Informed Decisionmaking for Sustainability

Building Common Interests in the Arctic Ocean with Global Inclusion
Volume 2
This book contains an inclusive compilation of perspectives about the Arctic Ocean
with contributions that extend from Indigenous residents and early career scientists toForeign Ministers, involving perspectives across the spectrum of subnational-nationalinternational jurisdictions. The Arctic Ocean is being transformed with global climate
warming into a seasonally ice-free sea, creating challenges as well as opportunities that
operate short-to-long term, underscoring the necessity to make informed decisions
across a continuum of urgencies from security to sustainability time scales. The Arctic
Ocean offers a case study with lessons that are especially profound at this moment whenhumankind is exposed to a pandemic, awakening a common interest in survival acrossour globally-interconnected civilization unlike any period since the Second World War.
This second volume in the Informed Decisionmaking for Sustainability series reveals
that building global inclusion involves common interests to address changes effectively“ for the benefit of all on Earth across generations.”

9783030 893118#2

1
Building Common Interests in the Arctic Ocean with Global Inclusion

ISBN 978-3-030-89311-8

Berkman · Vylegzhanin · Young · Balton · Øvretveit Eds.

Paul Arthur Berkman · Alexander N. Vylegzhanin · Oran R. YoungDavid Balton · Ole Øvretveit Editors

Informed Decisionmaking for Sustainability

Paul Arthur Berkman
Alexander N. Vylegzhanin
Oran R. Young · David Balton
Ole Øvretveit Editors

Building Common
Interests in the
Arctic Ocean with
Global Inclusion
Volume 2

Science
Diplomacy
CenterTM

EvREsearch®

Chapter 1

Introduction: Building Common Interests
with Informed Decisionmaking
for SustainabilityoofPaul Arthur Berkman, Oran R. Young, Alexander N. Vylegzhanin,
David A. Balton, and Ole Rasmus Øvretveit

re
c

te
d

Pr

Abstract This chapter introduces conceptual threads woven within and between thechapters, applying the book title as the organizing framework and the Arctic as a casestudy with global relevance. The book focuses on science diplomacy and its engine
of informed decisionmaking together with the theory, methods and skills introducedin view of BUILDING COMMON INTERESTS. As an exemplar, the ARCTIC OCEAN highlights holistic (international, interdisciplinary and inclusive) integration with marine
and surrounding terrestrial systems interacting with humanity at local-global levels,
especially in relation to Earth’s changing climate. The importance of this book is
WITH GLOBAL INCLUSION, recognizing challenges to engage diverse stakeholders,
rightsholders and other actors, as illustrated with special respect for the Indigenous
peoples who have inhabited the Arctic for millennia with resilience across ice ages
P. A. Berkman (*)
Science Diplomacy Center, EvREsearch LTD and MGIMO University, Moscow,
Russian Federation
United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR), Geneva, SwitzerlandorProgram on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, Harvard University, Falmouth, MA, USAe-mail: paul.berkman@unitar.org; pberkman@law.harvard.edu

nc

O. R. Young
Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, University of California Santa Barbara,
Santa Barbara, CA, USAe-mail: oran.young@gmail.com

U

A. N. VylegzhaninInternational Law School, MGIMO University, Moscow, Russian Federatione-mail: danilalvy@mail.ru
D. A. Balton
Polar Institute, Wilson Center, Washington, DC, USAe-mail: davebalton@comcast.net
O. R. Øvretveit
Initiative West Bergen, Bergen, Norway
e-mail: ole@initiativvest.no© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022
P. A. Berkman et al. (eds.), Building Common Interests in the Arctic Ocean
with Global Inclusion, Informed Decisionmaking for Sustainability,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89312-5_1

AU1

P. A. Berkman et al.

and past periods of global warming. The goal of this book on BUILDING COMMONINTERESTS IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN WITH GLOBAL INCLUSION (involving contributions from
graduate students to foreign ministers at the Arctic Frontiers 2020 conference) is tohelp produce informed decisions that operate short-to-long term at local-global
levels for the beneﬁt of all on Earth across generations.

Science as the ‘Study of Change’

oo

1.1.1

Building Common Interests

f

1.1

U

nc

or

re
c

te
d

Pr

We are living during a complex period in human history, reﬂecting our evolution
as a globally-interconnected civilization.1 The book series on INFORMEDDECISIONMAKING FOR SUSTAINABILITY is conceived to offer lessons that have localglobal relevance “for the beneﬁt of all on Earth across generations” (Berkman
et al., 2017, 2020a; Berkman 2018, 2019, 2020a, b; Young et al., 2020a, b).
This volume on BUILDING COMMON INTERESTS IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN WITH GLOBALINCLUSION is second in the book series and linked to others with holistic (international, interdisciplinary and inclusive) integration. On this journey, VOLUME
1. GOVERNING ARCTIC SEAS: REGIONAL LESSONS FROM THE BERING STRAIT AND BARENTS
SEA introduced the concept of ‘ecopolitical’ to elevate the focus on our homes(‘eco’) above the geopolitical fray of nations (Table 1.1).
In the book series, the ﬁrst three volumes are a trilogy with the Arctic Ocean as a
global case-study to elaborate decisionmaking with holistic integration (Fig. 1.1).
The Arctic Ocean is international unlike the surrounding national territories on land,
involving areas within and beyond sovereign jurisdictions with impacts, issues andresources in constant motion. Dynamics of the Arctic Ocean system as an integral
part of our globally-interconnected civilization are a portrait of change with interdisciplinary analogues elsewhere on Earth in view of diverse time and space scales,
revealed with natural and social sciences along with Indigenous knowledge. Importantly, the Arctic Ocean represents an inclusive journey of common-interest building, considering most immediately the eight Arctic States and six Indigenous
Peoples Organizations that established the Arctic Council in 1996 as high-level
forum (Ottawa Declaration 1996), progressively engaging non-Arctic States andother observers.
This book connects to the third volume (Pan-Arctic Implementation of Coupled
Governance and Infrastructure) with the goal of contributing to decisionmaking forsustainable development in the Arctic, where progress is measured across generations on a Pan-Arctic scale. The intergenerational feature of sustainable development
underlies the quest to operate short-to-long term inclusively. Moreover, like theEarth system with its local-global connections, Pan-Arctic progress involves
1

Highlighted terms in Chapter 1 involve deﬁnitions to avoid jargon with concepts that are threaded
through this book series.

1 Introduction: Building Common Interests with Informed Decisionmaking for. . .
Table 1.1 Holistic characteristics of ecopolitical regions with informed decisionmaking to couple
governance mechanisms and built infrastructure for sustainable developmenta

System dimensions forcomparisons over time andspace
Operating across a ‘Continuum of urgencies’
Common-interest building
Holistic integration

Marine living and mineral resources

Large populations with settler majorities and close links to national
governments
Regions deﬁned explicitly within polygon boundaries that aremappedf

Cultural and historical
heritage

Barents Sea Region (BaSR)
Russian Federation and Norway

oo

Local-global connections

Bering Strait Region(BeSR)
Russian Federation andUnited States
Maritime ship-trafﬁc
gateway
Small predominantly
Indigenous communities

Informed decisionmaking at security to sustainability time scaleswith skills, methods and theory that are being applied, trained andreﬁnedSkill to facilitate inclusive dialogues among allies and adversaries
alike
Skill to be international, interdisciplinary and inclusivePr

Ecopolitical region
characteristics
International

a

te
d

This table is adapted from the concluding chapter in Governing Arctic Seas: Regional Lessons
from the Bering Strait and Barents Sea. Volume 1. Informed Decisionmaking for Sustainability(Young et al., 2020a)

U

nc

or

re
c

cooperation and coordination among stakeholders, rightsholders and other actors
within as well as between regions inclusively (Fig. 1.1). Inclusion is the biggest
challenge, considering the temporal and spatial scope for sustainability from diverse
perspectives that ultimately translate into actions. With contributions from the 2020
Arctic Frontiers conference in Tromsø, Norway (Arctic Frontiers 2020a, b; Steinveg2020), this book seeks to be inclusive, exploring cooperation and coordination toachieve Arctic sustainability from diverse perspectives with global relevance.
Organization of this introductory chapter corresponds with phrases in the booktitle – Building Common Interests / In the Arctic Ocean / With Global Inclusion – toelaborate the theory, methods and skills that are intertwined across the contributions(please see the Preface). What do ecology, ecosystems and economics have incommon (Table 1.1)? Practical answers to such questions emerge with science,
which starts with curiosity and inquiry, elaborated into ways of knowing. With thisobjective, the natural sciences, social sciences and Indigenous knowledge all reveal
patterns, trends and processes (albeit with different methodologies) that become thebases for decisions across our globally-interconnected civilization (Fig. 1.2a-d).
As an umbrella concept across knowledge systems, science can be characterized
broadly as the ‘study of change’ (symbolized by the Greek letter delta Δ) to beholistic (Berkman et al., 2020; Berkman, 2020a, b), considering biophysical andsocioeconomic factors as well as their intersections. This umbrella characterizationof science builds on Socratic methods of learning that are stimulated by questions
with the human quest for knowledge to understand our world and its relative motions

re
c

te
d

Pr

oo

f

P. A. Berkman et al.

U

nc

or

Fig. 1.1 The Arctic Ocean System with its holistic (international, interdisciplinary and inclusive)
dimensions surrounding the North Pole is being transformed with climate warming as its surface
boundary changes from permanent sea-ice cover to seasonally open water between the North Paciﬁcand North Atlantic, as illustrated with the lowest sea-ice minimum observed during the satellite era(NASA 2012). The superimposed legal boundary of the high seas in the Central Arctic Ocean(CAO) illustrates connections between biogeophysical and socioeconomic dynamics with themaritime Arctic associated with “sustainable development and environmental protection” as“common Arctic issues” among all signatories of the Ottawa Declaration (1996) that establishedthe Arctic Council. To be inclusive, the eight Arctic states (north of the Arctic Circle) and six
Indigenous Peoples Organizations who established the Arctic Council are shown together. Mappingof the Indigenous Peoples Organizations has been co-produced iteratively with feedback from the
Indigenous Peoples Secretariat (2021a, b) and in cooperation with GRID-Arendal (2021). The
resulting polygon shape ﬁles have deposited with the Arctic Data Center for open
access (Fiske 2021).

(Lucretius 55 BCE) with implications for societal development at all levels (Ruffert& Steinecke, 2011). In this book and in the series on INFORMED DECISIONMAKING FORSUSTAINABILITY, science is illustrated as an unifying framework to operate withinclusion across time and space, especially in view of urgencies.

te
d

Pr

oo

f

1 Introduction: Building Common Interests with Informed Decisionmaking for. . .

or

re
c

Fig. 1.2 Globally-Interconnected Civilization Times Scales revealed by exponentialchanges with: (a) Climate and human-population change over decades to centuries; (b) Hightechnology change over years to decades illustrated by “Moore’s Law” with transistors on a chip;(c) Global pandemic change over months to years with COVID-19 cases accelerating across the
Earth, illustrated by the United States (scale of 10,000,000–107) in contrast to China (scale of
100,000–105) through 12 October 2020, as recorded by Worldometer; and (d) Social-media changeover minutes to months in relation to speciﬁc events, illustrated by 2014–2015 tweets about “Black
Lives Matter”, posted per day (in millions), as reported in Mother Jones on 13 March 2016.
Adapted from Berkman et al. (2020) and Berkman (2020b).

Unc

Moreover, to be objective requires understanding about the dynamics of issues,
impacts and resources in relation to deﬁned systems, which is the reason the ﬁrst
volume in this book series focused on regional lessons. In this second volume, there isemphasis to further consider the temporal domain in view of the Arctic Ocean,
especially to make informed decisions, operating across a ‘continuum of urgencies’(Vienna Dialogue Team, 2017; Berkman et al., 2017, 2020; Berkman, 2019, 2020a, b).
How can we study change to characterize a ‘continuum of urgencies’? How can
we place the present in context of the past and future? Answers to both of thesequestions are revealed with ‘The Pandemic Lens’ (Fig. 1.3), placing our world today
in context across embedded time scales that all operate on a planetary scale with thecommon driver of our global human population (Fig. 1.2a-d). With science as the‘study of change,’ we can describe as well as respond to the biophysical andsocioeconomic dynamics that inﬂuence our home on Earth.

P. A. Berkman et al.

1.1.2

Operating Across a ‘Continuum of Urgencies’

U

nc

or

re
c

te
d

Pr

oo

f

Working from ﬁrst principles in view of humankind on a planetary scale, the shapeof urgent change involves exponential rates at the time scales of minutes-months,
month-years, years-decades and decades-centuries (Fig. 1.2a-d). Informed
decisionmaking operates across these embedded time scales, addressing changes
that impact our sustainable development (United Nations 1987, 2015), balancing
environmental protection, economic prosperity and societal well-being at localglobal levels with stability (Hardin 1968) as well as resilience (Berkes et al. 2000,
2008; Arctic Council 2016) in the face of change.
At the shortest global periods of minutes-months, the decisionmaking is largely
reactive, especially when communications are contributed in view of self-interests
without consideration of perspectives, drivers and consequences over time. The
unfortunate outcomes of thinking short-term or long-term only are uninformed
decisions, as illustrated in the United States during the global pandemic(Fig. 1.2c), pulling out of the World Health Organization with exponential change
continuing unchecked in the absence of foresight and leadership (Berkman 2020a, b).
Operating across a ‘continuum of urgencies’ to produce informed decisions
involves short-to-long term thinking, distinguishing exponential and logistic rates
of change (Krebs 1972) bounded by an inﬂection point (Figs. 1.2c and 1.3) – when
the past, present and future converge with clarity about common interests. We areliving during such a moment with the global pandemic making survival a common
interest at local-global levels.

