Comparing the robustness of Arctic and Antarctic governance through the continental shelf submission process
The processes undertaken by Arctic states and Antarctic claimant states to submit data to theCommission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) demonstrates the robustness of polar governance. Therobustness of a governing system reflects its capacity to deal with emerging issues. For the purpo...
| Published in: | Polar Record |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press
2014
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247412000496 http://ecite.utas.edu.au/98869 |
| Summary: | The processes undertaken by Arctic states and Antarctic claimant states to submit data to theCommission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) demonstrates the robustness of polar governance. Therobustness of a governing system reflects its capacity to deal with emerging issues. For the purposes of this article,robustness comprises the effective protection of rights in the absence of prejudice and participant confidence. In theArctic, unilateral assertion of continental shelf entitlement can proceed due to the nature of the CLCS process andrecognition of sovereignty. Combined with the voluntary nature of Arctic governance, the process does not hampercooperation in scientific research, boundary delimitation or engagement in initiatives such as the Arctic Council. Inthe Antarctic, a coordinated approach to continental shelf delimitation protected claimant states entitlement to acontinental shelf and the right of other states not to recognise sovereignty. States demonstrated commitment to theAntarctic Treaty and acted according to accepted norms. Though different in structure, each polar governing systemhas its own characteristics of robustness. State authority drives participant confidence and regional cooperation in theArctic. In the Antarctic, norms of behaviour foster system legitimacy and resilience is reinforced by the consequencesof abandoning the system. With continued acceptance of the individual governing-system dynamics, emerging issuescan be accommodated in both polar regions. |
|---|