Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
The role of private actors in regulation of Arctic shipping
Kateřina Peterková Mitkidis *
This article discusses the role of private regulators within the international legal framework of Arctic shipping. The role of private actors has been acknowledged both in legal scholarship and policy papers; but it has not yet been placed in the centre of attention. This article does so by analysing the role of private actors under the Polar Code and three types of private regulation—guidelines of classification societies, requirements of insurance industry and private contracting. It concludes that private actors have an essential role both in developing and effectuation of public international law and thus in achieving sustainable Arctic shipping.
I. ARCTIC SHIPPING: REALITY OR FAIRY TALE?
Melting of Arctic ice is an undisputable fact that promises opening up the Northwest Passage (“NP”) and the Northern Sea Route (“NSR”) for commercial shipping1 and provides opportunities for new natural resources extraction sites.2
The new routes can shave approximately 5,000 miles off the distance between Yokohama and Hamburg in comparison with the Suez Canal route, and 6,000 miles compared with the Panama Canal route.3 The shorter distance also brings about shorter travel time, lower fuel consumption and decreased CO2 emissions.4 Moreover, as there are no displacement limits as in the Suez or Panama routes, the ships can carry more cargo
* Assistant Professor, INTRAlaw center, Aarhus University, Denmark. The author thanks Professor Ellen Margrethe Basse for her valuable comments on the draft of this article. The usual disclaimers apply. The work on this article was partly funded by the Centre for Arctic Policy Studies, Institute of International Affairs, University of Iceland.
1. While the author acknowledges also the intensifying of leisure shipping, she focuses on industrial shipping issues as they seem in more urgent need of regulation to safeguard interests in environmental protection and human safety.
2. However, the feasibility and viability of Arctic natural source extraction is yet to be established. For example, Shell ceased preliminary drilling in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea in September 2015, referring to the inadequate amount of found oil (www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-28/why-shell-quit-drilling-in-the-arctic).
3. A Chircop, “The Growth of International Shipping in the Arctic: Is a Regulatory Review Timely?” (2009) 24 IJMCL 355, 356; H Kitagawa, “Arctic Routing: Challenges and Opportunities” (2008) 7 WMU J of Maritime Affairs 485, 489.
4. See eg T Wergeland, “Arctic Shipping Routes—Cost Comparisons with Suez” (2010) CHNL, available at www.arctis-search.com/Arctic+Sea+Routes&structure=Arctic+Sea+Routes; A Chircop, “Regulatory Challenges for International Arctic Navigation and Shipping in an Evolving Governance Environment” (2012), presented at the Annual Meeting of the Comité Maritime International, Beijing, China (14–19 October 2012), 3.
THE ROLE OF PRIVATE ACTORS IN REGULATION OF ARCTIC SHIPPING
545