Fig. 1.3 ‘Pandemic Lens’ for Sustainability, highlighting exponential change across an inﬂection point toward logistic (S-shaped, sigmoid) change, as described by numbers (N) changing perunit of time (t). Informed decisions operate across a “continuum of urgencies” (Fig. 1.4) – beforethrough-after inﬂection points to ‘bend the curve’ short-to-long term with scalability acrossembedded time scales of our globally-interconnected civilization (Figs. 1.2a-d). (Adapted from
Berkman (2020a, b))

1 Introduction: Building Common Interests with Informed Decisionmaking for. . .

te
d

Pr

oo

f

The relevance of an inﬂection point is immediate and long-term, noting there will
be a global inﬂection point with the COVID-19 pandemic with certainty, either
because the plague runs its course or because we have vaccines with effective
distribution channels around the Earth. In this moment, leadership involves setting
expectations correctly. Such intervention to ‘bend the curve’ – which is a source ofhope – is exhibited today among some nations over months-years during the global
pandemic (1.2c), underscoring the imagination and capacity of humanity to address
issues and impacts over longer time scales: across years-decades with advanced
technologies (Fig. 1.2b) as well as decades-centuries with our global human population and the Earth’s climate (Fig. 1.2a).
The challenge is to recognize the inﬂection points, which are few and far between,
and then to capitalize on those rare moments as levers for transformation. Thisapplication of informed decisionmaking is scalable, as there are inﬂection points ineach of our lives, sometimes together at local-global levels across different timescales (Figs. 1.2a-d). The theory of informed decisionmaking scales from anindividual to humanity, like driving a car constantly adjusting to the immediacies
on the left and right while maneuvering in view of future urgencies with red lights
ahead and circumstances to consider in the rear.
Speaking to humanity with lessons, the COVID-19 pandemic is the “most challenging crisis we have faced since the Second World War,” as stated in March 2020 by
the Secretary-General of the United Nations (Guterres 2020). The end of the Second
World War in August 1945 was another global inﬂection point, educating future
generations about how to operate across a ‘continuum of urgencies’ (Fig. 1.4) from:recSecurity Time Scales (mitigating risks of political, economic, cultural and environmental instabilities that are immediate); to
Sustainability Time Scales (balancing economic prosperity, environmental protection and societal well-being across generations).

U

nc

or

The Bretton Woods Conference in New Hampshire in July 1944 produced avision of a stronger international governance regime that included establishment of
the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment that became the World Bank (Steil, 2013). The United Nations Conference on International Organization in San Francisco from April to June 1945,

Fig. 1.4 Informed Decisionmaking as a scalable proposition operating across a ‘continuum of
urgencies,’ illustrated for peoples, nations and our world from security to sustainability time scales.
In parallel, there are negotiation strategies that contribute to the decisionmaking – short-term inview of conﬂicts to resolve and long-term in view of common interests to build – balancing issues,
impacts and resources. (Adapted from Berkman et al. (2020) and Berkman (2020a, b))

P. A. Berkman et al.

Science Diplomacy to Negotiate Transformation

te
d

1.1.3

Pr

oo

f

produced the Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court ofJustice (United Nations, 1945), symbolised for the ages with the California redwoods, where Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the ‘chief architect of the United Nations,and apostle of lasting peace for all mankind’, was memorialised in May 1945
(National Park Service, 2020). The new international architecture created in the
post-War years and supplemented by a burgeoning array of international institutionsin the decades that followed has manifestly reduced the risk of another global
conﬂict on the scale of the two World Wars. That said, rising nationalism andpolitical polarization combined with advanced technologies has generated newchallenges to peace and security around the globe.
At the level of peoples, nations and our world, the ‘continuum of urgencies’
extends from security to sustainability time scales (Vienna Dialogue Team, 2017).
However, knowing the time span of a ‘continuum of urgencies’ is a research exercise
unless there are methods and skills to apply with decisions and actions that commonly involve negotiations (Fig. 1.4).

U

nc

or

re
c

With informed decisionmaking before-through-after inﬂection points (Figs. 1.2, 1.3
and 1.4), the opportunity is to turn science ﬁction into science reality with inspirationand hope for humanity as in the case of travelling from the Earth to the Moon acrossa century (Verne, 1865). In this quest, informed decisionmaking is the engine ofscience diplomacy as an holistic process to “balance national interests and common
interests for the beneﬁt of all on Earth across generations” (Berkman et al., 2011,2017, 2020; Berkman, 2009, 2020a, b). However, balancing national interests ﬁrst
requires common interests, as reﬂected across the twentieth century, contrasting
periods of conﬂict and cooperation (Fig. 1.5), which mirror the negotiation strategies
applied (Fig. 1.4).
As a skill, common-interest building promotes cooperation among allies andadversaries alike, without the conﬂict that would persist otherwise. For example,
throughout the Cold War, there was continuous cooperation between the UnitedStates and Soviet Union regarding both Antarctica and outer space. How was thiscontinuous cooperation facilitated with these international spaces (Berkman, 2009)
in the face of geopolitical confrontation among these superpowers everywhere elseon Earth? What are the Cold War lessons of common-interest building in the Arctic
today (Berkman, 2013, Nature, 2020)?
Both the Antarctic Treaty (1959) and Outer Space Treaty (1967) were built
around the “common interest of all mankind.” Asking what was the umbrellainterest that enabled continuous cooperation between superpower adversaries inthese international spaces during the Cold War, the answer is the same today:survival in the face of mutually assured destruction, which can happen quickly
with global conﬂict or more slowly without planetary action, as required in thecases of Earth’s climate (Fig. 1.2a) and human population (Erlich & Holdren, 1971;

Pr

oo

f

1 Introduction: Building Common Interests with Informed Decisionmaking for. . .

re
c

te
d

Fig. 1.5 Balancing National and Common Interests on a planetary scale during the twentiethcentury with international environmental treaties to address sustainability questions in our globallyinterconnected civilization (Fig. 1.2a). (Adapted from Berkman (2002), including legal establishment of areas beyond national jurisdictions (yellow), which are international spaces (Kish, 1973,
Berkman et al., 2011) to build common interests and minimize risks of conﬂict over jurisdictionalboundaries on a planetary scale across the Earth (Berkman, 2009))

U

nc

or

Holdren, 2008). Notably, the Antarctic Treaty (1959) – the ﬁrst nuclear arms
agreement (Berkman, 2011) – emphasizes “facilitation of scientiﬁc research” and“international scientiﬁc cooperation.”With science diplomacy in Antarctica, superpower adversaries and allies alikehave been “consulting together on matters of common interest” across more thansixty years with continuous cooperation. As complementary negotiation strategies,
conﬂict resolution and common-interest building (Fig. 1.4) both have the same end
objectives to promote cooperation and prevent conﬂict, but the journeys are entirely
different, depending on the starting point. The Cold War lesson with superpoweradversaries in Antarctica as well as outer space is the starting point determines thejourney with negotiations, continuously resolving conﬂicts or continuously
cooperating based on common interests. Like with a glass half empty or half full,the starting point is a choice affecting the course of subsequent negotiations,emphasizing there is great scope in our world to increase capacities with commoninterest building.
These ecopolitical lessons at the local-global scales of our home planet – “allmankind” – were carried from Antarctica to the Arctic before-through-after the endof the Cold War inﬂection point. Heralded with the Murmansk speech by Soviet
President Mikhail Gorbachev (1987), an “Arctic Research Council” was conceived
to “let the North Pole be a pole of peace,” leading to the formation of the Arctic

P. A. Berkman et al.

or

re
c

te
d

Pr

oo

f

Council under the terms of the Ottawa Declaration on the Establishment of the
Arctic Council (1996) to focus on “common Arctic issues,” particularly “sustainable
development and environmental protection.” The evolving international law ofcommon interests (Berkman, 2012) is highlighted in the polar regions (Kish, 1973,
Berkman, 2020c), underscoring theory, methods and skills with informed
decisionmaking to apply, train and reﬁne in a scalable manner. Moreover, thepolar regions reveal science diplomacy as a process (Berkman et al., 2011),
complementing science into policy as a product (Berkman, 2002), ultimately todevelop options (without advocacy) that can be used or ignored explicitly, contributing to informed decisions beyond short-term political agendas.
As an example, the scalability of science diplomacy is reﬂected by two university
professors convening the ﬁrst formal dialogue between the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) and Russia regarding security in the Arctic (Berkman &Vylegzhanin, 2012a, b). Implications of this high-level dialogue among allies andadversaries alike continue to evolve, including with the Ambassadorial Panels(2015, 2016) on “Building Common Interests in the Arctic Ocean” (Berkman &Vylegzhanin, 2012b) that are the conceptual origin of this book. The underlying
methods and skills that enable such dialogues are framed with the Pyramid ofInformed Decisionmaking (Fig. 1.6), recognizing synergies exist between research
and action like connections between “the internal and the external” realms of thehuman spirit (King, 1964).
With informed decisionmaking theory, methods and skills, it also becomes
possible to train science diplomacy in a scalable manner, as reﬂected with the joint
courses at universities in the United States and Russian Federation since 2017
(Berkman & Vylegzhanin, 2020), extending across the University of the Arctic
with the Science Diplomacy Thematic Network (UArctic 2017). More broadly,
science-diplomacy training is applicable across the diplomatic corps of foreign
ministries and with the United Nations Institute for Training and Research(UNITAR, 2019a, b; 2020a, b; 2021). In all these venues, the objective is to enhancecapacities with informed decisionmaking (Figs. 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6), involving both:Unc

Governance Mechanisms (laws, agreements and policies as well as regulatory
strategies, including insurance, at diverse jurisdictional levels); andBuilt Infrastructure (ﬁxed, mobile and other assets, including communication,
research, observing, information and other systems that require technology plus
investment).

Coupling governance mechanisms and built infrastructure underlies progress
toward sustainable development, which will be elaborated in the third volume in
the INFORMED DECISIONMAKING FOR SUSTAINABILITY book series, considering PANARCTIC IMPLEMENTATION OF COUPLED GOVERNANCE AND INFRASTRUCTURE.
The underlying research that was translated into these education and leadershipinitiatives with science diplomacy emerged from the intertwined Arctic Options /Pan-Arctic Options projects from 2013–2021 with participants from Canada, China,
France, Norway, Russian Federation and United States addressing “Holistic Integration for Arctic Marine-Coastal Sustainability” (Berkman et al., 2020a, b; Young

Pr

oo

f

1 Introduction: Building Common Interests with Informed Decisionmaking for. . .

or

re
c

te
d

Fig. 1.6 Pyramid of Informed Decisionmaking as an holistic methodology with science diplomacy to apply, train and reﬁne across a ‘continuum of urgencies’ (Fig. 1.4), characterizing the scopeof an informed decision, as the apex goal with governance mechanisms and built infrastructure aswell their coupling for sustainable development (Figs. 1.2a-d and 1.3). With holistic integration,questions of common concern reveal the methods of science to study change, generating thenecessary data to produce answers in a transdisciplinary manner. These stages of research aretransformed into action with evidence for decisions, involving institutions and theirdecisionmakers. Across the data-evidence interface, the diplomacy with science simply is inrevealing options (without advocacy), which can be used or ignored explicitly, respecting theinstitutions. Starting with questions among allies and adversaries underlies the skill to build
common interests. The engine of informed decisionmaking operates with common-interest building, enhancing research capacities as a positive feedback with individuals contributing as observers
and participants inclusivelyUnc

et al., 2020b). Holistic questions with science diplomacy (Table 1.2), at the base of
the Pyramid of Informed Decisionmaking, emerged from the Antarctic Treaty
Summit (2009) and were memorialised in the ﬁrst book on SCIENCE DIPLOMACY(Berkman et al., 2011).
Holistic questions to build common interests and enhance research capacities(Fig. 1.6) also introduce a comparative framework to map the research and action
chapters of this book (Table 1.2) beyond listing them in the Table of Contents(please also see the Preface). As an illustration, this mapping also provides an
inclusive framework to introduce all of the book contributions in a balanced manner.
Striving to achieve balance, science diplomacy can be viewed as a language ofhope because of its international and interdisciplinary inclusion with commoninterest building. Like any language, there are deﬁnitions for words and phrases(which are bolded and deﬁned above) with syntax to connect meanings from paper toP. A. Berkman et al.
Table 1.2 Mapping of chapters in this book to categories of holistic (international, interdisciplinary and inclusive) questions with science diplomacy and its engine of informed decisionmaking
Categories of Questions for
Decisionmakinga,bInvolving Science as. . .?
An essential gauge of changes
over time and space.
An instrument for Earth systemmonitoring.
An early warning system.

Chapters in VOLUME 2 (see Table of Contents and Preface)c,d

A determinant of public policy
agendas.
An element of international legal
institutions.
A source of invention and commercial enterprise.
An element of continuity in our
global society.
A tool of diplomacy to build
common interests.
(chapter mentions “common”)e

1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19,
23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29
1, 5, 6, 8, 15, 18, 23, 24, 25, 26

1, 6, 9, 15, 16, 24, 25, 29

2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 14, 22,30
2, 3, 4, 13, 21, 22,30, 31, 32, 33, 34
33, 34oo

11, 13, 14, 20, 22,
28, 332, 3, 4, 11, 22, 28, 32,
33, 343, 4, 11, 30

Pr

1, 7, 10, 15, 17, 18, 19, 24

f

Action2, 3, 4, 11, 22, 26, 32,
33, 342, 3, 11, 13, 22, 34

1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 19, 24,
26, 291, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 18, 19, 23,
24, 25, 26, 29

te
d

a

Research
1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 23,
24, 25, 26, 29
1, 6, 9, 15, 16, 24, 25, 29

Decisions involve governance mechanisms and built infrastructure, coupled for sustainability
Elaborated from Berkman et al. (2011)c
Stages of research and action are elaborated in Fig. 1.6
dAppendix regarding the United Decades for Ocean Science and Sustainable Development(UNDOS) is included in all categories of questionse
Searched and integrated comprehensively with the KnoHow™ knowledge bank (https://knohow.co) for VOLUME 2. BUILDING COMMON INTERESTS IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN WITH GLOBAL INCLUSION, using the ﬁnal drafts of PDF ﬁles for the research and action chapters as well as the Appendix

or

re
c

b

U

nc

practice. As puzzle pieces, the language starts with science and diplomacy,
empowering synergies with these processes to facilitate holistic integration withresearch and action that together enable informed decisionmaking with governancemechanisms and built infrastructure as well as their coupling for sustainable development in a scalable manner with the Arctic Ocean as a case-study (Figs. 1.1, 1.2,
1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6; Tables 1.1 and 1.2).
With holistic integration, the biggest challenge is to be inclusive, recognizing theprevalence and problems with systemic exclusion that exist worldwide. On ourshared journey as a globally-interconnected civilization (Figs. 1.2a-d and 1.5),
science diplomacy promotes informed decisions: not good or bad decisions, notright or wrong decisions, but decisions that optimize the available data in view of theunderlying questions inclusively (Table 1.2). All the chapters in this book touch on
science diplomacy and its engine of informed decisionmaking, providing openended starting points (Fig. 1.6) for readers to consider skills, methods and theory
to build common interests with lifelong learning.

