275
Arctic Yearbook 2015
chessboard. Interpretations of what a ‘common Arctic’ means diverge however greatly. The Arctic
states, interpreting the Arctic as a regional common, insist on their priority for geographical reasons
and related territorial sovereignty or sovereign rights. Non-Arctic states, for their part, construe the
Arctic, at least in some respects, as an international common, relying on resource-related or on
environment-related (quasi-)legal concepts.
As the legal analysis shows, the resource-related concept of common heritage of mankind is misguided
and misguiding, as it does not apply to the whole Arctic, but only to a marginal part of the central
Arctic Ocean. The environment-related concept of common concerns, is of uncertain legal status, but
might be a useful reminder that cooperation should be favoured to address the Arctic’s environmental
problems. However, the ongoing power game in the Arctic must be seen against the backdrop of
economic and geopolitical opportunities. Although environmental problems receive indeed much
attention in the current debate on Arctic governance, there is reason for concern that references to
environmental issues are mere tokenism. Only incisive decisions to address the Arctic’s environmental
problems and determined action to slow down global warming could prove wrong those who see in
the environmental arguments only a fig leaf in the struggle over influence and involvement in Arctic
issues.
This is not to say that a comprehensive cooperation scheme could not emerge from an environmentfocused collaboration. Given the frequent interrelation between environmental problems and
economic and geopolitical issues, the latter would inevitably have to be addressed, at least incidentally.
Whatever the scope of cooperation, however, Arctic States’ sovereignty and sovereign rights must be
respected. This means that measures related to international areas or activities require a different
approach than measures related to areas or activities subject to coastal states’ jurisdiction or
sovereignty. Nevertheless, the Arctic states would benefit from acknowledging non-Arctic states’
rights and legitimate interests. Regarding the protection of the Arctic environment, the duty of
cooperation on environmental matters and the concept of common concern provide good legal
arguments for an inclusive approach. In the context of ongoing negotiations for a new balance of
power in and over the Arctic region, the challenge for Arctic states is to not let their – of course vital
– awareness of non-Arctic states’ more self-serving interests stand in the way of cooperation. Whether
the Arctic Council provides the appropriate forum for broader and more inclusive cooperation and
whether such cooperation would benefit from a treaty-based approach instead of the prevailing ad
hoc approach are questions that are beyond the scope of this article, but no less relevant. What seems
important to note here is that there is more than one way to conceive of a ‘common Arctic’. Although
they may seem contradictory at first sight, these different approaches can be used in a complementary
manner. Indeed, ‘common’ does not necessarily entail identical status, rights and influence for the
interested states. A ‘common Arctic’ could be a fruitful project, if it means that interested states pursue
the shared goal of cooperating on Arctic issues in a peaceful, efficient, environmentally sound and
politically differentiated way.
The Common Arctic