PCRC-ArCS Special Session – Arctic legal and policy research 2020-25
12th Polar Law Symposium in Hobart, Tasmania (December 2-4, 2019)
Reported by Mana Tugend1 and Romain Chuffart2
On December 3, 2019, many polar academics and participants of this year’s Polar Law Symposium
held at the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (University of Tasmania) in Hobart attended the
double special session on Arctic legal and policy research. This special session was co-organized by
Kobe University’s Polar Cooperation Research Centre (PCRC) and the Arctic Challenge for
Sustainability (ArCS), Japan’s flagship programme for Arctic research with the financial support from
JSPS KAKEN-HI, and Kobe University Center for Social Systems Innovation (KUSSI). Chaired by
PCRC Director and Professor of International Law at Kobe University’s Graduate School of International
Cooperation Studies, Prof. Akiho Shibata, this special session brought together Arctic legal experts
and aimed at discussing the future agenda of ArCS forthe period 2020-2025 and beyond. True to its corevalues to foster academic excellence and talent, Kobe
University’s PCRC has always aimed to be a Toryumon( 登 龍 門 ), a Japanese concept that translates into
“gateway to success” in English, for early-career
researchers. To achieve this ambitious goal, the PCRC
allocated research and travel grants to provide support
for early careers to present their research the Polar Law
Symposium. As Kobe University’s PCRC is preparing tohost the next Polar Law Symposium, the PCRC intends
to showcase and to use the topics during both panels at
the symposium in November 2020.

Dr. Kentaro Nishimoto, a Professor of International Law at
the School of Law at Tohoku University in Sendai, Japan
was the first speaker to take the floor as he presented his
research on Japan’s future Arctic policy for the next five
years. He discussed Japan’s broader ocean policy and its
three pillars of research & development, international
cooperation, and sustainable use of resources. He thendiscussed Japan’s Arctic Challenge for Sustainability (ArCS)
program and questioned if it was successful in its aim togenerate new and innovative research in the humanities andsocial sciences using natural science outcomes. He expects
a similar initiative to be approved for the years 2020-2025 tomore closely look at the changes in the environment.
Involved in formulation of Post-ArCS project, considered as
the backbone for Arctic research in Japan, Dr. Nishimoto
identified the three pillars of the policy document, namely
research and development; international cooperation andsustainable use. He stresses the importance ofinterdisciplinary research in the Arctic and suggests the1

MA in Polar Law, University of Akureyri (Iceland), funded for the Polar Law Symposium by the Kobe PCRC andKAKENHI (grants-in-aid of Japanese Society of Promotion of Science)2
DurhamARCTIC doctoral candidate, Durham Law School, Durham University (UK), funded for the Polar Law
Symposium by the Kobe PCRC and KAKENHI (grants-in-aid of Japanese Society of Promotion of Science)

