Arctic Geopolitics, Climate Change, and Resilient Fisheries Management
Arctic Geopolitics, Climate Change, and Resilient Fisheries Management
复制标题
北极地缘政治、气候变化和弹性渔业管理
DOI：
10.1163/22116001-03601016
复制
发表时间：
2022
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
O. Stokke
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
O. Stokke
本文探讨了渔业管理机构对地缘政治和气候变化所固有的综合挑战的适应能力。体制复原力是指通过调整体制或调整体制之间的关系，使之足以维持或改善体制业绩，从而应对不断变化的情况的能力。[1]二十年来地缘政治紧张局势的加剧并没有严重制约北极事务上的国际合作。尽管全球政治中的大国竞争加剧，但北极治理继续蓬勃发展，这体现在接受中国和其他地缘经济崛起国家作为北极理事会观察员，在具有法律约束力的航运极地守则的演变中，以及防止北冰洋中部不受管制的渔业的协议于2021年生效，这涉及所有北极沿海国和对北极渔业有真实的利益的其他国家，包括中国、冰岛、日本、大韩民国和欧洲联盟（欧盟）。事实上，地缘政治紧张与北极治理结构形成和加强的进展并存，既不是矛盾，也不是巧合。对地缘政治考虑的日益重视往往使各国政府更倾向于寻求所有人都能接受的实际管理安排。正如本文所认为的，能够适应潜在地缘政治紧张局势的解决方案往往特别具有弹性。可以解释这种关系的机制有两种，都是在国家一级运作的。第一种机制是利益聚合，就像当政府 * 作者感谢Alf Håkon Hoel，Alystein詹森，Arild莫伊，Cecilie Juul Stensrud和两位匿名评论者对本文提出了非常有帮助的评论，并感谢Susan Høivik出色的语言和文字编辑服务。这项研究由挪威研究理事会资助，资助额为302176（GEOSEAS）。E-mail：o. S.斯托克@ stv. uio。1. OR Young，“Institutional dynamics：Resilience，vulnerability and adaptation in environment and resource regime，”Global Environmental Change 20，no. 3（2010）：378-385.
This article examines the resilience of fisheries management institutions to the combined challenges inherent in geopolitical and climatic change. Institutional resilience concerns the ability to deal with changing circumstances by adapting institutions, or relationships among them, to an extent sufficient for maintaining or improving institutional performance. 1 Twenty years of rising geopolitical tensions have not severely restrained international cooperation on Arctic affairs. Despite the intensifying greatpower rivalry in global politics, Arctic governance continues to thrive, as evident in the acceptance of China and other geo-economically rising States as observers in the Arctic Council, in the evolution of a legally binding Polar Code on shipping, and in the entry into force in 2021 of an agreement to prevent unregulated fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean, involving all Arctic coastal States and others with a real interest in Arctic fisheries, including China, Iceland, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the European Union (EU). In fact, the coexistence of geopolitical tension and progress in the formation and strengthening of Arctic governance structures is neither paradoxical nor coincidental. Increased emphasis on geopolitical considerations tends to make governments more, not less, inclined to seek practical management arrangements acceptable to all. As this article argues, solutions that can accommodate underlying geopolitical tensions tend to be particularly resilient. Mechanisms that may explain this relationship are of two kinds, both operating at the level of States. The first mechanism is interest aggregation, as when governmental* The author thanks Alf Håkon Hoel, Øystein Jensen, Arild Moe, Cecilie Juul Stensrud, and two anonymous reviewers for very helpful comments on this article, and is grateful to Susan Høivik for her excellent language and copyediting services. This research was funded by the Research Council of Norway under grant 302176 (GEOSEAS). E-mail: o. s. stokke@ stv. uio. no. 1 OR Young,“Institutional dynamics: Resilience, vulnerability and adaptation in environmental and resource regime,” Global Environmental Change 20, no. 3 (2010): 378–385.