On December 3, 2019, many polar academics and participants of this year’s Polar Law Symposium held at the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (University of Tasmania) in Hobart attended the double special session on Arctic legal and policy research. This special session was co-organized by Kobe University’s Polar Cooperation Research Centre (PCRC) and the Arctic Challenge for Sustainability (ArCS), Japan’s flagship programme for Arctic research with the financial support from JSPS KAKEN-HI, and Kobe University Center for Social Systems Innovation (KUSSI). Chaired by PCRC Director and Professor of International Law at Kobe University’s Graduate School of International Cooperation Studies, Prof. 
Dr. 
After this excellent summary of Arctic legal research in Japan by Dr. Nishimoto, Dr. 
In the last presentation of the first panel aptly titled “Arctic challenge for sustainability,” Dr. 
The presentations were followed by an interesting panel discussion. Dr. Nishimoto reemphasized the need for increased cooperation between different research fields in developing the next phase of ArCS in order to have a better policy-law- science nexus in Arctic research both within and outside Japan. Dr. Joona stressed that adaptive governance enables to respond to the severe consequences of changes in the Arctic. She further pointed out the need to balance the opportunities and challenges. Ultimately, she concluded that it is not because there are economic opportunities that one should take them. Opportunities should be balance in light of the negative impacts they create. Answering a question from the audience, she gave the example of windmill development in Northern Finland. At first windmills can be seen as a positive development toward renewable energy. However, in the area where there are being developed, they disrupt traditional reindeer herding practices. A question was then raised about the change in the role of science within Central Arctic Fisheries Agreement. According to Dr. Baker, there is a commitment in the CAOFA to sustainability and precaution which is more explicit than in other regional fisheries management organizations. Nonetheless, a greater inclusion of indigenous knowledge is needed in the CAOFA. It has also been mentioned during the panel discussion that search and rescue, emergency, preparedness and response are covering the legal perspective. 
After a morning tea break in the beautiful IMAS gallery with a view of Hobart harbor in the background, the PCRC-ArCS special session reconvened in Aurora for its second panel. Senior Fellow at Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, Dr. 
Following Dr Cheng, Ms. 
The next presentation was a collaborative research between Mr. 
Ms. 
The session concluded with a productive discussion between Akiho Shibata, the panellists and the audience about the future of Japan’s Arctic research and the role of ArCS. The discussion started with a question on how Japan can contribute to the Polar Silk Road initiative. There needs to be an increase in trilateral cooperation between China, Japan and the Republic of South Korea. It is important for the three countries to understand common needs and objectives regarding the future of the Arctic, especially when it comes to shipping. Furthermore, cooperation can also be fostered through respective national involvement and areas of interests within Arctic research. As the Polar Silk Road is being developed, it is also important to take into account and to counter its potential negative effects on indigenous peoples and communities in different fields, such as conservation issues. There is a need to build channels for cooperation and make sure that indigenous peoples are not negatively affected by development of new shipping routes. Increased cooperation between researchers and indigenous communities enables reaching common understandings. The discussion also turned to Japan’s role at the Arctic Council. At present, Japan targets specific working groups. Research programs such as ArCS can create linkages between participation, involvement and research. Strategic involvement and engaging in other working groups can broaden the scope of understanding because every field of Arctic is interconnected. For example, this can be as simple as sending Japanese experts to Arctic Council’s WGs. ArCS could also help in engaging with AC Permanent Participants and do research with Indigenous researchers. Furthering the discussion on MPAs, Ms. Tugend stressed that the NMCA in Lancaster Sound could support positive social, cultural and economic changes within the Inuit communities. She further pointed out that the cooperative management of the area could be the way to ensure that the rights of the Inuit people are respected, and that the diversity of interests within the Nunavut communities is taken into account. Ultimately, Ms. Tugend brought to light that the efficiency of the cooperative management board needs to be tested in practice. Ms. Carlton argued that lawyers and natural scientists collaborate in order to create knowledge that can be used by policy makers. Furthermore, she held that there is a need to focus on the inclusion of indigenous peoples within the production of this knowledge. Research projects such as ArCS can enable this kind of inclusion through bringing different epistemic communities together.
On December 17, 
Following this opening session, the first keynote speaker, Professor 
The symposium reconvened in the afternoon as session two shifted the focus to the human and social dimensions of achieving sustainability. Dr. 
The second day of the symposium (December 18) started with session three on achieving sustainability from a business and economic dimension. The first keynote , Mr. 
Shifting the focus towards international and economic law, session three’s first panel speaker, Prof. 
The final session concluded this year’s symposium as keynote speaker Prof. 
