The Arctic Science Agreement propels science diplomacy

Science ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 358 (6363) ◽  
pp. 596-598 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Arthur Berkman ◽  
Lars Kullerud ◽  
Allen Pope ◽  
Alexander N. Vylegzhanin ◽  
Oran R. Young
Keyword(s):  
The Arctic ◽  
Science Diplomacy ◽  
Arctic Science

scholarly journals Supporting Implementation of the Arctic Science Agreement

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-58
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Indigenous Knowledge ◽  
The United States ◽  
Common Interest ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Scientific Cooperation ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
Close Coupling ◽  
Effective Implementation ◽  
Science Diplomacy ◽  
Arctic Science

The Arctic Science Agreement entered into force on 23 May 2018 with the Kingdom of Denmark as the depositary is now the third binding legal agreement among all eight Arctic states since 2011, arising with shared leadership from the United States and Russian Federation as co-chairs of the three preceding task forces. The Arctic Science Agreement recognizes the “excellent existing scientific cooperation already under way in many organizations” with the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC) as well as IASSA, UArctic and indigenous knowledge institutions among many others. However, as suggested in a November 2017 policy forum published in the journal Science: “effective implementation of the agreement will require its associated networks (including IASC, UArctic, IASSA, and partner organizations) to help strengthen research and education across borders.” Objective of this panel dialogue is to consider how the scientific community can best assist to achieve effective implementation of the Artic Science Agreement, with strategies such as: • Creation of a communication network with researchers that would aid government officials with their implementation of the Arctic Science Agreement; • Application of an information campaign to alert the broader Arctic research community about the Arctic Science Agreement; or • Development of case studies that might the trigger applications of the Arctic Science Agreement, such as with the Multidisciplinary Drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate – MOSAiC – project starting in 2019 with more than 120 M Euros across the international consortium. This session also builds on earlier dialogues, including with the International Science Initiative in the Russia Arctic (ISIRA) in Moscow (November 2017) and in Davos (June 2018) as well as in the Ambassadorial Panel on Arctic Science Diplomacy at the 2018 UArctic Congress last month in Oulu, leading into the 2nd Arctic Science Ministerial next week. The Arctic Science Agreement has the potential to be international, interdisciplinary and inclusive (aspiring to be holistic), bridging the natural sciences and social sciences as well as indigenous knowledge with their different methodologies, all of which reveal patterns and trends that are the bases for informed decision-making – integrating questions, data, evidence and options with science as the ‘study of change.’ Importantly, the Arctic Science Agreement reflects a common interest to enhance scientific cooperation even when diplomatic channels among nations are unstable, recognizing first "the importance of maintaining peace, stability, and constructive cooperation in the Arctic.” Such science diplomacy underlies decisions about governance mechanisms and built infrastructure that require close coupling to achieve progress with sustainable development, which is recognized as a ‘common Arctic issue’ by the eight Arctic states and six Indigenous peoples organizations in the Ottawa Declaration that established the Arctic Council in 1996. Translating the general language of the Arctic Science Agreement into enhanced action, however, requires continuous collaboration among diplomatic and scientific communities. This panel is at the early stages of this journey. Each of the panellists will provide 3-minute opening remarks with their written versions to be compiled in a publication of Science Diplomacy Action as a legacy of this dialogue. Following these opening interventions, there will be interactions among the panelists followed by their exchanges with the audience. The Arctic Science Agreement is a special step into OUR COMMON FUTURE with hope and inspiration across generations. It now gives me great pleasure to introduce the panelists in the order of their presentations.

Science Diplomacy

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olga Krasnyak ◽  
Pierre-Bruno Ruffini
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Early Years ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Global Public Good ◽  
Scientific Cooperation ◽  
Global Issues ◽  
Science Diplomacy ◽  
Policy Objectives ◽  
International Scientific Cooperation

Science diplomacy emerged in the early years of the 21st century as a new vocabulary and a new concept in international relations, although the practice of science diplomacy has deep historical roots and various forms that were not labeled as such before. Science diplomacy refers to professional practices at the intersection of the world of science and that of diplomacy. It is also a subject of study that gives rise to a scholarly literature. Basically, the rationale of science diplomacy is twofold: advancing a country’s national interest and addressing global challenges. Science diplomacy encompasses a great range of activities to promote and secure a state’s foreign policy objectives and of activities to secure global public good at the transnational level, such as using scientific advice and expertise, enabling international scientific cooperation, bringing scientists on board of diplomatic negotiations, or appointing science attachés to embassies. International scientific cooperation is sometimes confused in the discourse with science diplomacy. However, if scientific cooperation is possible only with diplomatic assistance, serves a nation-state’s foreign policy objectives, promotes national interests, or aims to address global issues, then it is science diplomacy. Otherwise, it is not. Science diplomacy is also closely related to a state’s political system and beliefs because the effective use of science diplomacy contributes a great deal to a state’s power and influence in world politics and in international relations, and it helps to generate soft power of attraction and cooperation. A few notable institutions are active in science diplomacy, promote international dialogue on global issues, disseminate practices, and take part in the debate of the science diplomacy concept. They include the Center for Science Diplomacy of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the International Network for Government Science Advice (INGSA), and the Science Diplomacy Center of Tufts University, and multilateral scientific organizations, such as the International Institute for Applied System Analysis, the International Science Council, and the Science Diplomacy Thematic Network at the University of the Arctic. National and international academies of sciences sometimes intervene in this debate. Professional literature on science diplomacy is abundant and academic literature is growing as well, which has not led, however, so far to the emergence of a genuine theory of science diplomacy. This article aims to guide readers in their comprehension of science diplomacy and of the related debates through a selection of sources that shed light on science diplomacy both in theory and in practice from various viewpoints.

William Scoresby as an Arctic physical oceanographer

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Leah Devlin
Keyword(s):  
Deep Water ◽  
Water Movement ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Water Currents ◽  
Arctic Regions ◽  
European Arctic ◽  
North Polar ◽  
The Times ◽  
Personal Library ◽  
Arctic Science

Encouraged by naturalists Robert Jameson and Joseph Banks, whaler William Scoresby became an expert on the natural and physical processes at work in the European Arctic. Original letters between Scoresby and these naturalists, housed in the archive of the Whitby Literary and Philosophical Society (Yorkshire, England), document in the language of the times his biological observations and experiments in physical oceanography. Scoresby's researches resulted in An Account of the Arctic Regions, with a History and Description of the Northern Whale-fishery in 1820, which became a seminal work in Arctic science. Among the prescient observations in An Account of the Arctic Regions was a description of deep strata of water, under currents moving in different directions from the surface. A copy of An Account of the Arctic Regions was given as a gift to Norwegian scientist-explorer Fridtjof Nansen in 1897 upon the completion of the Fram expedition (1893–1896) and still resides in his personal library in Norway. In it is an underlined passage, suggesting that Nansen had read the whaler's book, perhaps in preparation for writing his own volumes on Arctic science, The Norwegian North Polar Expedition, 1893–1896 (1900–1906). Then, by inference, Nansen had been familiar with Scoresby's description of the under currents. In The Norwegian North Polar Expedition Nansen wrote that he had observed similar patterns of deep-water movements during the Fram expedition. This phenomenon must have perplexed him, because he posed the problem to the Swedish mathematician-oceanographer Vagn Walfrid Ekman, who mathematically described the water movement. Ekman's resulting model, a spiral staircase of descending deep-water currents, became known as the Ekman Spiral.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document