development of mechanisms enabling meaningful discussions across different fields. The focus of ArCS
has traditionally been natural sciences (7 out of 8 ArCS themes) with an emphasis on scientificknowledge as the basis for international law-making. According to Dr. Nishimoto, the next challenges
for the post-ArCS phase is to develop an interdisciplinary approach to Arctic issues. This could include
developing new methodologies, listening to researchers from other disciplines and, most importantly,
having mechanisms in place for these meaningful discussions to happen. From a purely legal science
perspective, Dr. Nishimoto emphasized the need for Japanese law scholars to reach outside of theirtraditional fields of expertise. One striking example is that there are many excellent Law of the Sea
specialists in Japan but almost no indigenous rights scholars.
After this excellent summary of Arctic legal research inJapan by Dr. Nishimoto, Dr. Betsy Baker, Executive
Director of the North Pacific Research Board talked
about networking between regional and national Arctic
science programs. Building on the work of groups likethe FisCAO (Scientific experts on Fish Stocks in theCAO) and ICES/PICES PAME Working Group on
Integrated Ecosystem Assessment for the CAO that are
already focused on how to build a science program forthe region, her presentation focused on legal and policy
research recommendations regarding the CAO
Fisheries Agreement (CAOFA). According to Dr. Baker,
there is no efficient management regime without
adequate scientific research and scientific researchpertaining to the CAOFA should be encouraged. She further pointed out that the joint program ofscientific research and monitoring will include scientific and technical organizations as well as
indigenous and local knowledge holders. In her presentation, Dr. Baker also asked the practicalquestion of how signatories to the CAOFA can advance scientific knowledge through the agreement.
She argued that there was a need for a common science body, which includes all partners, to implement
the key scientific provisions of the agreement.
In the last presentation of the first panel aptly titled“Arctic challenge for sustainability,” Dr. Tanja Joonafrom the University of Lapland in Rovaniemi, Finland
discussed the concepts of sustainable development
and intergenerational justice. Dr. Joona gave a morenuanced and personal perspective to the panel by
speaking about the importance of teaching the next
generation about sustainable use of resources. While
climate change is shaping the future of the Arctic, italso creates challenges for future generations within
Arctic indigenous communities. Competing industries,
such as windmill farms and the Arctic Railroad project,
are putting the traditional livelihoods of indigenous
peoples at risk. The risks taken by present generations
are imposed on future generations. She raised the question of knowing how to balance present
generations’ rights and the rights of future generations. She illustrated the theoretical intergenerational
approach with daily life examples of use of traditional knowledge by children. Traditional knowledge ispassed on naturally because youth often follow and mime what adults do. She pointed out that contact
and life with nature was of utmost importance to understand the way climate change is shaping theArctic and creating new challenges for future generations (e.g. reduced number of reindeers, threats topastures). Dr. Joona emphasized that sustainable use of nature is an integral part of Sàmi life, but thedevelopment of competing industries, such as the Arctic coast railroad hinders Sàmi sustainable waysof living. In legal terms, Dr. Joona concluded by going back to the concept of intergenerational equity.
To her, the most important question is to know how to balance the rights claims of the people alive
today against the rights claims of future generations. The risks taken today will turn out to be thechallenges imposed on future generations.
The presentations were followed by an interesting
panel discussion. Dr. Nishimoto reemphasised
the need for increased cooperation between
different research fields in developing the next
phase of ArCS in order to have a better policylaw-science nexus in Arctic research both within
and outside Japan. Dr. Joona stressed that
adaptive governance enables to respond to thesevere consequences of changes in the Arctic.
She further pointed out the need to balance theopportunities and challenges. Ultimately, she
concluded that it is not because there are
economic opportunities that one should take them.
Opportunities should be balance in light of thenegative impacts they create. Answering a question from the audience, she gave the example ofwindmill development in Northern Finland. At first windmills can be seen as a positive development
toward renewable energy. However, in the area where there are being developed, they disrupt
traditional reindeer herding practices. A question was then raised about the change in the role of science
within Central Arctic Fisheries Agreement. According to Dr. Baker, there is a commitment in the CAOFA
to sustainability and precaution which is more explicit than in other regional fisheries management
organizations. Nonetheless, a greater inclusion of indigenous knowledge is needed in the CAOFA. It
has also been mentioned during the panel discussion that search and rescue, emergency,
preparedness and response are covering the legal perspective.

After a morning tea break in the beautiful IMAS gallery
with a view of Hobart harbor in the background, thePCRC-ArCS special session reconvened in Aurora for its
second panel. Senior Fellow at Shanghai Institutes forInternational Studies, Dr. Baozhi Cheng was the one tokick off the second panel with a presentation titled “China.
Co-progressiveness of Arctic governance and theInitiative of Polar Silk Road: From the Perspective of
Normative Development.” Dr. Cheng further argued that it
was of vital importance for Arctic governance to develop a
coherent normative regulatory framework. Looking topotential new research in Arctic law, Dr. Cheng
highlighted the need to focus on the interactions between this new paradigm of Arctic norms andexisting international regulations and domestic laws of Arctic States. He concluded that from a Chineseperspective, the Polar Silk Road is a joint initiative around the development of the Northern Sea Routepromoting cooperation across the Arctic region and a vision for a shared future for mankind.