1 Introduction: Building Common Interests with Informed Decisionmaking for. . .

1.2
1.2.1

The Arctic Ocean
Interconnected Home Systems

U

nc

or

re
c

te
d

Pr

oo

f

The Arctic Ocean is a case study with global relevance, conceptually and in practiceas an holistic system (Fig. 1.1). International and interdisciplinary questions operate
inclusively (Table 1.2) in view of the Arctic Ocean at diverse time and space scales(Vörösmarty et al., 2010, Petrov et al., 2017), across regions and jurisdictions (Gadand Strandsbjerg, 2019), which are discussed throughout this book. Moreover, thediminishing sea-ice boundary of the Arctic Ocean is like removing the ceiling to
your room, exposing all to the outside conditions with inherent risks of instabilities.
Operating at this security time scale (Fig. 1.4) – especially considering the Arctic
Ocean could become a $1 trillion arena for investment (Roston, 2016, World
Economic Forum, 2016) – reﬂects the challenge to achieve progress with sustainable
development as a “common” Arctic issue.
When boundaries change, so do the associated and dependent systems, which is
why the world has been introduced to a “new” Arctic Ocean with the diminishingsea-ice boundary (Berkman & Vylegzhanin, 2012a, b; Carmack et al., 2015).
Applications of bounded regions to characterize inﬂows and outﬂows as well as
system dynamics in the Arctic Ocean are the focus of the ﬁrst volume of this bookseries in view of GOVERNING ARCTIC SEAS: REGIONAL LESSONS FROM THE BERING STRAITAND BARENTS SEA (Young et al., 2020b). The international, interdisciplinary andinclusive focus of this second volume is on a Pan-Arctic scale in view of diverse
biogeophysical, socioeconomic and institutional boundaries associated the Arctic
Ocean (Berkman, 2015), underscoring holistic considerations with science as thestudy of change that are necessary to generate knowledge for Arctic sustainability(Greybill and Petrov, 2020).
In a general sense, progressing southward from the North Pole, the Arctic Ocean
is bounded by the sea ﬂoor and sea surface with the surrounding continents(Jakobsson et al., 2004). Deﬁning the southern boundary is where the ambiguities
arise, underscoring the diverse interests of the associated stakeholders, rightsholders
and other actors with this Pan-Arctic system. Nonetheless, while there is no fully
agreed deﬁnition of the Arctic Ocean applicable in all situations, boundary characterizations of the Arctic Ocean system and its subsystems become essential toposition the research and observations that are necessary to interpret change (Leeet al., 2019). These interconnections within the Earth system become especially
important to manage the resulting data products in view of desired stakeholder
outcomes (Eicken et al., 2016).
For some purposes, using the Arctic Circle as the southern limit of the Arctic
Ocean has a number of advantages. The Arctic Circle boundary allows changes to beassessed in the Arctic Ocean with consistency over time, even back to the time when
Indigenous peoples were able to walk across the Bering Strait with sea-level
120 meters lower than today more than 11,000 years ago (Hopkins, 1967, Jakobsson
et al., 2017). Moreover, the Arctic Circle at 66.5 North latitude reﬂects theAU2

P. A. Berkman et al.

or

re
c

te
d

Pr

oo

f

seasonality of the Arctic system in relation to the Sun as the primary external driverof Earth’s climate, as with the climates of other planets in our Solar system(Kondratyev & Hunt, 1982), further highlighting the embedded and interacting
nature of systems. In addition, the Arctic Circle demarcates the eight Arctic States,
which established the Arctic Council, along with six Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations (Ottawa Declaration, 1996), which highlight extensions of the Pan-Arctic
region across lower latitudes (Fig. 1.1).
Dynamics of the Arctic Ocean system (Fig. 1.1) also can be characterized bydiverse inﬂows and outﬂows across its boundaries, including from the North Paciﬁcand North Atlantic as well as from adjacent land masses and across land-air-sea
interfaces (Fig. 1.7). Among the many projects and programs, these diverse
biogeophysical interactions are illustrated in view of sea-ice with research from
the Multidisciplinary drifting Observations for the Study of Arctic Climate(MOSAiC) project (Shupe et al., 2020) and its complementary Terrestrial
Multidisciplinary distributed Observations for the Study of Arctic Connections(T-MOSAiC) project (Vincent et al., 2019).
Ampliﬁed warming (Holland Bitz, 2003, Stuecker et al., 2018) and feedbacks
with Earth’s climate illustrate geophysical connections with the Arctic Ocean(Merideth et al., 2019), especially with reduced albedo from diminishing sea ice(Winton, 2006, Pistone et al., 2014) as well as with increased greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere from devolving methane (Shakhova et al., 2010, Sultan et al., 2020,
James et al., 2016). Additionally, melting from the Greenland Ice Sheet is raising
global sea level (Briner et al., 2020). The biogeophysical dynamics of the Arctic
Ocean system (Falardeau & Bennett, 2020) are represented further by species
interactions across associated and dependent ecosystems, involving humans as theprimary internal system driver of changes across the Earth during the Anthropocene(Ehlers & Krafft, 2006, National Research Council, 2014), beyond the external
drivers associated with changes in Solar radiation and Earth’s orbital geometries(Berger, 1988, Eddy, 2009). System perspectives that center on the Arctic Ocean are
reﬂected in the organization of this book (please see the PREFACE) with mapping of
the research and action chapters (Fig. 1.6 and Table 1.2) in each of the sections:U

nc

SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION (CHAPTERS 1–4);
SECTION II. THE ARCTIC OCEAN: EVOLVING ECOLOGICAL AND SUSTAINABILITY CHALLENGES (CHAPTERS 5–14);
SECTION III. THE BROADER ARCTIC SETTING (CHAPTERS 15–22)
SECTION IV. INFORMED DECISIONMAKING TOOLS AND APPROACHES FOR THE ARCTIC(CHAPTERS 23–32);
SECTION V. CONCLUSION (CHAPTERS 33–35).

Like any natural system, the Arctic Ocean is represented by boundaries that
depend on the eye of the beholder and the questions being addressed (Table 1.2).
Boundaries also are conceptual features of learning systems widely considered inview of stages from Data, Information and Knowledge to Wisdom across the‘DIKW Pyramid’ (Ackoff, 1989, 1999; Rowley, 2007). Although known since
Socrates, an innovation with the INFORMED DECISIONMAKING FOR SUSTAINABILITY

te
d

Pr

oo

f

1 Introduction: Building Common Interests with Informed Decisionmaking for. . .

or

re
c

Fig. 1.7 Biogeophysical Dynamics of the Arctic System illustrated in view marine-terrestrial
coupling with external and internal forcing. In the Arctic Ocean system (Fig. 1.1) – with its sea
ﬂoor, sea surface and terrestrial boundaries – there are: (a) geophysical features with water masses,
currents and sea ice with land-air-sea exchanges; (b) biological features with organisms, including
humans, interacting with their dependent and associated ecosystems over diverse time and spacescales; and (c) socioeconomic features with human uses of the maritime system along with its living
and mineral resources, involving short-to-long term impacts (Fig. 1.3). (Modiﬁed from Roberts
et al. (2010))

Unc

book series is that questions underlie data as a fundamental feature of learning
systems, as evolving with the ‘Pyramid of Informed Decisionmaking’ (Fig. 1.6).
Moreover, starting with questions inclusively is the essence of being transdisciplinary (beyond interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary or disciplinary) to achieve progresswith knowledge democracy (Bunders et al., 2010), creating the opportunity to build
common interests among allies and adversaries alike (Fig. 1.4).
The aspiration of this book is to be practical, helping readers to overlay
ecopolitical regions (Table 1.1; Figs. 1.1 and 1.7) with the methodologies of sciencethat contribute to informed decisions (Vörösmarty et al. 2018) with governancemechanisms and built infrastructure as well as their coupling for sustainable development in the Arctic Ocean (Pongrácz et al., 2020). This journey across the Pyramidof Informed Decisionmaking recognizes there are stages of research and action,
which are distinguished across the data-evidence interface, where individuals cancontribute as both observers and participants (Fig. 1.6).

P. A. Berkman et al.

1.2.2

Interconnected Governance Systems

U

nc

or

re
c

te
d

Pr

oo

f

In the Arctic Ocean, just as on a planetary scale, managing ecopolitical regions(Table 1.1; Figs. 1.1 and 1.7) involves common-interest building with researchaction connections that operate short-to-long term (Figs. 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6). In thislocal-global context, the “Law of the Sea” provides “an extensive international legal
framework” to which the Arctic States and Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations“remained committed” (Arctic Council Secretariat, 2013), including the ﬁve Arctic
coastal states (Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United States) that havedeclared their “sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction in large areas of the
Arctic Ocean” (Ilulissat Declaration 2008).
Law of the sea and international environmental law (like other branches ofinternational law) are applied universally, either as a binding system under the
Law of Treaties (Vienna Convention, 1969) or as a matter of international customary
law among nations. In both cases, areas within, across and beyond national jurisdictions are recognized to exist under international law. However, it is international
spaces (Kish, 1973; Berkman et al., 2011; Berkman, 2020c) that best illustrate
inclusive frameworks to build common interests (Figs. 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6), promoting
peace (Berkman, 2009) with lessons of unity beyond sovereign jurisdictions.
Law of the sea provides lessons about international spaces that are different thanwith Antarctica and outer space (Fig. 1.5), considering the jurisdictional zonationfrom national boundaries into Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ), crossing
a gradient of roles and responsibilities among nations (Fig. 1.8). The law of the sea
also distinguishes ecopolitical regions that are bounded by the sea ﬂoor and superjacent waters, which are related to sovereign jurisdictions differently. As a prominent
example (Berkman & Young, 2009), the deep sea ﬂoor to the North Pole still could
be delineated as continental shelf attached to national jurisdictions, whereas theoverlying high seas in the CAO (Fig. 1.1) are recognized universally as an international space (Fig. 1.5) where: “No State may validly purport to subject any part of
the high seas to its sovereignty” (United Nations, 1982).
As the ﬁrst ABNJ in human history (Convention on the High Seas, 1958), thehigh seas with its freedoms reﬂects the evolution of our globally-interconnectedcivilization since Grotius’ crafting Mare Liberum in the early seventeenth century(Bull et al. 1995), when humankind was formulating the legal prerogatives of thenation-state with the Treaty on Westphalia (Fig. 1.2a). The journey ahead withinternational spaces includes the “common heritage of mankind” (United Nations,
1982) in the deep sea ﬂoor as a visionary concept with equitability for the beneﬁt ofhumanity. As with all international spaces (Fig. 1.5), in the deep sea, complications
to balance national interests and common interests are highlighted by accelerating
commercial developments with short-term considerations only (Banet, 2020,
Tunnicliffe et al., 2020), illustrating the precursors for uninformed decisions without
formulation across a ‘continuum of urgencies’ (Fig. 1.4).

te
d

Pr

oo

f

1 Introduction: Building Common Interests with Informed Decisionmaking for. . .

or

re
c

Fig. 1.8 Law of the Sea Zonation from boundary baselines of coastal nations into international
spaces (Figs. 1.1 and 1.5), applied under customary international law (as by the United States) andthrough the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) with provisions for“strengthening of peace, security, co-operation and friendly relations among all nations” with
keystone contributions from “Marine Scientiﬁc Research” (United Nations, 1982). The law of thesea illustrates the challenge of humanity forever after the Second World War – as long as there arenations – to balance national interests and common interests on a planetary scale. (Adapted from
Berkman et al. (2020) as a core feature of the INFORMED DECISIONMAKING FOR SUSTAINABILITY bookseries)U

nc

With the 2018 Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in theCentral Arctic Ocean that entered into force on 25 June 2021, the high seas of the
CAO (Fig. 1.1) have become a common interest of Arctic and non-Arctic states with
Canada, China, Denmark (on behalf of the Faroe Islands and Greenland) Iceland,
Japan, Norway, Russia, South Korea and the United States as well as the European
Union (Vylegzhanin et al., 2020, Balton, 2020). Importantly, this binding Agreement brings home the point about the North Pole as a “pole of peace” (Gorbachev,
1987), considering especially the relations of superpowers who have signed thishistoric agreement.
The high seas of the CAO (Fig. 1.1.) also are a focal region to assess theinterconnected biogeophysical and socioeconomic dynamics of associated anddependent ecosystems in the changing Arctic with transboundary governanceconsiderations (Platjouw, 2019). Such assessment involves the cross-cutting featuresof science (Table 1.2), which are integrated across thematic, institutional andjurisdictional boundaries in a Pan-Arctic context (Figs. 1.1 and 1.7) with the 2017
Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientiﬁc Cooperation.

