the Arctic heightened significance. Mostly from the viewpoint of the Soviet Union, but also the US showed its interest in the region. Since these superpowers are direct neighbours across the north pole and there is unclear ownership within this region, they both established several military bases25 around the coastline. These bases increase threat awareness and are essential factors to consider the governance within the Arctic region.LXIII

The UNCLOS convention gives countries a 12 nautical mile (22km) territorial sea. Furthermore, each nation also has the right to an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). This zone extends up to 200 nautical miles (360km) from their coastline. As explained earlier, within the EEZ, every nation has the right to claim the resources and parts of shipping routes related to their land. From the 1980s, the ice is melting further, and even more land is coming free. As a result, countries now have the right to submit claims for an ‘extended continental shelve’ (defines the EEZ). States can provide maps that give information over the shape and geology of the seafloor to prove the extent of their continental shelve. Here we see that political questions have scientific answers.LXIV

Consequently, every nation turned its scientists to map the seafloor; they use submarines to measure the depth of the ocean at various points. With the information about the precise extent of their continental shelve, the countries make a claim.LXV They can submit this claim with supporting scientific evidence to the UN Commission of the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS)26. This commission consists of scientists and advises whether the claims are justified or not. In the Arctic, the commission encounters the issue that several claims overlap, so further negotiation is necessary.LXVI LXVII LXVIII If we look back at the globalization chapter, a new way of thinking about borders is required. Now the borders in the Arctic ocean are blurred, which implies the resources within the ocean are ‘a global commons’27 (a term used by Silvia Federici to explain that ‘a common good need to be free space and should aim to overcome the divisions existing among us’).LXIX Instead of using these blurred borders to create a new global governing system, the UNCLOS convention, tries to sustain peace in the Arctic ocean by giving countries the possibility to claim a certain part of the ocean and consequently have more rights to this land than others. As a result, this law again frames nature as a national resource and in this way undermines the new thought process of global commons.

25 See chapter military bases in ‘the bank of evidence’ to get an idea of who is establishing these bases and under which form this military presence exists. 26 The purpose of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (the Commission or CLCS) is to facilitate the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the Convention) in respect of the establishment of the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles (M) from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. Under the Convention, the coastal State shall establish the outer limits of its continental shelf where it extends beyond 200 M on the basis of the recommendation of the Commission. The Commission shall make recommendations to coastal States on matters related to the establishment of those limits; its recommendations and actions shall not prejudice matters relating to the delimitation of boundaries between States with opposite or adjacent coasts.CVIII 27 Silvia Federici is a Feminist labor theorist, in a conversation woman reclaim the commons, she talks about the need to challenge capitalist economics and social relations through “commoning”—and how it informs current debates around women’s access to health and reproductive care.CIX