1. Trends in Arctic Governance

2. The Arctic

3. Governance
Domestic Law
International Law
International Relations

4. Domestic Legal Systems
Both civil law and common law
Both federal and unitary
Sub-national governments are becoming more prominent

5. International Law Key treaty is the UNCLOS
Ownership is limited to land and territorial seas – where domestic law applies
Outside of state boundaries – coastal states have some economic advantages under international law

6. Key Issues in Maritime Governance

7. Baselines define the internal waters or international boundaries
Key issue for Canada and Russia
Sub-national governments and indigenous peoples play key role in establishing sovereignty over internal waters

8. Exclusive Economic Zone
EEZ extends to a distance of 200 nautical miles (370 km) out from its coastal baseline.
Where EEZs overlap ie state coastal baselines are less than 400 nautical miles (740 km) apart it is up to the states to delineate the actual maritime boundary
Eg. Canada US and Norway Russia
Norway and Russia signed agreement in 2010
In EEZ, a state has the right to explore, exploit, conserve and managing natural resources, whether living or non-living.

9. Continental Shelf
States also have rights to the seabed of what is called the continental shelf up to 350 nautical miles (648 km) from the coastal baseline, beyond the EEZ, but such areas are not part of their EEZ.
UNCLOS grants sovereign rights for the coastal state to explore and exploit non-living and sedentary living resources on and under the seabed

10. Maritime jurisdiction and boundaries

11. International Relations
International Law is limited in its ability to provide effective governance
State players have rejected an Arctic treaty to deal with governance
Have preferred to rely on the soft law of international relations
In last 30 years, the role of international organizations in Arctic governance has become more important
This has given indigenous groups, non-Arctic states and sub-national governments a role in Arctic governance they would not have under a hard law regime.

12. Implications
Turn to soft law has opened door to increased involvement of non-state actors
Indigenous groups are an obvious beneficiary of this more inclusive approach to Arctic governance
Less focused on is the greater role accorded sub-national governments in Arctic governance