P. A. Berkman et al.

1.3
1.3.1

re
c

te
d

Pr

oo

f

Conceptually, the Arctic Science Agreement (2017) can be viewed as a key pieceof the governance complex in the Arctic Ocean, complementing the Marine Scientiﬁc Research provisions of UNCLOS (United Nations 1982) that are central toinformed decisionmaking (Figs. 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6) with law of the sea (Figs. 1.1 and
1.8). For example, the needs and applications of information are illustrated with the
Polar Code (2017), which refers to: “chart information;” “current information;”“hydrographic information;” “ice information;” “information available;” “information exchange;” land-based support information;” “meteorological information;” “positioning information;” “reference information;” “statisticalinformation;” “sufﬁcient information;” “supporting information;” “up-to-date
information;” and “weather information.” Similarly, data and information needs
are identiﬁed in other agreements that have come into force in the past decade (Arctic
Search and Rescue Agreement, 2011; Arctic Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness
Agreement, 2013) as well as earlier agreements (Berkman et al., 2019).
The process to produce these recent governance mechanisms are represented with
the Arctic Ocean Review (PAME, 2013), implementing informed decisions from the
2005–2015 Arctic Marine Strategic Plan (Arctic Council 2004), which is continuingwith the 2015–2025 Arctic Marine Strategic Plan (Arctic Council, 2015) acrossdecadal time scales (Fig. 1.2a, b). Together, coupling of the scientiﬁc and governance products in the Arctic Ocean illustrates the pathway of science diplomacy
from research to action, integrating data into evidence for informed decisionmaking(Figs. 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6).

With Global Inclusion

Local-Global Considerations

U

nc

or

The premise of this book is that we live in a globally-interconnected civilization(Figs. 1.2a-d; 1.5 and 1.8), which includes all of us today and across generations(Table 1.1). What does it mean to be inclusive? How can we operate with inclusion,
recognizing that institutions as well as systems have boundaries? Answering thesequestions is a matter of lifelong learning, which is the journey with informed
decisionmaking (Figs. 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6; Table 1.2) that is illustrated with focus on
the Arctic Ocean as a global case study (Figs. 1.1, 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9).
The dimensions of inclusion are local-global (Fig. 1.9), starting with questions(Fig. 1.6, Table 1.2) that involve transboundary perspectives and transdisciplinary
capacities that apply across institutions and jurisdictions (Figs. 1.8 and 1.9) as wellas across ecosystems that have dynamic geospatial dimensions (Figs. 1.7). The
Arctic Ocean system (Figs. 1.1 and 1.7) illustrates the holistic integration to achieve
progress with sustainable development (Table 1.3) as a Pan-Arctic issue, building
common interests among allies and adversaries alike while enhancing research
capacities (Fig. 1.6) to produce informed decisions (Figs. 1.3 and 1.4) that will
operate across generations in the high north.

Pr

oo

f

1 Introduction: Building Common Interests with Informed Decisionmaking for. . .

re
c

te
d

Fig. 1.9 Holistic Integration of interests in the Arctic Ocean with all humankind represented,
recognizing there are concentric stewardship roles and responsibilities with respect to the Arctic
residents who are most immediately impacted by changes in this region. At the center of the Arctic
Ocean, surrounding the North Pole as a “pole of peace” (Gorbachev, 1987), is the CAO high seas
(Figs. 1.1 and 1.8), which is an ABNJ that lends itself to building common interests with global
relevance. (Adapted from Berkman and Vylegzhanin (2012b))

Table 1.3 Attributes and local-global characteristics of sustainability
Attributes
Balancenc

Stabilityor

Resilience

U

1.3.2

Local-Global Characteristics
Environmental Protection + Economic Prosperity + Societal Well-Being
National Interests + Common Interests
Present Generations + Future Generations
Governance Mechanisms + Built Infrastructure
Promoting Cooperation + Preventing Conﬂict
Peace + Survival

Precaution Across Generations

With the Arctic Ocean system (Figs. 1.1, 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9), how can we maintain thehigh north as region of low tension (Støre 2010), continuously promoting cooperation and preventing conﬂict (Table 1.3)? How can we balance economic prosperity,environmental protection and societal well-being at the heart of sustainable development in the Arctic as well as elsewhere on Earth across generations? Answers tothese questions involve common-interest building (Fig. 1.4 and 1.6), which is
reﬂected with the CAO high seas (Figs. 1.1 and 1.8) as an international space withinclusion among allies and adversaries alike.

P. A. Berkman et al.

U

nc

or

re
c

te
d

Pr

oo

f

The CAO High Seas Fisheries Agreement (2018) highlights informed
decisionmaking (Figs. 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6) under international law with the principle
of precaution (Pan & Huntington, 2016, Hoag, 2017, Schatz et al., 2019). In speciﬁc,the CAO High Seas Fisheries Agreement (2018) considers the “application of
precautionary conservation and management measures as part of a long-term
strategy” to address “potential adverse impacts” – safeguarding “healthy marine
ecosystems” and ensuring “sustainable use of ﬁsh stocks” as the speciﬁc focus of
this historic agreement among Arctic and non-Arctic states. With relevance inclusively, considering examples and lessons to manage activities short-to-long term
(Figs. 1.3 and 1.4), related international legal instruments with the “precautionary”
principle and approaches are compiled as an Appendix to this chapter.
Applying precaution underscores the challenge we face collectively to operate asa globally-interconnected civilization. The solutions we seek are not magic bullets,
but processes that operate with scalability over time and space in the face ofchanging circumstances. With inclusion as the biggest challenge to achieve scalability, science diplomacy introduces an holistic process with informed
decisionmaking to enhance integration skills in an unbounded fashion independentof language, location and culture, complementing the seventeen United Nations
Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2015) at local-global levels(Figs. 1.9 and 1.10). In view of international and interdisciplinary inclusion, thescalability with informed decisionmaking is a testable proposition, potentially withlifelong learning in an intergenerational context.
How can individuals, institutions and governments be inclusive? Part of theanswer is to think beyond self-interests, which are most urgent now with greatest
immediacy in the present. The future also is urgent, requiring present considerations
to anticipate and prepare for eventualities, which are clearly evident in view of
exponential change across diverse time scales (Figs. 1.2a-d). The notion of precaution places responsibility on present and future generations to inform thedecisionmaking with governance mechanisms and built infrastructure as well as
their coupled contributions to sustainable development. Importantly, thinking withprecaution has the beneﬁt of empowering diverse stakeholders, rightsholders, andother actors to contribute in an inclusive manner, building common interests with
continuous iteration of questions, methods and capacities to address change.
Since the Treaty of Westphalia (Fig. 1.2a), nations have been the primary
jurisdictional unit across the Earth. However, with “world” wars in the twentiethcentury, it became necessary for nations to create international institutions that also
operate on a planetary scale. To be inclusive today involves subnational as anotherstep in our evolution as a globally-interconnected civilization, noting the jurisdictional spectrum on Earth is like meters aggregated into kilometers and divided into
centimeters (Fig. 1.10). How subnational ﬁts into international legal frameworks
with nations itself is a question to be resolved with informed decisionmaking.
Nonetheless, subnational jurisdictions do operate on planetary scale, as with themayors of forty major cities considering their shared responses to climate change(World Mayors Summit, 2019) or with California as the ﬁfth largest economy on
Earth (CBS New 2018). Addressing the COVID-19 pandemic now over months to

te
d

Pr

oo

f

1 Introduction: Building Common Interests with Informed Decisionmaking for. . .

recFig. 1.10 Spectrum of Jurisdictions on Earth, representing an inclusive framework for humankind to address impacts, issues and resources with informed decisionmaking (Figs. 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and1.6; Tables 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3) across our globally-interconnected civilization (Figs. 1.2a-d) at
subnational-national-international levels. With such integration, the Arctic Ocean system(Figs. 1.1, 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9) provides a global case-study with timeless lessons for humanity tooperate on a planetary scale. (Modiﬁed from Berkman (2019))

U

nc

or

years (Fig. 1.2c) – and with precaution for global pandemics to come in the future –requires informed decisionmaking across the jurisdictional spectrum (Fig. 1.10) withlocal-global implementation strategies before-through-after the inﬂection point(Fig. 1.3) that has yet to arrive.
All humans share a common interest in survival now with the COVID-19
pandemic, just as with “world” wars of the twentieth century, emerging over decades
to centuries to come with the passion of our world entering each Conference of theParties from the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(United Nations, 1992). Earth’s climate brings into renewed focus that our global
human population has accelerated from 1 billion people living around 1800 to
8 billion alive within the next ﬁve years (Fig. 1.2a). The challenge we collectively
face is one of common-interest building on a planetary scale.
The Arctic Ocean offers holistic lessons about decisionmaking, both informed
and uninformed, involving governance mechanisms and built infrastructure as wellas their coupling for sustainability. The Arctic Ocean also is part of thedecisionmaking with global issues, especially climate, operating across decades

P. A. Berkman et al.

Pr

oo

f

and centuries to come. In this sense, it is important to note that young adults living
today will be alive in the twenty-second century, which brings great responsibility of
those reading this book to consider how each of us can enhance next-generation
capacities. The perspectives about time – past, present and future – are what guide us
individually and collectively throughout our lives inclusively.
Research connects the present, past and the future, which is the essence of science
diplomacy to negotiate with time (Fig. 1.4), turning questions of common concern
into informed decisions (Fig. 1.6). Stimulated by curiosity, research skills are themost basic feature to make an informed decision, operating short-to-long term
before-through-after inﬂections points (Fig. 1.3). In this realm of imagination,
children are innately curious, emphasizing responsibilities to develop skills thatbegin with questions across a lifetime.
With science ﬁction into reality (Verne, 1865), the synergies of informed
decisionmaking will contribute to lifelong learning, triangulating education, researchand leadership with common-interest building and compassion. Learning lessons ofglobal inclusion from the Arctic Ocean and elsewhere with common-interest building to produce informed decisions underscores the opportunity to act “for the beneﬁtof all on Earth across generations.”

nc

or

re
c

te
d

Acknowledgements This chapter and those that follow emerged with Arctic Frontiers 2020,
building on the 2018 Memorandum of Understanding with the Science Diplomacy Center onbehalf of the editors for the book series on INFORMED DECISIONMAKING FOR SUSTAINABILITY. This
chapter is a product of the Science Diplomacy Center through EvREsearch LTD, coordinating
Arctic Options/Pan-Arctic Options and related projects with support from the United States
National Science Foundation (Award Nos. NSF-OPP 1263819, NSF-ICER 1660449, NSF-OPP
1719540 and NSF-ICER 2103490) along with the Fulbright Arctic Chair 2021-2022 awarded to
P.A. Berkman by the United States Department of State and Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
with funding from the United States Congress. These international projects include support also
from national science agencies in Canada, China, France, Norway, Russia from 2013 to 2022 incoordination with the Belmont Forum, gratefully acknowledging the collaboration with the University of California Santa Barbara, MGIMO University, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Norwegian Polar Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, University of Colorado Boulder, Carleton
University and the Ocean University of China among other institutions throughout this period. We
also thank the Polar Institute with the Wilson Center for their leadership and support of thiscontribution.

U

Appendix

The Precautionary Principle or Approach
Possible Citation: Soto Sanchez, R. 2022. Appendix to Chapter 1. Building Common
Interests with Informed Decisionmaking for Sustainability. IN: Berkman, P.A.,
Young, O.R., Vylegzhanin, A.N., Balton, D.A. and Øvretveit, O. (eds). BUILDINGCOMMON INTERESTS IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN WITH GLOBAL INCLUSION. VOLUME
2. INFORMED DECISIONMAKING FOR SUSTAINABILITY. Springer, Dordrecht.

1 Introduction: Building Common Interests with Informed Decisionmaking for. . .

Table 1 The precautionary principle or approach in the 1982 United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC)

U

nc

or

re
c

te
d

Pr

oo

f

The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) provides the widely agreed
basic international law framework for balancing the rights and duties of coastal States, including
protecting and preserving the marine environment in the different maritime zones, with the rights
and duties of all States, including to freedom of navigation. The LOSC applies to the Arctic Ocean
as it applies to other parts of the seas and oceans. Although the LOSC does not expressly refer tothe precautionary principle or precautionary approach, a number of its provisions, highlighted inthis table nevertheless give effect to the basic concept of precaution. The LOSC is not comprehensive in the sense of providing detailed rules for the regulation of all marine operations andshipping at sea, especially in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ). Other international
instruments, included in Table 2, build on or supplement the provisions of the LOSC relating toprecaution an evolving concept that must be interpreted in accordance with the full complement ofrelevant international instruments.2
Year
Instrument Type
Provision(s)Textual quotation
adopted1982
LOSC.3
Multilateral,
ArticlesArticle 194
International. 194 para(s).
Measures to prevent, reduce and con1 to 3; andtrol pollution of the marine environment
195.
“1. States shall take, individually or
jointly as appropriate, all measuresconsistent with this Convention that arenecessary to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment
from any source, using for this purposethe best practicable means at their disposal and in accordance with theircapabilities, and they shall endeavour
to harmonize their policies in this connection.
2. States shall take all measures necessary to ensure that activities under theirjurisdiction or control are so conducted
as not to cause damage by pollution toother States and their environment, andthat pollution arising from incidents oractivities under their jurisdiction orcontrol does not spread beyond theareas where they exercise sovereign
rights in accordance with this Convention.
3. The measures taken pursuant to thisPart shall deal with all sources of pollution of the marine environment. (. . .)”2(continued)

1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Vienna, 23 May 1969, in force 27 January 1980),
Article 31, para. 3, lit. c. 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, opened forsignature 10 December 1982, (entered into forced 16 November 1994) Article 311, para. 2.
3
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (opened for signature 10 December 1982,
entered into force 16 November 1994) 1833 UNTS 3 (LOSC).

P. A. Berkman et al.

U

nc

or

re
c

f

oo

te
d

Pr

Articles 207 to
211.

