LEADER 03137nam 2200445 450 001 9910159443203321 005 20221128110423.0 010 $a1-4422-7983-4 035 $a(CKB)3710000001018964 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC4787571 035 $a(EXLCZ)993710000001018964 100 $a20170130h20162016 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aurcnu|||||||| 181 $2rdacontent 182 $2rdamedia 183 $2rdacarrier 200 00$aHistory lessons for the Arctic $ewhat international maritime disputes tell us about a New Ocean /$feditor, Heather A. Conley 210 1$aLanham, Maryland :$cCenter for Strategic & International Studies :$cRowman & Littlefield,$d2016. 210 4$dİ2016 215 $a1 online resource (61 pages) $ccolor illustrations, maps 300 $a"December 2016"--Cover. 311 $a1-4422-7982-6 327 $aExecutive summary -- Lessons for the Arctic: developing an international normative framework for a new ocean / Heather A. Conley -- The 1920 Svalbard Treaty / Kristine Offerdal -- The 1936 Montreux Convention / Nilufer Oral -- The 1959 Antarctic Treaty and Subsequent Antarctic Treaty System / Alan D. Hemmings. 330 $aThis report examines three historical maritime disputes to draw lessons and insights for the future of maritime governance in a rapidly transforming Arctic. The historical case studies--the 1920 Svalbard Treaty and the implementation of the fisheries protection zone in the Svalbard Archipelago; the 1936 Montreux Convention and the challenge of adapting this instrument to modern maritime requirements amid increased regional tensions in the Black and Eastern Mediterranean Seas; and the 1961 Antarctic Treaty and the efforts leading to the establishment of a marine protected area (MPA) in the Ross Sea--are highly instructive cases for a region that also must balance a confluence of international economic development, environmental protection, and security concerns along strategic and ecologically sensitive maritime spaces. While historically unique, six important lessons for the Arctic and its future governing needs were gleaned that address challenging geography, the assertion of national sovereignty, and the pursuit of shared environmental goals. It is hoped that these lessons can inform the development of future Arctic governance structures and mechanisms. If policymakers can find an adaptive equilibrium between sovereignty and national interests, on the one hand, and broader international interests of stability, security, and environmental protection, on the other, a promising future for governing the Arctic can be secured. 606 $aMaritime law$zArctic regions 607 $aArctic Ocean$xInternational status 607 $aArctique, Oce?an$xStatut international 607 $aArctic Ocean$2fast 607 $aArctic Regions$2fast 615 0$aMaritime law 676 $a343.096 702 $aConley$b Heather A. 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910159443203321 996 $aHistory lessons for the Arctic$93400988 997 $aUNINA