 |
Current Issues
Is there a need for a comprehensive and integrated
Arctic regime similar to the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) that
has developed to govern the Circumpolar South? |
| |
While economists who employ the idea
of the unseen hand in thinking about the growth of markets and sociologists
concerned with the evolution of social practices are often quite
content with the notion of institutional arrangements developing
on their own, many lawyers and some political scientists believe
that there is a need to craft some comprehensive regime or, in other
words, a constitutional contract, for the Arctic treated as a distinct
region in international society. No doubt, the generally positive
experience with the creation and development of the ATS in the south
polar region lends credibility to the views of those who espouse
the formation of an Arctic Treaty System [14].
But is there a compelling need to move in this direction? And even
if the answer to this question is affirmative, is this the right
time to make such a move? In general terms, the case for a comprehensive
regime rests on the desire to avoid gaps and overlaps in Arctic
governance. The argument against such a move not only raises questions
about the seriousness of these problems but it also emphasizes the
transaction costs involved in creating a comprehensive regime for
the Arctic. The idea of creating such a regime has sufficient appeal
to ensure that it will not disappear from the Arctic agenda during
the foreseeable future [15]. But
the probability of significant progress toward this goal occurring
during the next decade is low. |
|
Previous
Chapter 