On December 7-9, 2017, Polar Cooperation Research Centre (PCRC) hosted its Third International Symposium, where leading international scholars in Polar Law, early career researchers from six different countries and Indigenous representatives have exchanged views on the role of external stakeholders in the Arctic Legal Order-making. Organized with four keynote speeches and six main sessions, the symposium aimed at engaging its participants in a robust discussion on the future of Arctic governance and on how Non-Arctic States and Actors can contribute to the creation of a comprehensive and sustainable Arctic legal order. 
Koji Sekimizu, Secretary-General Emeritus of the IMO, set the stage for the first session’s discussion about global Arctic shipping governance , with a keynote address on non-Arctic States contributions to the formation and implementation of the Polar Code, entered into force on January 2017. Following Sekimizu, Rasmus Bertelsen, Professor of UiT The Arctic University of Norway and JSPS invited fellow at the PCRC, reflected on the key role that epistemic communities play in building transnational knowledge networks and institutions, highlighting their importance in addressing the complexities of global Arctic shipping governance. Alexander Sergunin, Professor of St. Petersburg State University and the first of four discussants invited for this session, examined potential pathways for Japan-Russia cooperation in the implementation of the Polar Code. He further referred to the legislative changes required at the national level for a smooth operationalization of the International Code. In his presentation, Piotr Graczyk, a PhD research fellow at UiT, discussed Arctic shipping governance from an institutional perspective, identifying potential mechanisms for the interaction and communication between the Arctic Council and IMO. Following Graczyk, Kentaro Nishimoto, Associate Professor of Tohoku University, commented on the role of international law in adaptive global Arctic governance, underlying the structural challenges that the present legal regime on Arctic shipping faces in its interplay with unilateral and regional legal initiatives. Concluding the session with a look from the private sector, Captain Chin Eng Ang, Technical Director of the Singapore Shipping Association (SSA), assessed the economic viability and sustainability for Singapore’s business operators of complying with the Polar Code’s standards and regulation.
The second day of the Symposium opened with a session on Non-Arctic Influence on Arctic Customary Laws and Institutions. Hosting for the first time representatives of Indigenous communities, Dalee Dorough, Associate Professor at University of Alaska Anchorage, discussed the recognition and respect of Indigenous human rights norms as the basis for a genuine collaboration between Arctic Indigenous Peoples, and Arctic and non-Arctic stakeholders. Aytalina Ivanova and Florian Stammler, Research Docent at North Eastern Federal University and Professor at the University of Lapland respectively, pointed out that Non-Arctic influence in the region is historically rooted in an interest in resources. Referring to both the resettlement projects established throughout the Soviet era and the current influence of extractive companies in the Russian Arctic, the discussants reflected on the concept of reciprocity and the relations between the humans living in the Russian Arctic and newcomers. 
Session four built around a co-chaired and truly interdisciplinary panel focused on Policy-Relevant Science within the context of the Arctic, where different members of the ArCS project presented their insight on this topic. Malgorzata Smieszek, a researcher at the Arctic Centre, took on the task of introducing the concept of boundary organizations, setting the theoretical background underpinning the presentations of following discussants. PCRC director Akiho Shibata drew attention on the nexus policy-science and on how science and policy-making cycles interact. Finally, integrated by the contributions of Hajime Kimura, project engineer, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC) and Naomi Harada, deputy director of RCGC, JAMSTEC, the panel presented the progresses of their case study based on marine research activities and the use of Value Tree Analysis in the context of the Japanese Arctic policy.
The last day of the symposium began with the keynotes speeches of Keiji Ide, Japan’s Ambassador in Charge of Arctic Affairs, and Timo Koivurova, Director of the Arctic Centre, introducing a session on the role of observers in the Arctic Council. Referring to the contribution that Japan can make to Arctic cooperation, Ambassador Ide stressed the need for a close dialogue and coordination among external and internal stakeholders in the Arctic region as a necessary step to promote the formation of a unanimous legal order in the Arctic. Professor Koivurova gave an overview of the evolving governance landscape of the Arctic, particularly looking at how the participation of observers will be organized under the current Finnish Chairmanship. Following two keynote speeches, Sebastian Knecht, a fellow at the Berlin Graduate School for Transnational Studies, assessed the actual contributions of Non-Arctic States to the Arctic Council and its subsidiary bodies, taking AMAP as a case study. Once again providing a much needed institutional perspective, Piotr Graczyk discussed the relevance and application of the rules and procedures developed within the Arctic Council to accommodate new observers. Revisiting the Chinese engagement with the Arctic Council, Yuanyuan Ren, S.J.D. candidate at the University of Wisconsin Law School, argued that China could improve its role as an observer by paying closer attention to the work of the AC’s Working Groups and Task Forces and by organizing its delegation to the Council more accurately. The session concluded with the presentation of Marzia Scopelliti, a research fellow at PCRC, who addressed the contradictory case of the European Union as a de facto observer to the Arctic Council, not officially recognized as an observer but actively involved in the Council’s work and proceedings. 