Article 195
Duty not to transfer damage or hazards
or transform one type of pollution intoanother“In taking measures to prevent, reduceand control pollution of the marine
environment, States shall act so as not totransfer, directly or indirectly, damage
or hazards from one area to another ortransform one type of pollution intoanother.”
Article 207
Pollution from land-based sources“1. States shall adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control
pollution of the marine environment
from land-based sources, including
rivers, estuaries, pipelines and outfall
structures, taking into account internationally agreed rules, standards andrecommended practices and procedures.
2. States shall take other measures as
may be necessary to prevent, reduceand control such pollution.
3. States shall endeavour to harmonize
their policies in this connection at theappropriate regional level.
4. States, (. . .), shall endeavour toestablish global and regional rules,
standards and recommended practices
and procedures to prevent, reduce andcontrol pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources,(. . .). Such rules, standards andrecommended practices and procedures shall be re-examined from time
to time as necessary.
5. Laws, regulations, measures, rules,
standards and recommended practices
and procedures referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 shall include those
designed to minimize, to the fullest
extent possible, the release of toxic,
harmful or noxious substances, especially those which are persistent, into
the marine environment.”(continued)

1 Introduction: Building Common Interests with Informed Decisionmaking for. . .

U

nc

or

re
c

te
d

Pr

oo

f

Article 208
Pollution from seabed activities
subject to national jurisdiction“1. Coastal States shall adopt laws
and regulations to prevent, reduce andcontrol pollution of the marine environment arising from or in connection
with seabed activities subject to theirjurisdiction and from artiﬁcial islands,
installations and structures under theirjurisdiction, (. . .).
2. States shall take other measures as
may be necessary to prevent, reduceand control such pollution.
3. Such laws, regulations and measures shall be no less effective thaninternational rules, standards andrecommended practices and procedures.
5. (. . .) Such rules, standards andrecommended practices and procedures shall be re-examined from time
to time as necessary.”
Article 209
Pollution from activities in the Area
“1. International rules, regulations
and procedures shall be established inaccordance with Part XI to prevent,reduce and control pollution of themarine environment from activities in
the Area. Such rules, regulations andprocedures shall be re-examined fromtime to time as necessary.
2. Subject to the relevant provisions of
this section, States shall adopt laws
and regulations to prevent, reduce andcontrol pollution of the marine environment from activities in the Area
undertaken by vessels, installations,structures and other devices ﬂying
their ﬂag or of their registry or operating under their authority, as the casemay be. The requirements of such laws
and regulations shall be no less effective than the international rules, (. . .).”
Article 210
Pollution by dumping“1. States shall adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control
pollution of the marine environment by
dumping.

(continued)

P. A. Berkman et al.

U

nc

or

re
c

te
d

Pr

oo

f

Article 211
2. States shall take other measures as
may be necessary to prevent, reduceand control such pollution.
3. Such laws, regulations and measures shall ensure that dumping is not
carried out without the permission of
the competent authorities of States.
4. (. . .) Such rules, standards andrecommended practices and procedures shall be re-examined from time
to time as necessary.
5. Dumping within the territorial sea
and the exclusive economic zone oronto the continental shelf shall not be
carried out (. . .) after due consideration of the matter with other States
which by reason of their geographicalsituation may be adversely affected
thereby.
6. National laws, regulations andmeasures shall be no less effective inpreventing, reducing and controllingsuch pollution than the global rules
and standards.”

Pollution from vessels“1. States, (. . .), shall establish international rules and standards to prevent, reduce and control pollution of
the marine environment from vessels(. . .). Such rules and standards shall,in the same manner, be re-examinedfrom time to time as necessary.
2. States shall adopt laws and regulations for the prevention, reduction andcontrol of pollution of the marine
environment from vessels ﬂying theirﬂag or of their registry. Such laws andregulations shall at least have the same
effect as that of generally acceptedinternational rules and standards
established through the competentinternational organization or general
diplomatic conference. (. . .)”Article 212
Pollution from or through the atmosphere“1. States shall adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control
pollution of the marine environment
from or through the atmosphere,(continued)

1 Introduction: Building Common Interests with Informed Decisionmaking for. . .

U

nc

or

re
c

f

te
d

Pr

oo

Article 234.

applicable to the air space under theirsovereignty and to vessels ﬂying theirﬂag or vessels or aircraft of their registry, taking into account internationally agreed rules, standards andrecommended practices and procedures and the safety of air navigation.
2. States shall take other measures as
may be necessary to prevent, reduceand control such pollution.
(. . .)”
Article 234
Ice-covered areas“Coastal States have the right to adopt
and enforce non-discriminatory laws
and regulations for the prevention,
reduction and control of marine pollution from vessels in ice-covered areas
within the limits of the exclusive economic zone, where particularly severe
climatic conditions and the presence ofice covering such areas for most of theyear create obstructions or exceptional
hazards to navigation, and pollution of
the marine environment could cause
major harm to or irreversible disturbance of the ecological balance. Suchlaws and regulations shall have due
regard to navigation and the protection and preservation of the marine
environment based on the best available scientiﬁc evidence.”

P. A. Berkman et al.

Table 2 Existing instruments that embody the precautionary principle or approach

U

nc

or

re
c

te
d

Pr

oo

f

This table sets forth key provisions from international instruments that relate to the precautionary
principle or precautionary approach, and that build on or supplement the provisions of the LOSC
contained in Table 1.4
Year
Instrument
Type
Provision(s)Textual quotation
adopted1969
OPRC Convention.5
Multilateral,
Article V.
Article V.
International.
“1. Measures taken by
the coastal State inaccordance with Article I
shall be proportionate to
the damage actual or
threatened to it.
2. Such measures shallnot go beyond what isreasonably necessary toachieve the end mentioned in Article I andshall cease as soon asthat end has beenachieved; they shall notunnecessarily interferewith the rights andinterests of the ﬂag State,
third States and of any
persons, physical or
corporate, concerned.
3. In considering
whether the measures
are proportionate to thedamage, account shallbe taken of:(a) the extent and probability of imminent damage if those measures are
not taken; and(b) the likelihood of
those measures being
effective; and(c) the extent of thedamage which may becaused by suchmeasures.”4(continued)

1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, opened for signature 10 December 1982,(entered into forced 16 November 1994) Article 311, para.3.
5
1969 International Convention relating to intervention on the high seas in cases of oil pollution
casualties, opened for signature 29 November 1969, (entered into forced 06 May 1975) UNTS
970 (p.211).

1 Introduction: Building Common Interests with Informed Decisionmaking for. . .
CITES.6

Multilateral,
International.

Articles VIII,XIII and XIV.

Article VIII
Measures to be Taken by
the Parties“1. The Parties shalltake appropriate measures to enforce the provisions of the present
Convention and to prohibit trade in specimens
in violation thereof.
(. . .)”
Article XIIIInternational Measures“1. When the Secretariat
in the light of information received is satisﬁedthat any species includedin Appendix I or II isbeing affected adversely
by trade in specimens ofthat species or that theprovisions of the present
Convention are not being
effectively implemented,
it shall communicate
such information to theauthorized Management
Authority of the Party or
Parties concerned.
2. When any Party
receives a communication as indicated in paragraph 1 of this Article, it
shall, as soon as possible,
inform the Secretariat ofany relevant facts insofar
as its laws permit and,
where appropriate, propose remedial action.
Where the Party considers that an inquiry isdesirable, such inquiry
may be carried out by one
or more persons
expressly authorized by
the Party.
(. . .)”
Article XIV
Effect on Domestic Legislation and International
Conventions

U

nc

or

re
c

te
d

Pr

oo

f

1973

(continued)
6

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, 03 March
1973,, (entered into force 01 July 1975), 993 U.N.T.S. 243 (CITES).

P. A. Berkman et al.

CAMLR Convention.7

U

nc

1980

or

re
c

te
d

Pr

oo

f

“1. The provisions of thepresent Convention shallin no way affect the rightof Parties to adopt:(a) stricter domestic measures regarding the conditions for trade, taking,possession or transport ofspecimens of species
included in Appendices I,
II and III, or the complete
prohibition thereof; or(b) domestic measures
restricting or prohibiting
trade, taking, possession
or transport of species notincluded in Appendix I, IIor III.
(. . .)
6. Nothing in the present
Convention shall prejudice the codiﬁcation anddevelopment of the lawof the sea by the United
Nations Conference on
the Law of the Sea convened pursuant to Resolution 2750 C (XXV) of
the General Assembly of
the United Nations nor
the present or future
claims and legal views of
any State concerning thelaw of the sea and thenature and extent ofcoastal and ﬂag Statejurisdiction.”
Article II.
“1. The objective of thisConvention is the conservation of Antarctic
marine living resources.
(. . .)
3. Any harvesting andassociated activities in
the area to which thisConvention applies shallbe conducted in accordance with theMultilateral,
Regional.

Article II, para.
3, item c).

(continued)

7

1980 Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, opened for signature
20 May 1980, (entered into forced 7 April 1982) 1329 UNTS.

1 Introduction: Building Common Interests with Informed Decisionmaking for. . .

World Charter for
Nature.8

UnitedNations’
GeneralAssembly
Resolution.

U

nc

or

re
c

1982

te
d

Pr

oo

f

provisions of this Convention and with the following principles ofconservation:(. . .)(c)revention of changes
or minimisation of therisk of changes in themarine ecosystem which
are not potentiallyreversible over two or
three decades, taking
into account the state ofavailable knowledge ofthe direct and indirect
impact of harvesting, theeffect of the introductionof alien species, theeffects of associatedactivities on the marine
ecosystem and of theeffects of environmental
changes, with the aim ofmaking possible thesustained conservationof Antarctic marine living resources.”
GENERAL PRINCIPLES“1. Nature shall be
respected and its essential processes shall not
be impaired.
2. (. . .) habitats shall besafeguard.
3. All areas of the earth,both land and sea, shallbe subject to these principles of conservation;
special protection shallbe given to unique areas,(. . .) to the habitats ofrare or endangered species.
(. . .)
5. Nature shall be
secured against degradation caused by (. . .)hostile activities.”(continued)
8
UN General Assembly, World Charter for Nature., 28 October 1982, A/RES/37/7, available at:https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/39295?ln¼es[accessed 06 September 2020]

P. A. Berkman et al.
Vienna Convention.9

Multilateral.

Article2, para.1.

1987

Declaration on the Second International Conference on theProtection of the North
Sea.10Regional
Declaration.

Articles VII;
XV item(ii);and XVI para.
(1).

Article 2: General obligations“1. The Parties shalltake appropriate measures in accordance withthe provisions of thisConvention and of those
protocols in force towhich they are party toprotect human healthand the environment
against adverse effects
resulting or likely toresult from human activities which modify or are
likely to modify the ozone
layer.
(. . .)”
Ministerial Declaration“(. . .)
VII. Accepting that, inorder to protect theNorth Sea from possibly
damaging effects of themost dangerous substances, a precautionary
approach is necessary
which may require
action to control inputs
of such substances even
before a causal link has
been established byabsolutely clear scientiﬁc evidence;(. . .)
XV. Decide to:(. . .)(ii) accept that by combining, simultaneously
and complementarily,
approaches based onemission standards andenvironmental quality
objectives, a more precautionary approach todangerous substances
will be established;

te
d

re
c
or
nc
U

Pr

oo

f

1985

(continued)
91985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, opened for signature 22 march
1985, (entered into forced 22 September 1988) UNTS 1513, (p.293).
10
Second International Conference on the Protection of the North Sea, London, 27 November 1987.

1 Introduction: Building Common Interests with Informed Decisionmaking for. . .

The Montreal
Protocol.11

U

nc

or

1987

re
c

te
d

Pr

oo

f

(. . .)XVI. Therefore agree to:(. . .)
l. accept the principle ofsafeguarding the marine
ecosystem of the North
Sea by reducing polluting emissions of substances that are
persistent, toxic and liable to bioaccumulate atsource by the use of thebest available technology and other appropriate measures. Thisapplies especially when
there is reason to assume
that certain damage or
harmful effects on theliving resources of thesea are likely to becaused by such substances, even where
there is no scientiﬁc evidence to prove a causal
link between emissions
and effects (“the principle of precautionary
action”); (. . .)”Preamble.
“(. . .) Determined toprotect the ozone layer
by taking precautionary
measures to control
equitably total global
emissions of substancesthat deplete it, with theultimate objective of
their elimination on thebasis of developments inscientiﬁc knowledge,taking into account technical and economic considerations and bearing
in mind the developmental needs of developing
countries,(. . .)

Protocol,Multilateral.

Preamble, para(s). 6 and 8.

(continued)
11

Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer, opened for signature 16 September
1987, (entered into forced 01 January 1989) UNTS 26369.

P. A. Berkman et al.

United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change.12

Multilateral.

Article 3.

U

nc

or

re
c

te
d

Pr

oo

f

1992

Noting the precautionary
measures for controllingemissions of certain
chloroﬂuorocarbons thathave already been taken
at national and regional
levels, (. . .)”Article 3.
PRINCIPLES.
“(. . .)
3. The Parties shouldtake precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize thecauses of climate change
and mitigate its adverse
effects. Where there arethreats of serious or
irreversible damage,lack of full scientiﬁc certainty should not be used
as a reason for postponing such measures, taking into account thatpolicies and measures todeal with climate change
should be cost-effective
so as to ensure global
beneﬁts at the lowest
possible cost. To achievethis, such policies andmeasures should take
into account different
socio-economic contexts,
be comprehensive, cover
all relevant sources,
sinks and reservoirs ofgreenhouse gases andadaptation, and comprise all economic sectors. Efforts to address
climate change may be
carried out cooperatively by interested
Parties. (. . .)”12(continued)

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, opened for signature 09 May 1992,(entered into forced 21 March 1994) UNTS 1771 (p.107).

The Water
Convention.13

Regional.

Article 2, para.
5, item (a).

1992

Rio Declaration.14

International.

Principle 15.

