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.

scholarly journals Training Skills with Common-Interest Building

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-65
Author(s):  
Paul Arthur Berkman ◽  
Alexander Vylegzhanin
Keyword(s):  
Arctic Ocean ◽  
Time Scales ◽  
Common Interest ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
Graduate Course ◽  
Science Diplomacy ◽  
The Arctic Ocean ◽  
Holistic Integration ◽  
Foreign Ministries

This fourth Synthesis of the Science Diplomacy Action series involves that pedagogy of common-interest building among allies and adversaries alike as a negotiation skill to apply, train and refine. This serial edition also represents a journey with science diplomacy and its engine of informed decisionmaking among friends who facilitated the first formal dialogue between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Russia regarding security in the Arctic, which we co-directed at the University of Cambridge in 2010. The starting point for that NATO-Russia dialogue was science diplomacy, as an holistic (international, interdisciplinary and inclusive) process to balance national interests and common interests for the benefit of all on Earth across generations. Operation of this holistic process became clear in 2016 during the 1st International Dialogue on Science and Technology Advice in Foreign Ministries, when the ‘continuum of urgencies’ was identified from security time scales (mitigating risks of political, economic, cultural and environmental instabilities that are immediate) to sustainability time scales (balancing economic prosperity, environmental protection and societal well-being across generations). The following year, the theoretical framework of informed decisionmaking – operating across a ‘continuum of urgencies’ short-term to long-term – emerged with the case study published in Science about the 2017 Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation, which has entered into force among the eight Arctic states. With continuing acceleration, in 2020, Springer published the first volume in the new book series on INFORMED DECISIONMAKING FOR SUSTAINABILITY. The graduate course on “Science Diplomacy: Environmental Security and Law in the Arctic Ocean” was introduced in 2016 with the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, involving a Mock Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting as the culminating synthesis with the Student Ambassadors. Framed around their working papers for the Mock Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting, the Student Ambassadors negotiated a declaration, which they adopted by consensus and signed at end of that first semester. In subsequent years, additional holistic integration exercises were introduced into the course, including the Common-Interest Building – Training Game with the pedagogy of the seventeen United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, each of which has international, interdisciplinary and inclusive relevance at local-global levels (APPENDIX 1: Syllabus – Spring 2020). From 2017 through 2020, the graduate course was expanded to Science Diplomacy: Environmental Security and Law in the Arctic Ocean, involving The Fletcher School in Medford (Massachusetts, United States) and the International Law Programme at MGIMO University in Moscow (Russian Federation). Building on a Memorandum of Understanding between our institutions, this joint video-conferencing course was approved by the Russian Ministry of Education and involved Carnegie Corporation of New York funding that was directed by Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman, contributing to the soon-to-be Russia and Eurasia Program at The Fletcher School. Each year, Student Ambassadors from the United States and Russian Federation adopted and signed joint declarations by consensus, as an exercise in common-interest building. Results of training skills with common-interest building are reflected herein with the compilation of consensus declarations crafted by the Student Ambassadors in their Mock Arctic Council Ministerial Meetings from 2016 to 2020. The essence of common-interest building is to make inormed decisions that operate across time in view of urgencies, short-term to long-term, tactical and strategic. Urgencies are embedded across diverse time scales with local-global relevance, as demonstrated by accelerating impacts through: month-years with our global pandemic; years-decades with high technologies; and decades-centuries with global human population size and atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentration in our Earth system. The underlying process of informed decisionmaking involves holistic integration with science as the ‘study of change’, revealed with the natural sciences and social sciences as well as Indigenous knowledge, all of which characterize patterns, trends and processes (albeit with different methods) that become the bases for decisions. Contributing with research and action, the institutions involved with decisionmaking produce: governance mechanisms (laws, agreements and policies as well as regulatory strategies, including insurance, at diverse jurisdictional levels); and built infrastructure (fixed, mobile and other assets, including communication, observing, information and other systems that require technology plus investment). Coupling of governance mechanisms and built infrastructure contributes to progress with sustainability, which were weaved throughout the course with the Arctic Ocean as a case study. Outcomes of the joint-video conferencing course between The Fletcher School and MGIMO University have accelerated globally into the training initiatives with diplomatic schools among foreign ministries as well as with the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). Our hope is science diplomacy and its engine of informed decisionmaking will lead to lifelong learning across the jurisdictional spectrum with its subnational-national-international legal levels for the benefit of all on Earth across generations.