The final session of the symposium focused on Asian States/Actors in the Arctic Legal Order-making. Aki Tonami, Associate Professor at the University of Tsukuba, introduced the role of Asian countries and stakeholders in developing an international normative and institutional framework for a stable Arctic, discussing the topic from an International Relations’ theory perspective. Jian Yang, Vice President of Shanghai Institute for International Studies, gave new keys for reading and interpreting the still-in-progress Chinese Arctic policy. The discussion concluded with the presentation of Wonsang Seo, a Principal Research Scientist of the Korea Polar Research Institute, who introduced Korea’s Arctic policy and positions on the Arctic Legal Oder-making, completing a sharp overview of the interests and potential contributions from the Asian States in a fast-changing and complex Arctic governance. Finally, congratulations to all GSICS PhD and Master’s students, who have tirelessly worked for a successful symposium!
Leading experts in Polar Law gathered at Kobe University on Jul 27-28 to discuss the future design of the Arctic Ocean Legal Order. Japan’s Ambassador in Charge of Arctic Affairs, Kazuko Shiraishi, gave the keynote address for the Centre’s second international symposium on Japan’s Arctic Policy and it’s challenges. With the topic of the symposium specifically on the future design of the Arctic Ocean legal order, the perspective from several of the Arctic ocean coastal states were represented including Russia, the US, Norway and Canada. Following Ambassador Shiraishi, JSPS invited fellow to the PCRC, Alexander Sergunin, presented on the Russian approaches to an emerging Arctic Ocean Legal Order. Paul Berkman, Director of 
Fujio Ohnishi, Assistant Professor at the College of International Relations at Nihon University, discussed his perspective on the new US led mode in the Arctic of “compartmentalized multilateralism” which Ohnishi characterized as a more pan-Arctic and inclusive leadership style in the Arctic. 
Session two focused on the Forums for the Arctic Ocean Legal Order-Making. Brian Israel, Legal Adviser for the U.S. Department of State, discussed his perspective on both the form and function in the future of Arctic marine cooperation by drawing on his experience as Co-Chair of the Arctic Council’s 
Morishita pointed out a rare development in global fisheries management happening in the Central Arctic Ocean where environmental protection measures and scientific research are preceding the development of commercial fisheries. Following Morishita, Tore Henriksen, a GSICS visiting professor from the University of Tromsø, took on the large task of covering institutional approaches to future governance of the Arctic Ocean. Henriksen drew attention to the need for more integrated and holistic approaches to governance by bridging sectors and jurisdictions through adopting an ecosystem management mindset to Arctic governance. Kamrul Hossain, Associate Professor from the Arctic Centre of the University of Lapland, discussed indigenous peoples and norm-making 
in the development of the Arctic legal regime. Hossain pointed out how the unique role of indigenous people as equal stakeholders in the consensus-based decision-making process of the Arctic Council has elevated the Arctic as an example of how indigenous people are increasing in influence in the international law-making process. 
Session three touched on the theme of Regionalism within Universalism. Opening the session, Viatcheslav Gavrilov, Professor from Far Eastern Federal University in Russia, discussed the need for a mix of Political and Legal instruments congruent with universal and regional regulation goals required to face the challenges of the future Arctic. Fresh from the most recent meeting on Arctic scientific cooperation held shortly before this symposium, PCRC director Akiho Shibata discussed preliminary details of the new treaty now under negotiation from the Arctic Council’s 
science and social science researchers. Takashi Kikuchi, Deputy Director for the Institute of Arctic Climate and Environment Research (IACE), JAMSTEC, provided much needed perspective from the natural sciences by describing the technology used for Arctic scientific observation as well as the challenges and opportunities for international scientific collaboration in the Arctic Ocean. 
The final main session of the symposium focused on Ecosystem Approaches. Betsy Baker, Professor at the Vermont School of Law in the United States, discussed a “Neighborhood Approach” to Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) in the Arctic. Baker drew attention to the concept of how a larger network of interrelated ecosystems can act as an Arctic-wide cooperation mechanism with co-benefits for the Arctic region. Following Baker, Suzanne Lalonde, Professor from the University of Montreal in Canada, discussed the challenges facing a Pan-Arctic Network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Based on her preliminary research on the topic, Lalonde advocated for action not just the establishment, but the development and ongoing management of Arctic MPAs. Lalonde’s research presented the group with a general discussion over the need to better define the various roles of MPAs as they are often misunderstood to the detriment of their use and effectiveness. 
To finish the fourth session, brief presentations were given by Assistant Professor of the PCRC, Osamu Inagaki, regarding the inter-Institutional collaboration between the ICES and the Arctic Council for ecosystem assessment in the central Arctic Ocean Ecosystem; and Associate Professor from Hokkaido University, Orio Yamamura, who discussed Japan’s research in the Arctic Ocean. 