1992

Article 2.
General Provisions.
“(...)5. (. . .) the Parties
shall be guided by thefollowing principles:(a) The precautionary
principle, by virtue of
which action to avoid thepotential transboundary
impact of the release ofhazardous substances
shall not to be postponedon the ground that scientiﬁc research has not
fully proved a causal link
between those substances, on the one hand,
and the potential
transboundary impact,
on the other hand; (. . .)”Principle 15.
“In order to protect theenvironment, the precautionary approach
shall be widely appliedby States according totheir capabilities. Where
there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientiﬁccertainty shall not be
used as a reason for
postponing cost-effective
measures to prevent
environmental
degradation.”
Title XVI Environment
Article 130r“(. . .)
2. Community policy on
the environment shall
aim at a high level ofprotection taking into
account the diversity of

re
c

te
d

Pr

oo

f

1992

or

1 Introduction: Building Common Interests with Informed Decisionmaking for. . .

U

nc

The Maastricht
Treaty.15

Regional.

Article 130r,
para. (2).

(continued)

13
Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes,
adopted on 17 March 1992, (entered into forced 06 October 1996).
14
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 14 June 1992, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26/
Rev.1 Report of the UNCED Vol.1 (New York).
15
Treaty on European Union, adopted on 07 February 1992, (entered into forced 01 November
1993) UNTS 298, (p.11).

P. A. Berkman et al.

Convention on theTransboundary Effects
of Industrial
Accidents.16

Regional.

Article 3, para.
1.

nc

or

re
c

te
d

1992

Pr

oo

f

situations in the various
regions of the Community. It shall be based on
the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive
action should be taken,
that environmental damage should as a priority
be rectiﬁed at source andthat the polluter shouldpay. Environmental protection requirements
must be integrated into
the deﬁnition and implementation of other Community policies. (. . .)”Article 3
General provisions“1. The Parties shall,taking into accountefforts already made atnational and international levels, takeappropriate measuresand cooperate within theframework of this Convention, to protect
human beings and theenvironment against
industrial accidents by
preventing such accidents as far as possible,
by reducing their frequency and severity andby mitigating theireffects. To this end, preventive, preparedness
and response measures,
including restoration
measures, shall beapplied. (. . .)”Article 3.
Fundamental principles
and obligations.
“(. . .)

U

1992

Helsinki Convention.17

Regional.

Article 3, para.
2.

(continued)
16

Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents, adopted on 17 March 1992,(entered into forced 19 April 2000) UNTS 2105, (p. 457), with Amendments as Adopted in 2015.
17
Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, opened forsignature 17 March 1992, (entered into force 17 January 2000) 1507 UNTS.

1 Introduction: Building Common Interests with Informed Decisionmaking for. . .

Pr

oo

f

2. The Contracting
Parties shall apply the
precautionary principle,
i.e., to take preventive
measures when there isreason to assume that
substances or energy
introduced, directly or
indirectly, into themarine environment may
create hazards to humanhealth, harm living
resources and marine
ecosystems, damage
amenities or interferewith other legitimate
uses of the sea even when
there is no conclusive
evidence of a causal
relationship between
inputs and their alleged
effects. (. . .)”Article 2.
“(. . .) The Contracting
Parties shall apply:a) the precautionary
principle, by virtue of
which preventive measures are to be taken
when there are reasonable grounds for concernthat substances orenergy introduced,
directly or indirectly,
into the marine environment may bring about
hazards to humanhealth, harm living
resources and marine
ecosystems, damage
amenities or interferewith other legitimate
uses of the sea, evenwhen there is no conclusive evidence of a causal
relationship between the
inputs and the effects;(. . .)”

Multilateral,
Regional.

orncU

Article 2, para.
2, item a).

ted

OSPAR Convention.18

re
c

1992

(continued)
18

Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (opened forsignature 22 September 1992, entered into force 25 March 1998) 2354 UNTS.

P. A. Berkman et al.
Protocol to the 1979
Convention on LongRange Transboundary
Air Pollution on Further
Reduction of Sulphur
Emissions.19

Protocol,Multilateral.

Preamble.

1994

Energy Charter Treaty.

Multilateral.

Article19, para. (1).

Preamble.
“(. . .) Resolved to takeprecautionary measures
to anticipate, prevent or
minimize emissions of air
pollutants and mitigate
their adverse effects,
Convinced that where
there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientiﬁccertainty should not be
used as a reason for
postponing such measures, taking into
account that such precautionary measures todeal with emissions of
air pollutants should becost-effective, (. . .)”Article 19: Environmental Aspects“(1) In pursuit of sustainable development
and taking into accountits obligations underthose international
agreements concerning
the environment to which
it is party, eachContracting Party shallstrive to minimise in an
economically efﬁcientmanner harmful Environmental Impacts
occurring either withinor outside its Area fromall operations within the
Energy Cycle in its Area,taking proper account ofsafety. In doing so eachContracting Party shallact in a Cost-Effective
manner. In its policies
and actions eachContracting Party shallstrive to take precautionary measures to prevent or minimise
environmental degradation.(. . .)”

U

nc

or

re
c

te
d

Pr

oo

f

1994

(continued)
19

Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Further
Reduction of Sulphur Emissions, Oslo, 14 June 1994, in force 05 August 1998, UNTS 2030,(p. 122).

1 Introduction: Building Common Interests with Informed Decisionmaking for. . .
UN Fish Stocks
Agreement.20

Multilateral,
Regional.

Article 6.

Article 6.
Application of the precautionary approach.
“1. States shall apply the
precautionary approach
widely to conservation,
management and exploitation of straddling ﬁshstocks and highly migratory ﬁsh stocks in orderto protect the living
marine resources andpreserve the marine
environment.
2. States shall be morecautious when information is uncertain,
unreliable or inadequate. The absence ofadequate scientiﬁc information shall not be used
as a reason for postponing or failing to takeconservation and management measures.
3. In implementing the
precautionary approach,States shall:(a) improve decisionmaking (. . .) byobtaining and sharing
the best scientiﬁc information available andimplementing improved
techniques for dealing
with risk and uncertainty; (. . .)(c) take into account,inter alia, uncertainties(. . .) and the impact ofﬁshing activities on
non-target and associated or dependent species, as well as existingand predicted oceanic,
environmental andsocio-economic conditions;

U

nc

or

re
c

te
d

Pr

oo

f

1995

(continued)
20

Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling
Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UN Fish Stocks Agreement), 2167 UNTS 3.

P. A. Berkman et al.

U

nc

or

re
c

te
d

Pr

oo

f

(d) develop data collection and research
programmes to assess
the impact of ﬁshing on
non-target and associated or dependent species and theirenvironment, and adopt
plans which are necessary to ensure the conservation of such species
and to protect habitats ofspecial concern.
(. . .)
6. For new or exploratory ﬁsheries, Statesshall adopt as soon as
possible cautious conservation and management measures,
including, inter alia,
catch limits and effort
limits. Such measures
shall remain in force
until there are sufﬁcient
data to allow assessmentof the impact of the ﬁsheries on the long-termsustainability of thestocks, whereupon conservation and management measures based onthat assessment shall be
implemented. The lattermeasures shall, if
appropriate, allow for
the gradual developmentof the ﬁsheries.
7. If a natural phenomenon has a signiﬁcant
adverse impact on thestatus of straddling ﬁshstocks or highly migratory ﬁsh stocks, Statesshall adopt conservationand management measures on an emergency
basis to ensure that ﬁshing activity does notexacerbate such adverse(continued)

1 Introduction: Building Common Interests with Informed Decisionmaking for. . .

London Protocol.21

1999

Convention on the Protection of the Rhine.22

Protocol,Multilateral.

Article 3, para.
1.

orCartagena Protocol on
Biosafety.23

U

nc

2000

re
c

te
d

Pr

oo

f

1996

impact. States shall also
adopt such measures onan emergency basis
where ﬁshing activity
presents a serious threat
to the sustainability ofsuch stocks. (. . .)”Article 3.
General Obligations“1. In implementing thisProtocol, Contracting
Parties shall apply aprecautionary approachto environmental protection from dumping ofwastes or other matter
whereby appropriate
preventative measures
are taken when there isreason to believe thatwastes or other matter
introduced into themarine environment arelikely to cause harm evenwhen there is no conclusive evidence to prove a
causal relation between
inputs and their effects.
(. . .)”
Article 4
Principles“To this end, theContracting Parties
shall be guided by thefollowing principles:(a) precautionary principle; (. . .)”Preamble“(. . .) Reafﬁrming the
precautionary approachcontained in Principle

21

Regional.

Article 4, item(a).

Multilateral.

Preamble, andArticles 1;
10 para. 6; and11 para. 8.

(continued)

1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes
and Other Matter (London Convention), London, 7 November 1996, in force 24 March 2006, 2006
ATS 11 (London Protocol).
22
Convention on the Protection of the Rhine, adopted on 12 April 1999, (entered into forced
01 January 2003).
23
Protocol to the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety),
Cartagena de Indias, adopted on 29 January 2000, (entered into force on 11 September 2003) UNTS
2226, (p.208).

P. A. Berkman et al.

U

nc

or

re
c

te
d

Pr

oo

f

15 of the Rio Declaration
on Environment andDevelopment,(. . .)”Article 1
OBJECTIVE
In accordance with the
precautionary approachcontained in Principle
15 of the Rio Declaration
on Environment andDevelopment, the objective of this Protocol is tocontribute to ensuring anadequate level of protection in the ﬁeld of thesafe transfer, handlingand use of living modiﬁed organisms resulting
from modern biotechnology that may haveadverse effects on theconservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also
into account risks tohuman health, and speciﬁcally focusing ontransboundary movements.
Article 10
DECISION PROCE
DURE“(. . .) 6. Lack of scientiﬁc certainty due toinsufﬁcient relevant scientiﬁc information andknowledge regarding theextent of the potential
adverse effects of a living
modiﬁed organism on
the conservation andsustainable use of biological diversity in the
Party of import, taking
also into account risks tohuman health, shall notprevent that Party fromtaking a decision, as
appropriate, with regard
to the import of the living
modiﬁed organism inquestion as referred to in(continued)

1 Introduction: Building Common Interests with Informed Decisionmaking for. . .

Stockholm Convention
on Persistent Organic
Pollutants.24

U

nc

2001

or

re
c

te
d

Pr

oo

f

paragraph 3 above, inorder to avoid or minimize such potential
adverse effects. (. . .)”Article 11
PROCEDURE FOR
LIVING MODIFIED ORGANISMS INTENDED
FOR DIRECT USE AS
FOOD OR FEED, OR
FOR PROCESSING“(. . .) 8. Lack of scientiﬁc certainty due toinsufﬁcient relevant scientiﬁc information andknowledge regarding theextent of the potential
adverse effects of a living
modiﬁed organism on
the conservation andsustainable use of biological diversity in the
Party of import, taking
also into account risks tohuman health, shall notprevent that Party fromtaking a decision, as
appropriate, with regard
to the import of that living modiﬁed organism
intended for direct use as
food or feed, or forprocessing, in order toavoid or minimize suchpotential adverse effects.
(. . .)”
Preamble“(. . .) Acknowledging
that precaution underlies
the concerns of all theParties and is embedded
within this Convention,(. . .)”
Article 1
Objective
Mindful of the precautionary approach as set
forth in Principle 15 ofMultilateral.

Preamble para.
8; and Articles
1, and 8 para.
9.

(continued)
24

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, adopted on 22 May 2001, (entered into
force on 17 May 2004) UNTS 2256, (p.119).

P. A. Berkman et al.

Framework Convention
for the Protection of the
Marine Environment of
the Caspian Sea.25

U

nc

2003

or

re
c

te
d

Pr

oo

f

the Rio Declaration on
Environment and Development, the objective of
this Convention is toprotect human healthand the environment
from persistent organic
pollutants.
Article 8“(. . .)
9. The Committee shall,
based on the risk proﬁlereferred to in paragraph
6 and the risk management evaluation referred
to in paragraph 7 (a) or
paragraph 8, recommend
whether the chemical
should be considered by
the Conference of theParties for listing in
Annexes A, B and/or
C. The Conference of theParties, taking due
account of the recommendations of the Committee, including any
scientiﬁc uncertainty,
shall decide, in a precautionary manner,
whether to list the chemical, and specify its
related control measures, in Annexes A, B
and/or C.”
Article 5. Principles“In the actions for goal
achievement of this Convention and accomplishment of its provisions
Contracting Parties are
guided, including:(a) the principle of taking measures of precaution according to which,in the presence of threatof serious or irreversible

Regional.

Article 5, para.
(a).

(continued)

25

Framework Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Caspian Sea,
adopted on 04 November 2003, (entered into force on 12 August 2006).

1 Introduction: Building Common Interests with Informed Decisionmaking for. . .

2018

The CAO Fisheries
Agreement.27

Multilateral,
Regional.

Part II-A andPart II-B
Pollution Prevention
Measures.
Article 5, para.
1, item c).

f

Multilateral,
Regional(Polarwaters).

oo

The Polar Code.26

U

nc

or

re
c

te
d

Pr

2014

damage for the marine
environment of the
Caspian Sea, references
to lack of complete scientiﬁc conﬁdence are notused as the reason for
delay of cost-efﬁcientmeasures for the prevention of similar damage;(. . .)”
See the Chapter 1 text
with reference to “information” needs andapplications from thePolar Code (2017)
Article 5.
Review and Further
Implementation.
“(. . .) c) on the basis of
the scientiﬁc information
derived from the Joint
Program of ScientiﬁcResearch and Monitoring, from the national
scientiﬁc programs, andfrom other relevant
sources, and taking into
account relevant ﬁsheries
management and ecosystem considerations,
including the precautionary approach andpotential adverse impactsof ﬁshing on the ecosystems, consider, inter alia,
whether the distribution,
migration and abundanceof ﬁsh in the Agreement
Area would support asustainable commercial
ﬁshery and, (. . .).”