scholarly journals Arktisk råds rolle i polarpolitikken

Nordlit ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Torbjørn Pedersen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Arctic Ocean ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Arctic Ocean ◽  
Foreign Policies

This article discusses what role(s) member governments want the Arctic Council to have in Arctic affairs. It compares the foreign policies of the five littoral states of the Arctic Ocean: Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the United States. It identifies and examines three determining debates on a ministerial level over the Arctic Council and the issues it might address: The first debate preceded the Arctic Council's creation in 1996; the second thrived as the five Arctic littoral states convened in Ilulissat, Greenland in 2008; and the third followed a political shift inthe United States in 2009.

scholarly journals Is It Time for a Reset in Arctic Governance?

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (16) ◽  
pp. 4497 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oran R. Young
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
The United States ◽  
Global Scale ◽  
Peripheral Region ◽  
Great Power ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
Ground Zero ◽  
Regime Complex

Conditions in the Arctic today differ from those prevailing during the 1990s in ways that have far-reaching implications for the architecture of Arctic governance. What was once a peripheral region regarded as a zone of peace has turned into ground zero for climate change on a global scale and a scene of geopolitical maneuvering in which Russia is flexing its muscles as a resurgent great power, China is launching economic initiatives, and the United States is reacting defensively as an embattled but still potent hegemon. This article explores the consequences of these developments for Arctic governance and specifically for the role of the Arctic Council. The article canvasses options for adjusting the council’s membership and its substantive remit. It pays particular attention to opportunities for the council to play a role in managing the increasingly complex Arctic regime complex.

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.

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

Arctic Ocean Management and Indigenous Peoples: Recent Legal Developments

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-120
Author(s):  
Nigel Bankes
Keyword(s):  
Arctic Ocean ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Scientific Cooperation ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
Central Arctic Ocean ◽  
Polar Code ◽  
Ocean Management ◽  
Marine Areas ◽  
Maritime Search And Rescue

This article examines recent legal developments in the management of human activities in Arctic marine areas and considers the extent to which these developments acknowledge or recognize the rights, roles and interests of Arctic Indigenous peoples. These developments include the negotiation of three treaties under the auspices of the Arctic Council: the Agreement on Cooperation on Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue in the Arctic, (Arctic SAR Agreement), the Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Spill Preparedness and Response in the Arctic (Arctic MOSPA), and the Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation (Arctic Science Agreement), the adoption of the Polar Code by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and, most recently, the signature of the Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean (the CAOF Agreement). It also examines more recent practice under the Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears (ACPB).

scholarly journals International Arctic Scientific Cooperation: Institutionalization of the Legal Regime

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (9) ◽  
pp. 120-130
Author(s):  
N. A. Sokolova
Keyword(s):  
Arctic Region ◽  
Scientific Data ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Adaptation To Climate Change ◽  
Scientific Cooperation ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
Research Activities ◽  
Technological Cooperation ◽  
Integral Process ◽  
International Scientific Cooperation

Ensuring security in the Arctic in various areas and the need for a better understanding of the natural processes occurring in this region require intensification of scientific and technological cooperation, which opens up opportunities for closer interaction to solve other problems, for example, environmental protection, adaptation to climate change, safe maritime navigation and so on. Scientific and technological cooperation in the Arctic is carried out in various formats. The Arctic Council continues to play a peculiar coordinating role in international scientific cooperation, which has proposed various initiatives related to the development of scientific cooperation. The author emphasizes the implementation of scientific cooperation in the context of the scientific diplomacy development as an integral process in the information society, when scientific data is important for diplomatic activity, when diplomacy provides conditions for the development of international scientific cooperation, and finally, when science affects the vectors of cooperation, ensuring the solution of problems in various areas. Particular attention is given to the analysis of the 2017 Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation, since the problems existing in the Arctic region require coordinated and carefully planned collective actions. Issues related to the types of research activities, the specifics of the spatial scope of the Agreement and access to the established geographical areas are considered. Finally, some conclusions are proposed regarding the assessment of the Agreement. The agreement improves the quality of the legal environment for all 8 Arctic states simultaneously in terms of scientific cooperation, taking into account the relevant provisions of international law, including those related to marine scientific research.