The final portion of the symposium focused on the future of research and development. Co-chair of the IIASA Arctic Futures Initiative, Hannu Halinen, provided perspective from AFI for a holistic and global approach to more integrated Arctic future. The final speaker, Atsumu Ohmura, Chair of the ArCS Council and Professor emeritus from the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, gave the group a sobering picture of the climate crisis affecting the Arctic region, and concluded by stressing the need for further integration and understanding between the fields of natural and social sciences in order to addresses the urgent global climate crisis in the Arctic and beyond. 
On July 13, the PCRC convened an international seminar by Professor Alexander Sergunin, Visiting Professor of GSICS, entitled "Arctic Cooperation: Challenges and Opportunity." In the presentation, Professor Sergunin examined the negative impacts of the Ukranian Crisis on the Arctic cooperation including the activities of the Arctic council and the potential areas for future Arctic Cooperation. He also mentioned the possible strategies to achieve such cooperation. After this insightful presentation, the participants of the seminar actively engaged in discussion with Professor Sergunin. 
After Ambassador Halinen’s insightful overview of the significance and challenges of the Arctic Council in the Arctic legal-order making, the speakers and participants in the panel discussion came to share a view that the Arctic Council is now the only inter-governmental forum specifically dealing with Arctic issues but there are certain limits to what the Arctic Council can do, like Arctic high seas fisheries. It is also noted that Arctic Council members have different attitudes as to how non-Arctic States should be engaged in the work of the Arctic Council depending on the types of the meetings.
As to Professor Johnstone’s presentation touching on the soft normative instrument such as the black carbon & methane framework allowing non-Arctic States’ participation, a view was expressed that China’s involvement might become a key to its success. Professor VanderZwaag’s presentation focused on the possible future legal order on the Arctic Ocean fisheries initiated by the five Arctic coastal States, in comparison with the still hazy prospects of the 
Ocean-related legal order-making in one of the task force of the Arctic Council (TFAMC), whereas a scientist, Professor Hirawake, questioned the current commercial interest in the Arctic fisheries. An interesting insight was that there might be a possibility of establishing an Arctic Ocean Council, similar to the Arctic Economic Council. Director Shibata in his presentation argued that one of the emerging legal precepts that can be found in the negotiation of the agreement 
is that scientists and their scientific activities should be treated equally irrespective of their nationalities, while the closed nature of the agreement remains a challenge. Professor Nishimoto in his presentation observed that the polar code may serve an important role as “a reference point” in interpreting Article 234 of the UNCLOS. 
In the concluding panel discussion, the invited speakers generally supported the themes and approach of the Centre’s proposed Arctic legal order studies, while suggesting a few additional insights, such as considering the role of indigenous peoples in such order-making. During the conference reception, the speakers and participants continued the discussion in a more casual atmosphere, with Kobe beef and Fugu (blows fish) BBQ. 
April 8, 2022
The 14th Polar Law Symposium hosted by PCRC showcased pressing Arctic and Antarctic legal and policy challenges: The Blue Earth, from the poles, through the law.
specially produced by a calligrapher from Kyoto
PCRC was proud to host again the 14th Polar Law Symposium (PLS) in November 2021 in a hybrid format, with a total of 331 registered participants from around the world, and 54 live oral presentations and 13 online poster presentations. The Planning Committee was able to convene special sessions composed of experts from Japan, participating at the venue, and from abroad through the online platform, on many of the pressing legal and policy challenges facing both the Arctic and the Antarctic. It is noteworthy that the United States-based influential think-tank, Wilson Center Polar Institute, had joined us as a co-sponsor. Its Senior Fellow, Mr. Evan Bloom, presented on “Southern Ocean Governance and Marine Conservation: A Polar Comparison” at a special session on “Polar Ocean Governance through the Two Marine Ecosystem/Fisheries Agreement”, and engaged in a discussion with Dr. Joji Morishita, who spoke on the Central Arctic Ocean agreement. Click here for the final program
.
"Protection and Promotion of Indigenous Peoples Rights:
Looking at Japan and Arctic Countries
One of the highlights of this symposium was the session focusing on the Arctic Indigenous Peoples and the Ainu: "Protection and Promotion of Indigenous Peoples Rights: Looking at Japan and Arctic Countries”. Due to high interests, this session was open to the public with English-Japanese simultaneous interpretation. Prof. Gudmundur Alfredsson, in his keynote speech, discussed a little-known and underdocumented United Nations Fact-Finding Mission to the Ainu in 1991, based on his personal experience and on the report produced by Chairperson Daes. A lively panel discussion followed, chaired by Prof. Yuko Osakada, with Prof. Kamrul Hossain, Dr. Kanako Uzawa, who is an Ainu herself, and Mr. Fumiya Nagai, an early-career cultural anthropologist, participating in person.