26

International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar Code), adopted on 94th Session of
IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) in November 2014, entered into force 01 January 2017.
27‘Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean’, 12.6.2018,
COM (2018) 454 ﬁnal, available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri¼CELEX:52018PC0453&from¼EN; last accessed 05 May 2020.

P. A. Berkman et al.

References

U

nc

or

re
c

te
d

Pr

oo

f

Ackoff, R. L. (1989). From data to wisdom. Presidential address to ISGSR, June 1988. Journal ofApplied Systems Analysis, 16, 3–9. http://www-public.imtbs-tsp.eu/~gibson/Teaching/Teaching-ReadingMaterial/Ackoff89.pdf
Ackoff, R. L. (1999). Ackoff’s best: his classic writings on management. John Wiley.
Ambassadorial Panel. (2015). Building common interests in the Arctic Ocean. University of
Reykjavik. https://en.ru.is/news/arctic-high-seas-oct15
Ambassadorial Panel. (2016). Building common interests in the Arctic Ocean. University of
Reykjavik. https://en.ru.is/news/building-common-interests-in-the-arctic-ocean-1
Arctic Council. (2004). 2005–2015 Arctic marine strategic plan. Protection of the Arctic Marine
Environment (PAME) Working Group. https://www.pame.is/document-library/amsp-docu
ments/173-amsp-2005-2015/ﬁleArctic Council. (2015). 2015–2025 Arctic marine strategic plan. 9th Arctic Council Ministerial
Meeting, Iqaluit. https://www.pame.is/document-library/amsp-documents/174-amsp-2015-202
5/ﬁleArctic Council. (2016). In M. Carson & G. Peterson (Eds.), Arctic resilience report. Stockholm
Environment Institute and Stockholm Resilience Centre. https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/
handle/11374/1838
Arctic Council Secretariat (2013) Vision for the Arctic. Arctic Council Secretariat, Kiruna, Sweden
15 May 2013
Arctic Frontiers (2020a) Arctic Frontiers 2020. Annual Report: The Power of Knowledge. Tromsø,
Norway. (https://www.arcticfrontiers.com/conference/2020-the-power-of-knowledge/)
Arctic Frontiers (2020b) Arctic Frontiers 2020. Conference Summary. The Power of Knowledge.
Tromsø, Norway. (https://www.arcticfrontiers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/
plenaryreport2020.pdf)
Arctic Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness Agreement (2013) Agreement on cooperation on marine
oil pollution preparedness and response in the Arctic. Signed: 15 May 2013, Kiruna, Sweden
Entry into Force: 25 March 2016. https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/529
Arctic Science Agreement (2017) Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientiﬁc Cooperation. Signed Fairbanks, Alaska, United States, 11 May 2017. Entry into Force, 23 May 2018.
(https://www.state.gov/e/oes/rls/other/2017/270809.htm)
Arctic Search and Rescue Agreement (2011) Agreement on cooperation on aeronautical andmaritime search and rescue in the Arctic. Signed: 12 May 2011, Nuuk, Greenland Entry into
Force: 19 January 2013. (https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/531)
Balton, D. A. (2019). What will the BBNJ agreement mean for the Arctic ﬁsheries agreement?
Marine Policy, 109, 103745. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S030
8597X1930449X
Balton, D. A. (2020). Chapter 21 implementing the new Arctic ﬁsheries agreement. In T. Heidar(Ed.), New knowledge and changing circumstances in the law of the sea (pp. 429–445). Brill
Nkjhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004437753_023
Banet, C. (Ed.). (2020). The law of the seabed: access, uses, and protection of seabed resources.
Brill Nijhoff.
Berger, A. (1988). Milankovitch theory and climate. Reviews of Geophysics, 26(4), 624–657.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230890888_Milankovitch_Theory_and_Climate
Berkes, F., Folke, C., & Colding, J. (Eds.). (2000). Linking social and ecological systems:
management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. University of Cambridge
Press.
Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2008). Navigating social-ecological systems: building
resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press.
Berkman, P. A. (2002). Science into policy: global lessons from Antarctica. Academic.
Berkman, P. A. (2009). International spaces promote peace. Nature, 462, 412–413. https://www.
nature.com/articles/462412a

1 Introduction: Building Common Interests with Informed Decisionmaking for. . .

U

nc

or

re
c

te
d

Pr

oo

f

Berkman, P. A. (2011). President Eisenhower, the Antarctic treaty and origin of international
spaces. In P. A. Berkman, M. A. Lang, D. W. H. Walton, & O. R. Young (Eds.), Science
diplomacy: antarctica, science and the governance of international spaces (pp. 17–28).
Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press. https://repository.si.edu/handle/10088/16154
Berkman, P. A. (2012). ‘Common interests’ as an evolving body of international law: applications
for Arctic Ocean stewardship. In R. Wolfrum (Ed.), Arctic Marine Science, International Law
and Climate Protection. Legal Aspects of Future Marine Science in the Arctic Ocean(pp. 155–174). Springer.
Berkman, P. A. (2013) Preventing and Arctic Cold War. New York Times 12 March 2013. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/opinion/preventing-an-arctic-cold-war.html
Berkman, P. A. (2015). Institutional dimensions of sustaining Arctic observing networks (SAON).
Arctic, 68(Suppl. 1). https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic4499
Berkman, P. A. (2019). Evolution of science diplomacy and its local-global applications. Special
issue, ‘broadening soft power in EU-US relations’. European Foreign Affairs Review, 24,
63–79. https://www.ingsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Evolution-of-Science-Diplomacyand-its-Local-Global-Applications_23JUL19.pdf
Berkman, P. A. (2020a). Science diplomacy and it engine of informed Decisionmaking: operating
through our global pandemic with humanity. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 15, 435–450.
https://brill.com/view/journals/hjd/15/3/article-p435_13.xml
Berkman, P. A. (2020b) ‘The pandemic lens’: focusing across time scales for local-global sustainability. Patterns 1(8): 13 November 2020. 4p. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33294877/
Berkman, P. A. (2020c). Chapter 6. Polar science diplomacy. In K. N. Scott & D. VanderZwaag(Eds.), Research Handbook on Polar Law (pp. 105–123). Edward Elgar.
Berkman, P. A., & Vylegzhanin, A. N. (Eds.). (2012a). Environmental security in the Arctic Ocean.
NATO Science for Peace and Security Series (p. 459p). Springer. https://www.springer.com/gp/
book/9789400747128
Berkman, P. A., & Vylegzhanin, A. N. (2012b). Conclusion: building common interests in the
Arctic Ocean. In P. A. Berkman & A. N. Vylegzhanin (Eds.), Environmental security in the
Arctic Ocean. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series (pp. 371–404). Springer. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789400747128
Berkman, P. A., & Vylegzhanin, A. N. (2020). Training Skills with Common-Interest Building.
Science Diplomacy Action 4:1–65. [Student-Ambassador Declarations (2016–2020) from the
Joint Video-Conferencing Course on Science Diplomacy: Environmental Security and Law in
the Arctic Ocean with the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University (UnitedStates) and International Law Programme at MGIMO University (Russian Federation)]. https://scidiplo.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Synthesis_4.pdf
Berkman, P. A., & Young, O. R. (2009). Governance and environmental change in the Arctic
Ocean. Science, 324, 339–340. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/324/5925/339
Berkman, P. A., Lang, M. A., Walton, D. W. H., & Young, O. R. (Eds.). (2011). Science diplomacy:
Antarctica, science and the governance of international spaces. Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press. https://repository.si.edu/handle/10088/16154
Berkman, P. A., Kullerud, L., Pope, A., Vylegzhanin, A. N., & Young, O. R. (2017). The Arctic
science agreement propels science diplomacy. Science, 358, 596–598. https://science.
sciencemag.org/content/358/6363/596
Berkman, P. A., Vylegzhanin, A. N., & Young, O. R. (2019). Baseline of Russian Arctic Laws.
Springer. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030062613
Berkman, P. A., Young, O. R., & Vylegzhanin, A. N. (2020). Preface for the book series on
informed Decisionmaking for sustainability. IN: Young, O.R., Berkman, P.A. and Vylegzhanin(eds.) Volume 1: Governing Arctic Seas: Regional Lessons from the Bering Strait and Barents
Sea. Springer. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/bfm%3A978-3-030-25674-6%2F1.pdf
Briner, J. P., Cuzzone, J. K., Badgeley, J. A., Young, N. E., Steig, E. J., Morlighem, M., Schlegel,
N.-J., Hakim, G. J., Schaefer, J. M., Johnson, J. V., Lesnek, A. J., Thomas, E. K., Allan, E.,
Bennike, O., Cluett, A. A., Csatho, B., de Vernal, A., Downs, J., Larour, E., & Nowicki,

P. A. Berkman et al.

U

nc

or

re
c

te
d

Pr

oo

f

S. (2020). Rate of mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet will exceed Holocene values thiscentury. Nature, 586, 70–74. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2742-6
Bull, H., Kingsbury, B., & Roberts, A. (1995). Hugo Grotius and international relations.
Clarendon Press.
Bunders, J. F. G., Broerse, J. E. W., Keil, F., Pohl, C., Scholz, R. W., & Zweekhorst,
M. B. M. (2010). How can transdisciplinary research contribute to knowledge
democracy? IN: in ‘t veld, Roel (Ed.) Knowledge Democracy: Consequences for Science,
Politics, and Media (pp. 125–152). Springer. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/27423
9011_Knowledge_Democracy
CAO High Seas Fisheries Agreement. (2018). Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas
Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean. Signed: Ilulissat, 3 October 2018. Entry into Force:
pending remaining ratiﬁcation by China. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?
uri¼COM:2018:453:FIN
Carmack, E., Polyakov, I., Padman, L., Fer, I., Hunke, E., Hutchings, J., Jackson, J., Kelley, D.,
Kwok, R., Layton, C., Melling, H., Perovich, D., Persson, O., Ruddick, B., Timmermans, M.-L.,
Toole, J., Ross, T., Vavrus, S., & Winsor, P. (2015). Toward quantifying the increasing role ofoceanic heat in sea ice loss in the new Arctic. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society,96(12), 2079–2105. https://journals.ametsoc.org/downloadpdf/journals/bams/96/12/bams-d13-00177.1.xml
CBS News. (2018). California now has the world’s 5th largest economy. CBS News, 4 May 2018.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-now-has-the-worlds-5th-largest-economy/
Convention on the High Seas. (1958). Convention on the high seas. Signed: Geneva, 29 April 1958
Entry into Force: 30 September 1962. https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?
src¼TREATY&mtdsg_no¼XXI-2&chapter¼21
De Lucia, V. (2019). The BBNJ negotiations and ecosystem governance in the Arctic. Marine
Policy, 110, 103756. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(20)30860-5/sref32)
DeEicken H., Lee OA, Lovecraft AL (2016) Evolving roles of observing systems and dataco-management in Arctic Ocean governance. OCEANS 2016, Marine Technology Society. pp.
1-8 (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7761298)
Eddy, J. A. (2009). The sun, the earth and the near-earth space: A guide to the sun-earth system.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. https://lwstrt.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/pdf/john_eddy/SES_Book_Interactive.pdf
Ehlers, E., & Thomas Krafft, T. (Eds.). (2006). Earth system science in the Anthropocene. Springer.
Ehrlich, P. R., & Holdren, J. P. (1971). Impact of population growth. Science, 171, 1212–1217.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/171/3977/1212
Falardeau, M., & Bennett, E. M. (2020). Towards integrated knowledge of climate change in Arctic
marine systems: a systematic literature review of multidisciplinary research. Arctic Science, 6,
1–23. https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/10.1139/as-2019-0006
Fiske, G. (2021). Indigenous Peoples of the Arctic boundary polygons, 2021. Arctic Data Center.
https://doi.org/10.18739/A24746S61
Freestone, D. (Ed.). (2019). Conserving biodiversity in areas beyond National Jurisdiction. Brill
Nijhoff.
Gad, U. P., & Strandsbjerg, J. (Eds.). (2019). The politics of sustainability in the Arctic.
Reconﬁguring identity, space, and time. Routledge.
Graybill, J. K., & Petrov, A. N. (Eds.). (2020). Arctic sustainability, key methodologies andknowledge domains. A Synthesis of Knowledge. Routledge.
GRID-Arendal. (2021). Global Resource Information Database (GRID) Partner of the United
Nations Environmental Programme in Arendal, Norway. https://www.grida.no/
Guterres, A. (2020). ‘Transcript of UN Secretary-General’s virtual press encounter to launch thereport on the socio-economic impacts of COVID-19’. United Nations Secretary-General,
31 March 2020. https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/press-encounter/2020-03-31/transcriptof-un-secretary-general%E2%80%99s-virtual-press-encounter-launch-the-report-the-socio-eco
nomic-impacts-of-covid-19