scholarly journals International legal treaty as a basis for scientific cooperation in the Arctic regions

2021 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 00051
Author(s):  
O Maksimova ◽  
A Armashova
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Modern World ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Scientific Cooperation ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
Arctic Regions ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Main Instrument

The paper analyzes international treaties related to the activities of states in the Arctic regions. These treaties constitute the legal basis for scientific cooperation. Due to the threat of climate change and global warming, the preservation of the Arctic ecosystem is becoming one of the urgent tasks for global scientific community. Russia, with its vast Arctic territories, can play a key role in joining the efforts of scientists from different countries. In the modern world, international cooperation is impossible without the established system of international legal treaties. The main instrument of international law for cooperation in the Arctic is the 1982 UN Convention on the Law Of the Sea. The success of scientific events in the Arctic depends on the results of the activities of the Arctic Council and on the effectiveness of activities, including research during the implementation of the Strategy for the Development of the Arctic Zone of the Russian Federation.

The Arctic: Press, Policy and the Arctic Council

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-38
Author(s):  
Yelena Yermakova
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Media Coverage ◽  
New York Times ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Press ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Media

The changing situation in the Arctic due to global warming has prompted media coverage of a supposed “scramble for the Arctic,” an “Arctic boom,” or an “Arctic Bonanza.” Some even go further, deploying the rhetoric of a “New Cold War,” predicting an inevitable clash between the United States and Russia over interests in the region. The press coverage in both countries over the past decade reflects this new sensationalism. The academic literature unequivocally confirms that the press exerts substantial influence on governmental policy makers, and vice versa. However, while scholars agree that international organizations (IOs) are essential to shaping policies, the existing literature lacks research on media’s relationship with IOs, which often struggle to obtain the coverage and publicity they deserve. The Arctic Council has provided an effective platform for constructive dialogue and decision making involving the USA and Russia. Accordingly, despite disagreements in other regions of the world, the two global powers have managed to cooperate in the Arctic – notwithstanding recent media coverage painting a different and incomplete picture. This project surveys the media coverage of the Arctic over the past decade in Russia and the USA and its correlation with the Arctic Council’s activities. The analysis draws upon two prominent news organizations in Russia (Kommersant and Izvestiya) and two in the USA (the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal), as well as the Arctic Council’s press releases from June 2006 to June 2017. The paper finds that there is a clear disconnect between media coverage of the region and the Arctic Council’s activities. It recommends that the media pay more attention to the organization, particularly since it is the only prominent platform for international cooperation in the Arctic.

“All for Each and Each for All”: Reflections on Anglo-American and Commonwealth Scientific Cooperation, 1940–1945

1994 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roy MacLeod
Keyword(s):  
Atomic Bomb ◽  
Raw Materials ◽  
The United States ◽  
Academic Science ◽  
Sensitive Information ◽  
Jet Engines ◽  
Scientific Cooperation ◽  
Science Diplomacy ◽  
Limited Application ◽  
Anglo American

Twice this century, the wartime mobilization of civilian academic science has been rightly recognized as one of the most remarkable achievements of Britain, the Commonwealth, and the United States. If the first world war demonstrated the Empire's “strength in unity,” the second placed far greater demands on Allied and imperial resources in research, development, and supply. Where the first war witnessed a limited application of scientific advice, on request, and in response to limited problems, the second saw scientists and engineers develop an enormous range of technologies, frequently ahead of military requirements. In the course of the scientific war, new principles of liaison emerged, replacing peacetime practices of professional and institutional coordination. Imperial relations fostered by peacetime bureaux devoted to natural products and industrial research were overtaken by new, larger, and more powerful ministries devoted to supply and production. In certain respects, the demands of science began to drive imperial policy, weaving a fabric of relationships that survived to influence Commonwealth and international science diplomacy well after the war had ended.At an official level, these were among the most apparent outcomes of imperial science at war. The principal technical results of Allied collaboration—in radar, jet engines, the atomic bomb, for example—are well known. However, beneath myriad homerics of technical and organizational triumphs resides an equally important legacy of imperial rhetoric, symbol, and metaphor, in which the discourses of imperial science and commonwealth became re-examined and revalorized. The respective roles of the “metropolis” and the “periphery”—the geometries of Empire—were redefined by decisions that governed the supply of raw materials, the sharing of sensitive information, and the development of weapons.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document