"Polar governance in the Anthropocene:
The case of ocean acidification "
Another highlight of the Symposium was an opening session based on natural and social scientists’ collaboration: “Polar governance in the Anthropocene: The case of ocean acidification”, chaired by Director Shibata. Prof. Tim Stephens, an international law expert on the issue, and Dr. Naomi Harada from Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology presented their latest findings in the scientific and governance developments in the polar regions. According to their presentations, the Arctic Council Working Groups have shown leadership in accumulating scientific knowledge and promoting governance directions. However, it became clear that it is still necessary to understand the complex scientific process of ocean acidification on a global scale and further elucidate its causes. In addition, the Antarctic governance to tackle ocean acidification should be strengthened. Based on this session, a 14 PLS fellow, Ms. Jen Evans has succeeded in producing an ArCS II International Law Briefing Paper Series: Fact Sheet No.7 (see the Fact Sheet here) .
Chaired by Prof. Hiroyuki Enomoto, the session on "Policy-Law-Science Nexus in the Arctic", addressed the Arctic Science Ministerial (ASM3) and Arctic Science Cooperation Agreement to see how those intergovernmental institutions can promote further cooperation and collaboration in the Arctic scientific endeavors. Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman from Harvard University, Prof. Alexander Sergunin from St. Petersburg State University, and Director Shibata presented their cases and discussed the possible synergistic effects between ASM and the Arctic Scientific Cooperation Agreement.
“Polar Governance for the Blue Earth:
Messages from Biodiversity COP15 and Climate COP26”
The closing session was closely linked to the main theme of the Symposium: “Polar Governance for the Blue Earth: Messages from Biodiversity COP15 and Climate COP26”, chaired by Prof. Timo Koivurova. Prof. Nengye Liu presented on the messages from COP15 held in China, and Prof. Hitomi Kimura on the messages from COP26 held in Glasgow, UK. Although climate and biodiversity crisis are particularly severe in the Arctic regions, their presentations alarmed that both global conferences had shown little attention to the region. Mr. Arsenii Kirgizov-Barskii, another 14 PLS fellow and an early-career scholar from MGIMO, Russia, reported on this session and made his own analysis of the issue (see his report from here) .
Other 14 PLS fellows who assisted the Symposium were: Ms. Angela Wang (Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada); Mr. Apostolos Tsiouvalas (The Arctic University of Norway), Ms. Ekaterina Antsygina (Queen’s University), Mr. Raphael Oidtmann (Goethe University Frankfurt am Main), Mr. Pavel Devyatkin (The Arctic Institute). The presentations during the 14 PLS will be published in the Yearbook of Polar Law vol.14, its special editors being Director Shibata and Dr. Yelena Yermakova, PCRC Senior Research Fellow (November 2021 - August 2022).
<Relevant Information>
14th Polar Law Symposium
<https://www.research.kobe-u.ac.jp/gsics-pcrc/2021polarlawsymposium.org// >
March 19, 2021
At the 13th Polar Law Symposium, many issues and approaches identified as our future research agenda for ArCS II International Law Research Program .
Thanking the 354 registered participants
and welcoming again at 2021 14th PLS.
The Polar Law Symposium (PLS) is the one and only annual academic gathering specifically addressing polar legal and policy issues. For the first time in its 13-year history , PLS has come to Asia as Professor Akiho Shibata, the Principal Investigator of ArCS II Research Program on International Law (2020-25), convened its 13th Symposium from 9-30 November 2020, held entirely online due to COVID-19. 13th PLS was logistically supported by Kobe University Polar Cooperation Research Centre (PCRC), where Professor Shibata serves as its Director. The Planning Committee of the Symposium consisted of Japanese and international experts representing diverse fields, including Professor Enomoto, a glaciologist, from NIPR, who is the Project Director of ArCS II, and Professors Nishimoto and Osakada, who are the members of ArCS II International Law Research Program. The 13 PLS program from its initial planning phase incorporated the intention of the organisers in contributing also to the research agenda of ArCS II (see the final program ). The PLS has a long-standing culture of encouraging the academic engagement of early-career scholars in polar law, which is shared also by the objective of ArCS II. Thus, under the funding from ArCS II and other sponsors, Kobe PCRC was able to provide fellowships to 17 early-career scholars selected based on their abstracts. The fellows assisted the Planning Committee in establishing the panels, organizing and chairing online seminars, and drafting reports. One such fellow was Dr. Kanako UZAWA, one of the very few researchers with Ainu origin and a doctoral student from UiT Arctic University of Norway, and also a research collaborator in ArCS II International Law Research Program. She made an oral presentation on “Peoples of the North: Ainu in Japan and Sami in Norway”. Her research made it clear that the studies on Arctic indigenous peoples would contribute to the betterment of the life of Ainu people in Hokkaido, Japan.