Following Dr Cheng, Ms. Mana Tugend, Frenchlawyer and recent graduate of the LL.M. in Polar
Law at the University of Akureyri, Icelandpresented a research she had conducted under
the supervision of Dr. Dorothée Cambou, postdoctoral researcher at Helsinki University in
Finland, about Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)
as a tool to foster sustainable development andprotect/fulfill the rights of indigenous peoples.
Through the analysis of the Inuit Impact andBenefit Agreement (IIBA) pertaining to theTallurutiup
ImangaNational
MarineConservation Area (NMCA) established in
Lancaster Sound in Nunavut, Ms. Tugend
explained that international environmental law and human rights law evolved to walk hand in hand.
According to her, conservation of significant areas should not happen at the expense of indigenous
peoples. She brought to light that, while acknowledging the aforementioned shift, the IIBA also
represents an operationalization of the self-determination of the Inuit of Nunavut.
The next presentation was a collaborative
research between Mr. Romain Chuffart, doctoralcandidate in law at Durham University in the UK,
Ms. Sakiko Hataya, doctoral candidate in law at
Kobe University, Dr. Osamu Inagaki, researcher
at Kobe University’s PCRC, and Ms. Lindsay
Arthur, MA candidate in Polar Law at the
University of Akureyri. Their research focused onJapan’s Arctic Policy and the expanding role ofArctic Council Observer States, such as Japan.
They suggested that Japan has managed to build
a robust Arctic engagement through implementing
Japan’s Arctic Policy although there is still someinconsistencies in the implementation of Japan’s Arctic Policy. However, improvement could still bemade at the Arctic Council’s level. According to them, given Japan’s expertise, Japan could build morecooperation with ACAP and EPPR working groups as well contribute more to both SDWG and PAME
Regarding the development of ArCS, the researchers pointed out that ArCS could help strengthen
cooperation between various domestic stakeholders such as building bridges between thegovernmental level and scientific experts. ArCS can also be used to promote scientific cooperation at
the international level.

Ms. Alexandra Carlton, doctoral candidate inveterinary medicine from Sydney University,rounded up the panel presentation as she
addressed the development of maritime emerging
pathogenesis and diseases in the Arctic caused by
the conduct of new activities, particularly in relation
to fish and fisheries, and the use of new shipping
routes. These new diseases are a threat to thelivelihoods and health of Arctic indigenous peoples.
She discussed the potential use of the SPS
protocol in formulating further Arctic law. Ms.
Carlton argued that it was crucial to include ahumanist element when thinking of the Arctic. She
highlighted that the Arctic faunal barrier is changing because of new activities occurring in the Arctic,
such as new shipping routes. Most of the time, these routes coincide with indigenous hunting grounds
and significant ecosystems. Although she acknowledged that warmer waters will create newopportunities (e.g. shipping routes or fishing new species), she warned that industrializing Arctic fish
will have side effects, such as bycatch. Warmer waters will also bring new diseases for different fishstocks, which, in turn, will have a negative impact on the livelihoods and health of Arctic indigenous
peoples. Ms. Carlton concludes that more fieldwork is needed to understand this new set of challenges
and this could be new potential research pathways for Japan’s ArCS project.
The session concluded
withaproductive
discussion between Akiho
Shibata, the panellists andthe audience about the
future of Japan’s Arctic
research and the role of
ArCS. The discussion
started with a question on
how Japan can contributeto the Polar Silk Road
initiative. There needs tobe an increase in trilateral
cooperation
betweenChina, Japan and theRepublic of South Korea. It
is important for the three
countries to understandcommonneeds
andobjectives regarding thefuture of the Arctic,
especially when it comesto shipping. Furthermore, cooperation can also be fostered through respective national involvement andareas of interests within Arctic research. As the Polar Silk Road is being developed, it is also importantto take into account and to counter its potential negative effects on indigenous peoples and communities
in different fields, such as conservation issues. There is a need to build channels for cooperation andmake sure that indigenous peoples are not negatively affected by development of new shipping routes.
Increased cooperation between researchers and indigenous communities enables reaching common
understandings. The discussion also turned to Japan’s role at the Arctic Council. At present, Japantargets specific working groups. Research programs such as ArCS can create linkages between
participation, involvement and research. Strategic involvement and engaging in other working groups
can broaden the scope of understanding because every field of Arctic is interconnected. For example,
this can be as simple as sending Japanese experts to Arctic Council’s WGs. ArCS could also help in
engaging with AC Permanent Participants and do research with Indigenous researchers. Furthering thediscussion on MPAs, Ms. Tugend stressed that the NMCA in Lancaster Sound could support positivesocial, cultural and economic changes within the Inuit communities. She further pointed out that thecooperative management of the area could be the way to ensure that the rights of the Inuit people arerespected, and that the diversity of interests within the Nunavut communities is taken into account.
Ultimately, Ms. Tugend brought to light that the efficiency of the cooperative management board needs
to be tested in practice. Ms. Carlton argued that lawyers and natural scientists collaborate in order tocreate knowledge that can be used by policy makers. Furthermore, she held that there is a need tofocus on the inclusion of indigenous peoples within the production of this knowledge. Research projects
such as ArCS can enable this kind of inclusion through bringing different epistemic communities
together.