Michael Byers, Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia, has recently published a new book, International Law and the Arctic. In it he cites two of my articles. First, on page 177, Byers points to my article “In the belly of the whaling commission” as an “excellent …
Yesterday, the Nordic Council of Ministers published its second collection of essays on polar law, Polar Law Textbook II, edited by Natalia Loukacheva, Nansen Professor of Arctic Studies at the University of Akureyri. In his contribution to the collection, entitled “Destiny or dream: Sharing resources, revenues and political power in Nunavut devolution”, Tony Penikett cited …
The defeat of proposed bans on commercial sealing and the international polar bear trade gives some welcome breathing space to Inuit and other Arctic hunting peoples—at least for now.
A proposal to prohibit international commercial trade in polar bears would do little to protect an already well-protected animal further, but much to damage Inuit economic rights and interests.
The fiscal relationship between Ottawa and the three Northern territories will reach a crossroads in little more than a year, when the current federal-territorial fiscal arrangement—known as Territorial Formula Financing (TFF)—comes up for renewal. The territories depend profoundly upon TFF to fund their development, and Ottawa points to it as the principal financial contribution toward its vision of a North of self-reliant individuals, healthy communities and responsible governments. Yet it is unclear whether TFF even covers the extraordinary costs of providing public services in the territories, let alone the costs of realizing Ottawa’s vision. Nowhere is this less clear than in Nunavut, where experts have called into question the adequacy of federal support. Will Ottawa take the upcoming TFF renewal as an opportunity to dispel doubts that its aspirations for the North exceed its willingness to pay for them?
Northerners shouldn’t worry that Canada will abandon its challenge to the EU’s seal-trade ban in favour of a free-trade deal with the EU, but they should worry instead about the damage the ban has done to the very idea of Inuit as economic actors in the modern marketplace.
A recent letter from Greenpeace Canada only strengthens the impression that Greenpeace’s vision for the Arctic doesn’t include the states and peoples who already govern and occupy the region.
An update on this column’s coverage so far—mostly of the disquieting potential consequences for Northerners of proposals to ban various economic activities in the Arctic.
Many thanks to Tom Fries of The Arctic Institute in Washington, DC, for his generous coverage of my column in Northern Public Affairs over the past couple of months. I especially appreciate his recent kind words: Anthony Speca’s writing this quarter for Northern Public Affairs has been an enormous pleasure to read, and a brief update to three of …
Greenpeace’s new campaign to “save the Arctic” flies in the face of cooperation with the states and indigenous peoples who already govern and occupy the region.