Under ArCS II, an interdisciplinary approach linking natural sciences with international legal and policy studies to achieve Arctic sustainability is strongly promoted. An effort to apply such interdisciplinary methods was made in a Panel on Policy-Law-Science Nexus in Polar Regions, co-convened by Professor Shibata (international lawyer) and Professor Enomoto (glaciologist), with four online seminars under it. One seminar examined the drafting process and its institutional settings of the 2019 IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere , where two insiders, Professor Sandra Cassotta (lawyer) from Aalborg University, Denmark, and Professor Enomoto, presented their experiences in drafting this influential report. Through the presentations and discussion
, it has come to our knowledge that, within the legal and procedural framework, the scientific knowledge would need to be reflected in the final report maintaining a delicate balance between scientific objectivity and political considerations of the governments. Another seminar focused on the updates of the work and agenda of the Arctic Council. Under ArCS II, Japanese government and scientists try to contribute towards the Arctic sustainable development through their engagements in AC Working Groups. In this context, Dr. Gosia Smieszeck’s presentation on the recent changes in the AC work culture was particularly important. She argued that the work culture of the AC has recently been changing from original “bottom-up approach” to recent “top-down approach”, between the Working Groups, science-oriented bodies at the bottom, and the Senor Arctic Officials (SAO) and Ministerial Meetings, policy-oriented bodies at the top. Professor Shibata, with two early-career scholars from China and Korea, made a joint presentation on the Arctic Science Cooperation Agreement, and its recent practice regarding its Conference of the Parties (COP), the Agreement’s implementation forum. It has come to our knowledge that we need to carefully monitor the practice under COP in order for the Asian countries and their scientists to contribute in the Agreement’s implementation, taking into consideration also the needs of non-Arctic states and their scientists. Professor Kobayashi, an ArCS II International Law Research Program member, made a presentation, along with two other early-career scholars, on how scientific and technological advancements would affect the formation and interpretation of international law applicable in the Arctic.
Another interesting interdisciplinary event was a live open lecture on “Plastic Arctic: How does law deal with the emerging threat of Arctic plastic pollution”, by Dr. Seita Romppanen of Eastern Finland University. This event was co-convened by ArCS II Research Programs on International Law and Marine Sciences, the latter led by Dr. Eiji Watanabe of JAMSTEC. A discussant in the lecture was Dr. Junko Toyoshima of Ocean Policy Research Institute of Sasagawa Peace Foundation, a research collaborator in the Marine Sciences Research Program, where she introduced her recent experience in monitoring marine plastics onboard the Japanese research vessel MIRAI in October 2020. After a lively discussion among the panelists and with the floor, Kobe PCRC, led by Seninor Research Fellow, Dr. Kie Abe, decided to draft a Fact Sheet based on this lecture.
only peer-reviewed yearbook
in the area of polar law.
From 2020 Professor Shibatais
co-editor-in-chief.
During the 13 PLS, Professor Kentaro Nishimoto of NIPR has organized three online live seminars under the Panel on the Future of Arctic Ocean Governance, with several important topics of interests also for Japanese industries and businesses, such as the regulation of the Northern Sea Routes, Arctic shipping, and the legal framework for Arctic Ocean governance. Professors Makoto Seta of Yokohama City University and Yurika Ishii of National Defense Academy have made their oral presentations. Another interest for Japanese industries and businesses was a Panel on Resource Development and Indigenous Peoples in the Arctic, co-convened by Dr. Osamu Inagaki, Researcher at Kobe PCRC and Dr. Mami Furuhata, Assistant Professor at Kobe PCRC. Professor Yuko Osakada of Chukyo University has organized a Panel on Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the Arctic and held three online seminars before, during and after the Symposium. During the 5-year period of ArCS II, it is expected that International Law Research Program will hold an international workshop focusing on Arctic Ocean governance in 2022 and one focusing on Arctic indigenous peoples and sustainable development in 2023, before concluding with a wrap up international symposium in 2024. Kobe PCRC will host again the 14th Polar Law Symposium in 2021 and maintain the academic and personal connections established through 13 PLS to further elaborate the research agenda under ArCS II.
The academic presentations during the 13 PLS can be published, after rigorous peer review, in the Yearbook of Polar Law . It is expected some of the presentations made by our Japanese colleagues will be submitted to the Yearbook for possible publication. It is also important that the research outputs from ArCS II be published in well-known international journals, so as to appeal our research in the international academic circles. Professor Shibata has become a co-editor-in-chief of Yearbook of Polar Law from its 12th volume in 2020.
