The world is getting hotter and hotter. The Geneva-based World Meteorological Organization’s report last January confirmed that 2024 was the warmest year on record. What’s even more startling is that the previous 10 years (2015-2024) were the warmest decade registered. We are feeling the heat, too. The National Institute of Fisheries Science of Korea reported that the country’s seawater in 2024 recorded the highest temperature (18.74 degrees Celsius) since 1968. No doubt climate change brings about grave consequences in every corner of the world.
Climate change has also reached far north, triggering unexpected consequences. Melting ice and thawing glaciers in the Arctic Ocean are making the once-prohibited northern sea area accessible and navigable. Arctic shipping has been increasing. Arctic natural resources are coming within reach.
Enter technology here. Satellite-enabled networks are facilitating government monitoring, regulation and enforcement. Underwater cables are being constructed as new critical infrastructure. Upgraded icebreaking and ice-strengthened vessels are joining industrial fleets.
All of a sudden, large swaths of the polar seas and land bordering them begin to carry a new meaning for global commerce and national security. I think the recent Greenland debate is the latest twist in the plot.
Well, the busy arctic area has its own supervising entity — the Arctic Council. It is a unique intergovernmental consultative body for the arctic area formed in 1996 by eight countries bordering the region: Norway, Canada, the United States, Russia, Denmark, Iceland, Finland and Sweden. Now, 30 years on and with global governance in chaos and multilateralism in crisis, the unique mode of business of the Arctic Council merits new attention at this juncture.
I believe it offers a clue to how to initiate and carry on global discussions on "rule-setting" projects in critical sectors. Many mention a “rules-based system” these days, but few say how to do the job — how to clarify the rules that already exist and how to adopt new ones for emerging sectors. Without operable rules at hand, a rules-based system is a hollow promise.
Granted, it should be noted that the Arctic Council’s future is rather uncertain at the moment. It has suffered a direct hit from the Russia-Ukraine war since February 2022. Among the Arctic Eight, seven are NATO members, and then there is Russia at the other end of the spectrum. So, meetings and projects were suspended in February 2022, some of which were only resumed in a limited fashion. Regardless of the future of the Arctic Council, the unique governance model it employs, together with the results it had achieved until the 2022 disruption, still offers a critical reference for our present endeavor to seek rule-setting in novel areas.
Here are a couple of unique traits of the Arctic Council:
As the name “council” suggests, the Arctic Council aims to be a "forum" for talk and solution. Yes, a low-key approach it is. It is light and nimble — it pursues project-oriented, practical solutions for pressing matters. Contrast this with many other international organizations that are established by treaties with heavy and binding obligations.
Besides, it broadly engages key stakeholders, both state and non-state actors. Thus, not only the Arctic Eight but also six groups of indigenous peoples participate in the council as permanent participants. Experts from the private sector are also brought on board, depending on the projects. And then there are other countries joining the council as observers, currently numbering 38, including China, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and Korea. So, different stakeholders’ different voices can be heard in the forum.
The flexibility, openness and inclusiveness of the arctic governance, freed from traditional tension and conventional seriousness common for matters of international concern, even coined the term “Arctic Exceptionalism” when the Arctic Council’s activities were robust before 2022.
Critically, in my view, the council’s hands-down, practical approach catalyzed its rule-setting projects too. It attempted to handle old rules and new rules in coordination. The existing international maritime law codified in the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea applies to the Arctic Ocean. At the same time, the harsh conditions of the polar waters also demand clarification and adjustment of the existing rules. As for new rules, the council introduced a series of "soft laws" in the form of best practices, guidelines and recommendations. Soft laws then sometimes evolved into hard laws as treaties: consider the three agreements on search and rescue (2011), oil pollution (2013) and scientific research (2017). One might call it a phased, "suite of rules" approach with various menus.
Now, the experience of the Arctic Council gives us a hint at what we can do in other sectors of acute concern. The trade regime is being pushed to the limit with tariffs and retaliations with no exit in sight. The digital economy is growing by leaps and bounds while its global governance is nevertheless at an infant stage. Artificial intelligence is still the wild wild west while major countries are digging their heels in for the hegemony of the future. Some multinational corporate giants wield more influence than sovereign governments, but they slip through regulatory nets. Amid the global polycrisis, the once clear public-private divide line is becoming ever more blurry.
In these novel areas, rules have a double problem — existing rules are either outdated or stale, and new rules are slow in coming. So, we are forced into a rule-vacuum dilemma. We need a breakthrough, and the first step in that direction is to initiate a "forum" for candid discussion for consensus building. Many of the current international organizations are either too rigid or legally laden to kickstart such candid discussions.
For this we can borrow the Arctic Council formula mutatis mutandis in its heyday before 2022. The result-oriented, project-based, open-door schemes of the institution getting diverse stakeholders on board are exactly what we need at this juncture to talk — really talk — and garner consensus. The consensus so formed should lead to an easy milestone first — soft laws. They can then develop into hard laws. A new governance or multilateralism can go from there.
Lee Jae-min
Lee Jae-min is a professor of law at Seoul National University. The views expressed here are the writer’s own. — Ed.
koreadherald@heradcorp.com
