Through our readings, I found Triggs’ work on the Antarctic Treaty System and the diagram comparing the ATS to the Arctic Council especially helpful. I think that in this discussion it is important to recognize the role the Arctic Council is already playing in the north, because they are truly making a difference. However, if an Arctic treaty could bring about more impactful, swift change to promote the interests of the Arctic and its preservation (both ecologically and in terms of peace), then I do not see why a treaty would not be a step in the right direction. While the Arctic Council does have influence, it relies upon the agreement and cooperation of outside forces in order for initiatives to have the force of law behind them. If we were somehow able to adapt the current Arctic Council, which already thrives at incorporating the perspectives of indigenous populations and battling climate change, but modifying it to have the force of international law behind it to ensure the interests of the Arctic are taken seriously, then that would be an incredible opportunity. This plan would take what already makes the Arctic Council great, and provide them with the power to make their own policy — rather than relying on higher ups in government to offer the go-ahead.
If we were to create an Arctic binding treaty, it would be essential that we avoid the mistakes of the Antarctic Treaty System, which has been known to inadequately enforcing the rules of the treaty, and slowly responding to breaches of the treaty. We must do better by being transparent, monitoring treaty violations, enforcing its measures, and responding swiftly to threats. If a treaty is created without the proper oversight and execution, it is essentially non-existent.
Sources
Triggs, Gillian. 2006. “The Antarctic Treaty System: A Model of Legal Creativity and Cooperation.” Sydney Law School.