<Relevant Information>
Article by Mami FURUHATA, in Current Developments in Arctic Law
<https://lauda.ulapland.fi/handle/10024/64489 >
Official website of the 13th Polar Law Symposium
<https://2020polarlawsymposium.org >
March 5, 2020
International Seminar on Arctic Commons, Arctic Council and Indigenous Peoples
This seminar is the finale of the Arctic legal and policy studies at Polar Cooperation Research Centre (PCRC) under the first phase of ArCS project 2015-20. Utilising the international research network that PCRC was able to establish during the period, Arctic law and policy experts and early-career scholars from Russia, Canada, Finland, Norway, United Kingdom and Japan gathered at Kobe University, Japan, to discuss the sustainable use of the Arctic ocean and its resources, the institutional developments of the Arctic Council, and the engagement of Arctic Indigenous Peoples in such developments. This seminar was organised in response to the cancellation of the 6th International Symposium on Arctic Research (ISAR-6) in Tokyo due to the coronavirus outbreak.
The seminar was chaired by Director Akiho Shibata, and was attended by a conglomerate of international Arctic scholars and staff of PCRC and Graduate School of International Cooperation Studies (GSICS) of Kobe University. Lively discussions, which are the signature characteristic of the PCRC seminars and symposia, ensued in all presentations below.For the program, see this link.
Arctic Council
Natalia Loukacheva (University of Northern British Columbia, Canada; who was a participant in the first Arctic seminar held at Kobe University in April 2015) opened the seminar with a summary of the Arctic Council’s application of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). She highlighted that since its inception in 1996, the principle of sustainable development has been integral to the work of the Arctic Council. However, while there may be a normative reference to sustainable development in all of the Council’s different working groups and other sections, Loukacheva noted that it is the respective chairmanship which defines the emphasis of the 17 SDGs on which the Arctic Council bases its work during the chairmanship. Throughout the discussions that ensued it became clear that in many instances sustainable development is nothing more than a political catch phrase without larger implications. Still, the work of the Arctic Council should be applauded for its work to implement the SDGs.
Alexander Sergunin (St Petersburg State University, Russian Federation; who was the JSPS invited fellow received by PCRC in the summer 2016 and the visiting professor of GSICS in March 2020) presented his views on the impending Russian chairmanship of the Arctic Council, which it will take over from Iceland in 2021. Sergunin made clear that Russia will not intend to change the mandate or scope of the Arctic Council and that it will refrain from inserting hard (military) security into its work procedures. Instead, the Russian focus will rest on sustainable development, social cohesiveness and connectivity, climate change, science diplomacy and education, particularly through the University of the Arctic network. Sergunin presented two versions of Arctic Council reforms based on the Russian chairmanship. On the one hand, the moderate reform would see a strengthening of the Council’s budget, the strengthening of the Secretariat, coordination of implementing bodies and stronger linkages to other subregional Arctic bodies. A radical reform would see a much more coordinated scientific assessments on which policy decisions are based. In order to ensure proper implementation, also an implementation body would be established that would serve as a benchmark for the Council’s effectiveness.
In his presentation, Osamu Inagaki (Kobe University, Japan; who was the assistant professor and now a researcher at PCRC from 2016) considered the ecosystem approach and its application in the work of the Arctic Council. Within the work of the Council, ecosystem-based management (EBM) is defined to be integrated and comprehensive management of human activities. To this end, the Arctic Council’s work may alleviate the sectoral and jurisdictional fragmentation of the governance of human activities in the Arctic Ocean. Inagaki showed that throughout its existence, the Arctic Council has made only limited contributions to overcome the fragmentation of governance. Instead, the Council’s main contributions are based on the conceptual and scientific aspects of the ecosystem approach. He exemplified his findings by using the work of the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) Working Group.
Arctic Commons
Andreas Raspotnik (University of NORD, Norway) presented an Alaska-Norwegian project that dealt with the Arctic blue economy. This three-year project aims to tackle four elements related to the blue economy — governance, maritime transportation, energy, fisheries — and represents work on a rather new economic concept that has emerged since the Rio +20 conference in 2012. Raspotnik emphasised that the blue economy, contrary to the rather blurry notion of sustainable development, is a rather straight-forward concept since it maximises the economic value of the marine environment in a sustainable manner, seeks to promote economic growth, social inclusion, and the preservation or improvement of livelihood, and is a vision of improved wellbeing and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities. The concept of the blue economy is therefore also highly relevant for the Arctic due to the strong reliance of Arctic economies on the ocean. Exemplified by Arctic fisheries, Raspotnik showed how the blue economy can be used to measure different values of the Arctic and its resources.
Nikolas Sellheim (University of Helsinki, Finland; who was the JSPS postdoctoral fellow received by PCRC for one year from 2017-18) presented the different work areas of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and its relevance for Arctic whaling. While providing a broad overview of the IWC and the problems it has faced since the adoption of a moratorium on commercial whaling in 1982, he showed how Arctic whaling is marked by significant differences in perception by other nations: on the one hand, Arctic whaling is marked by aboriginal subsistence, which is perceived as being necessary and environmentally sound. On the other hand, Arctic commercial whaling, conducted by Iceland and Norway, is considered obsolete and environmentally harmful. While that may be so, the way forward in the IWC has become a matter of fundamental differences amongst its members: while some want to keep its mandate limited to whaling, others see it evolving towards a more integrated organisation dealing with issues of blue economy, climate change and whaling. Particularly in light of Japan’s withdrawal from the organisation in 2019, this issue will remain on the IWC’s agenda.