1 Introduction: Building Common Interests with Informed Decisionmaking for. . .

U

nc

or

re
c

te
d

Pr

oo

f

Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248. https://science.
sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243
Hoag, H. (2017). Nations put science before ﬁshing in the Arctic. Science, 358, 1235. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/358/6368/1235.full.pdf
Holdren, J. P. (2008). Science and technology for sustainable well-being. Science, 319, 424–434.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/319/5862/424
Holland, M. M., & Bitz, C. M. (2003). Polar ampliﬁcation of climate change in coupled models.
Climate Dynamics, 21, 221–232. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-003-0332-6
Hopkins, D. M. (1967). The Bering land bridge. Stanford University Press.
Indigenous Peoples Secretariat. (2021a). Indigenous Peoples Secretariat of the Arctic Council.
https://www.arcticpeoples.com/
Ilulissat Declaration. (2008). Declaration from the Arctic Ocean Conference. Declared by Canada,
Denmark, Norway, Russian Federation and United States. Ilulissat, 28 May 2008
Indigenous Peoples Secretariat. (2021b). Arctic indigenous languages and revitalization: an online
educational resource. Indigenous Peoples Secretariat. https://www.arcticpeoples.com/arcticlanguages#feedback
Jakobsson, M., Grantz, A., Kristoffersen, Y., Macnab, R., MacDonald, R. W., Sakshaug, E., Stein,R., & Jokat, W. (2004). The Arctic Ocean: boundary conditions and background information. In
R. Stein & R. W. MacDonald (Eds.), The organic carbon cycle in the Arctic Ocean. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18912-8_1
Jakobsson, M., Pearce, C., Cronin, T. M., Backman, J., Anderson, L. G., Barrientos, N., Björk, G.,
Coxall, H., de Boer, A., Mayer, L. A., Mörth, C.-M., Nilsson, J., Rattray, J. E., Stranne, C.,
Semiletov, I., & O’Regan, M. (2017). Post-glacial ﬂooding of the Bering land bridge dated to
11 cal ka BP based on new geophysical and sediment records. Climate of the Past, 13,991–1005. https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-13-991-2017
James, R. H., Bousquet, P., Bussmann, I., Haeckel, M., Kipfer, R., Leifer, I., Niemann, H.,
Ostrovsky, I., Piskozub, J., Rehder, G., Treude, T., Vielstädte, L., & Greinert, J. (2016). Effects
of climate change on methane emissions from seaﬂoor sediments in the Arctic Ocean: A review.
Limnology and Oceanography, 61, S283–S299. https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.10307
King, M. L. (1964). The quest for peace and justice. Nobel Peace Prize Lecture, 11 December 1964,
Oslo. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1964/king/lecture/
Kish, J. (1973). The law of international spaces. A. W. Sijthoff.
Kondratyev, K. Y., & Hunt, G. E. (1982). Weather and climate on planets. Elsevier.
Krebs, C. J. (1972). Ecology: the experimental analysis of distribution and abundance. Harper& Row.
Lee, C.M., Starkweather, S., Eicken, H., Timmermans, M.L., Wilkinson, J., Sandven, S.,
Dukhovskoy, D., Gerland, S., Grebmeier, J., Intrieri, J.M., Kang, S.Hj., McCammon, M,
Nguyen, A.T., Polyakov, I., Rabe, B., Sagen, H., Seeyave, S., Volkov, D., Beszczynska-Möller,A., Chaﬁk, L., Dzieciuch, M., Goni, G., Hamre, T., King, A.L., Olsen, A., Raj, R.P, Rossby, T.,
Skagseth, Ø., Søiland, H., & Sørensen, K. (2019). A framework for the development, design andimplementation of a sustained Arctic Ocean observing system. Frontiers in Marine Science 6:(19 August 2019):1–21. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2019.00451/fullLucretius, 55 BCE. On the Nature of Things (De Rerum Natura). Rome. [Translated by Stallings,
A.E. 2007. Penguin Classics]
Meredith, M., Sommerkorn, M., Cassotta, S., Derksen, C., Ekaykin, A., Hollowed, A., Koﬁnas, G.,
Mackintosh, A., Melbourne-Thomas, J., Muelbert, M. M. C., Ottersen, G., Pritchard, H., &Schuur, E. A. G. (2019). Chapter 3. Polar regions. In H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, V. MassonDelmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Nicolai,
A. Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama, & N. M. Weyer (Eds.), IPCC special report on the ocean andcryosphere in a changing climate (pp. 203–320) https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/
NASA. (2012). Arctic sea ice hits smallest extent in satellite era. National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-seaicemin.html

P. A. Berkman et al.

U

nc

or

re
c

te
d

Pr

oo

f

National Research Council. (2014). The Arctic in the Anthropocene. Emerging research questions.
National Academies Press. http://nap.edu/18726
Nature. (2020). Editorial. Arctic Science Cannot Afford a New Cold War. Nature 30 September
2020. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02739-x
Ottawa Declaration. (1996). Declaration on the Establishment of the Arctic Council. 19 September
1996, Ottawa: Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. https://oaarchive.arctic-council.
org/handle/11374/85
PAME. (2013). The Arctic Ocean Review Project, Final Report, (Phase II 2011–2013). Protectionof the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) Secretariat, Akureyri. https://www.pame.is/projects/
arctic-marine-shipping/the-arctic-ocean-review-aor
Platjouw, F. M. (2019). Dimensions of transboundary legal coherence needed to foster ecosystembased governance in the Arctic. Marine Policy, 110, 103666. https://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0308597X19303185
Polar Code. (2017). International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar Code). Marine
Environmental Protection Committee, MEPC 68/21/Add. 1, Annex 10. International Maritime
Organization. Entry into Force 1 January 2017. http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/
HotTopics/polar/Pages/default.aspx
National Park Service. (2020). The United Nations Memorial Service at Muir Woods. United States
National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/articles/the-united-nations-memorial-service-atmuir-woods.htm
Pan, M., & Huntington, H. P. (2016). A precautionary approach to ﬁsheries in the Central Arctic
Ocean: policy, science, and China. Marine Policy, 63, 153–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpol.2015.10.015
Petrov, A. N., BurnSilver, S., Chapin, F. S., Fondahl, G., Graybill, J. K., Keil, K., Nilsson, A. E.,
Riedlsperger, R., & Schweitzer, P. (2017). Arctic sustainability research past, present andfuture. Routledge.
Pistone, K., Eisenman, I., & Ramanathan, V. (2014). Observational determination of albedo
decrease caused by vanishing Arctic Sea ice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,111(9), 3322–3326. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1318201111
Pongrácz, E., Pavlov, V., & Hänninen, N. (Eds.). (2020). Arctic marine sustainability Arctic
maritime businesses and the resilience of the marine environment. Springer.
Roberts, A., Hinzman, L., Walsh, J. E., Holland, M., Cassano, J., Döscher, R., Mitsudera, H., &Sumi, A. (2010). A science plan for regional Arctic system modeling. A report to the National
Science Foundation from the International Arctic Science Community. International Arctic
Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks
Roston, E. (2016). The world has discovered a $1 Trillion Ocean. Bloomberg 21 January 2016
Rowley, J. (2007). The wisdom hierarchy: representations of the DIKW hierarchy. Journal of
Information Science, 33(2), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551506070706
Ruffert, M., & Steinecke, S. (2011). The global administrative law of science. In Beiträge zum
ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht (Veröffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts
für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht), Volume 228. Springer. https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-3-642-21359-5_2
Schatz, V. J., Proelss, A., & Liu, N. (2019). The 2018 Agreement to prevent unregulated high seasﬁsheries in the Central Arctic Ocean: A critical analysis. International Journal of Marine andCoastal Law, 34(2), 195–244. https://brill.com/view/journals/estu/34/2/article-p195_2.xml
Shakhova, N., Semiletov, I., Salyuk, A., Yusupov, V., Kosmach, D., & Gustafsson, Ö. (2010).
Extensive methane venting to the atmosphere from sediments of the east Siberian Arctic shelf.
Science, 327, 1246–1250. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1246
Shupe, M. D., Rex, M., Dethloff, K., Damm, E., Fong, A. A., Gradinger, R., Heuzé, C., Loose, B.,
Makarov, A., Maslowski, W., Nicolaus, M., Perovich, D., Rabe, B., Rinke, A., Sokolov, V., &Sommerfeld, A. (2020). The MOSAiC expedition: a year drifting with the Arctic sea ice. In
Arctic Report Card, Update for 2020. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/27898

1 Introduction: Building Common Interests with Informed Decisionmaking for. . .

U

nc

or

re
c

te
d

Pr

oo

f

Steil, B. (2013). The Battle of Bretton woods: John Maynard Keynes, Harry Dexter white, and themaking of a New World order. Princeton University Press.
Steinveg, B. (2020). The role of conferences within Arctic governance. Polar Geography, 43.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1088937X.2020.1798540
Støre, J. G. (2010). The Norwegian high north policy. Foreign Minister Speech, Norwegian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Oslo 7 June 2010. https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/m/id60
9025/
Stuecker, M. F., Bitz, C. M., Armour, K. C., Proistosescu, C., Kang, S. M., Xie, S. P., Kim, D.,
McGregor, S., Zhang, W., Zhao, S., Cai, W., Dong, Y., & Jin, F. F. (2018). Polar ampliﬁcation
dominated by local forcing and feedbacks. Nature Climate Change, 8, 1076–1081. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41558-018-0339-y
Sultan, N., Plaza-Faverola, A., Vadakkepuliyambatta, S., Buenz, S., & Knies, J. (2020). Impact oftides and sea-level on deep-sea Arctic methane emissions. Nature Communications, 11, 5087.
(2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18899-3
Tunnicliffe, V., Metaxas, A., Jennifer Le, J., Ramirez-Llodra, E., & Levin, L. A. (2020). Strategic
environmental goals and objectives: setting the basis for environmental regulation of deep
seabed mining. Marine Policy, 114, 103347. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/S0308597X1830321X
UArctic. (2017). Science diplomacy thematic network. University of the Arctic. https://www.
uarctic.org/organization/thematic-networks/science-diplomacy/
UNITAR. (2019a). Retreat for directors of Arab diplomatic academies and institutes. United
Nations Institute for Training and Research. https://www.unitar.org/event/full-catalog/retreatdirectors-arab-diplomatic-academies-and-institutes
UNITAR. (2019b). Diplomacy 4.0 training programme. Geneva: United Nations Institute forTraining and Research. https://unitar.org/about/news-stories/news/united-nations-diplomacy40-training-programme
UNITAR. (2020a). Science diplomacy and informed decision-making during our global pandemic.
United Nations Institute for Training and Research. https://www.unitar.org/event/full-catalog/
science-diplomacy-and-informed-decision-making-during-our-global-pandemic
UNITAR. (2020b). Executive diploma on international law. United Nations Institute for Training
and Research. https://www.unitar.org/event/full-catalog/executive-diploma-international-lawonline
UNITAR. (2021). Executive summer programme on innovations in science diplomacy. United
Nations Institute for Training and Research. https://www.unitar.org/event/full-catalog/unitarexecutive-summer-programme-innovations-science-diplomacy
United Nations. (1945). United Nations Archive: United Nations Conference on International
Organization (UNCIO) (1945) – AG-012. https://search.archives.un.org/united-nationsconference-on-international-organization-uncio-1945
United Nations. (1982). United Nations Convention on the law of the sea. (Signed: Montego Bay,
10 December 1982; entry into force: 16 November 1994). https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf
United Nations. (1987). Our common future: from one earth to one world. Report Transmitted to theGeneral Assembly as an Annex to Resolution A/RES/42/187. World Commission on Environment and Development, New York. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/
5987our-common-future.pdf
United Nations. (1992). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (Signed: Riode Janeiro, 9 May 1992; Entry into Force: 21 March 1994). https://unfccc.int/sites/default/ﬁles/convention_text_with_annexes_english_for_posting.pdf
United Nations. (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Res. A/RES/70/1 (25 September 2015). United Nations General Assembly, New York. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld/publication
Verne, J. (1865). De la Terre á la Lune. Pierre-Jules Hetze.

P. A. Berkman et al.

U

nc

or

re
c

te
d

Pr

oo

f

Vienna Convention (1969) Vienna convention on the law of treaties. Signed: 23 May 1969, Vienna,
Austria; Entry into Force: 27 January 1980
Vienna Dialogue Team. (2017). A global network of science and technology advice in foreign
ministries. Science Diplomacy Action, 1, 1–20. https://scidiplo.org/wp-content/
uploads/2020/11/Synthesis_1.pdf
Vincent, W. F., Canário, J., & Boike, J. (2019). Understanding the terrestrial effects of Arctic Sea
ice decline. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union (Eos) 100, 17 July 2019. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EO128471
Vörösmarty, C. J., McGuire, A, D., & Hobbie, J. E. (2010) Scaling studies in Arctic system scienceand policy support. A Call-to-Research. U.S. Arctic Research Commission. Anchorage. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc949504/
Vörösmarty, C., Rawlins, M., Hinzman, L., Francis, J., Serreze, M., Liljedahl, A., McDonald, K.,
Piasecki, M., & Rich, R. (2018). Opportunities and challenges in Arctic system synthesis: A
consensus report from the Arctic research community. City University of New York. https://www.arcus.org/publications/28459
Vylegzhanin, A. N., Young, O. R., & Berkman, P. A. (2020). The Central Arctic Ocean ﬁsheries
agreement as an element in the evolving Arctic Ocean governance complex. Marine Policy, 118,
1–10. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308597X20301780
Winton, M. (2006). Ampliﬁed Arctic climate change: what does surface albedo feedback have to dowith it? Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L03701. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL025244
World Mayors Summit. (2019). C40 world mayors Summit. Copenhagen, 9–12 October 2019.
https://c40summit2019.org/agenda/
World Economic Forum. (2016). Arctic investment protocol. Guidelines for responsible investmentin the Arctic. World Economic Forum. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Arctic_Invest
ment_Protocol.pdf
Young, O. R., Berkman, P. A., & Vylegzhanin, A. N. (2020a). Chapter 15: conclusions. In O. R.
Young, P. A. Berkman, & A. N. Vylegzhanin (Eds.), Informed decisionmaking for sustainability. Volume 1. Governing Arctic Seas: Regional Lessons from the Bering Strait and Barents Sea(pp. 341–353). Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-25674-6_15
Young, O. R., Berkman, P. A., & Vylegzhanin, A. N. (Eds.). (2020b). Informed decisionmaking forsustainability. Volume 1. Governing Arctic seas: regional lessons from the Bering Strait andBarents Sea. Springer. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-25674-6

Author Queries
426463_1_En

Author’s response

AU1

Please check and confirm, whether
all author affiliations details are fine?

AU2“Greybill and Petrov 2020” is citedin text, but its detail is not provided
in the list of references. Pleaseprovide.

f

Details Required

U

nc

or

re
c

te
d

Pr

Query Refs.

oo

Chapter No.: 1