The last presentation was held byRomain Chuffart (Durham University, UK; who was a PCRC research fellow for 5 months in 2018-19). Chuffart dealt with the environmental impact assessments (EIA) in different Arctic jurisdictions. He showed that EIAs have been a rather fundamental aspect of modern Arctic cooperation, even before the establishment of the Arctic Council in 1996. While that may be so, Chuffart also showed that Arctic governance has merely provided guidance in applying EIAs across Arctic jurisdictions and that bodies such as the Arctic Council have thus far failed to provide for ‘harder’ legal instruments that would find their way into national law. Consequently, discussions arose around the question of how soft-law bodies such as the Arctic Council can contribute to making EIAs legally normative standards and how Arctic governance should respond in light of non-implementation of EIAs.
Russia’s Arctic Strategies: the prospects for international cooperation
A lecture on Russia’s Arctic Strategies was delivered by Prof Alexander Sergunin (St Petersburg State University, Russian Federation). Sergunin opened his seminar by presenting and rebutting stereotypes and myths on Russian Arctic policies, such as Russia being an expansionist power or Russia focusing on hard (military) security in the Arctic. He showed that Russia’s Arctic policies are driven by nuanced and well thought-through approaches to the Arctic, its environment and peoples and that Russian Arctic strategies are driven by climate change mitigation, by making it Russia’s strategic resources basis, by the need for implementing sustainable development in the Russian Arctic, and by making the Arctic a region of peace and international cooperation.
After all, Sergunin made clear that the state of the environment in the Russian Arctic is deeply concerning for the Russian government and the degree of pollution constitutes a threat to its integrity. He noted that a staggering 15% of the Russian Arctic territory is considered polluted or contaminated. In order to tackle these problems, it is in the Russian interest to primarily focus on soft security challenges rather than fostering military security. The main soft security challenges therefore relate to climate change, environmental protection and restoration, the livelihoods of indigenous peoples and nuclear safety. At the same time, sustainable development of the Russian Arctic ranges high on the Russian Arctic agenda. In order to achieve sustainable development, Russian priorities focus on economic, social and environmental aspects of sustainable development.
At the same time, also hard security issues play a role in Russian Arctic strategies. However, Sergunin showed that while in the past, Russian Arctic military capabilities were a response to the East-West conflict, the current military use is for the protection of regional economic players from a multitude of threats. This means also that numerically there is no military build-up in the Russian Arctic, but rather a modernisation of the Russian military to be able to respond to the current and emerging diverse threats. The functions of the Russian military in the Arctic are currently therefore:
(1) to ascertain coastal states’ sovereignty over their EEZs and continental shelves in the region, including disputable areas; (2) to protect the Arctic countries’ economic interests in the North, including mineral and bio-resources, fighting smuggling and poaching; (3) to be prepared to prevent potential terrorist attacks against critical industrial and infrastructural objects, including oil and platforms, nuclear plants, and nuclear waste storages; (4) to fulfil some dual-use functions, such as search and rescue operations, monitoring air and maritime spaces, providing navigation safety, and mitigating natural and man-made catastrophes; (5) to help the academic community in conducting Arctic research with its unique technical capabilities; and (6) to carry some symbolic functions.
In light of these new developments, the Russian government wishes to expand its cooperation with other Arctic actors on a multitude of issues. These include the finalisation and resolution of legal issues with Canada and Denmark on the Lomonosov Ridge and Mendeleev elevation, finding long-term regulations for traversing of the Northern Sea Route, harmonisation of nationallegislation in accordance with the Polar Code and making it transparent and understandable, and, more broadly, environmental protection and monitoring, search and rescue operations, and oil spills response and mitigating man-made disasters.
Sergunin concluded that the emerging Russian Arctic policy consensus is based on the assumption that the Arctic cooperative agenda could include the following areas: climate change mitigation, environmental protection, emergency situations, air and maritime safety (including the Polar Code implementation, charting safe maritime routes and cartography), search and rescue operations, Arctic research, indigenous peoples, cross- and trans-border cooperative projects, culture. Furthermore, it is likely that in the foreseeable future Moscow’s policies in the region will be predictable and pragmatic rather than aggressive or spontaneous. In contrast with the stereotype of Russia as a revisionist power in the North, Moscow will continue to pursue a double-faceted strategy in the region: On the one hand, Russia will continue to defend its legitimate economic and political interests in the region. On the other hand, Moscow is open to cooperation with foreign partners that are willing to partake in exploiting the North’s natural resources, developing sea routes and solving numerous socio-economic and environmental problems of the region.