http://revista.ieee.es/index.php/ieee 296 Journal of the Spanish Institute for Strategic Studies Núm. 10 / 2017 While the A-5 underscored the importance of the AC in facilitating cooperation and the creation of public goods, the Declaration settled the issue; from this point forth, the voices that called for an Arctic governance regime were silenced somewhat. Scrivener’s view on the AC is enlightening: “a thing of the early 1990s’: an immediate post-Cold War initiative that failed to spark sustainable high-level political interest. The Arctic Council remained a forum for coordinating Arctic environmental monitoring and science”87. The Ilulissat Declaration sparked tensions and a heated debate within the AC as to how to react to the declaration of five of the Council’s eight members. Iceland was the Arctic State that showed the most concern at not being invited to the meeting in Ilulissat and at the fact that three of the A-8 States had been isolated.88 Finally, it was through the Nuuk Declaration that the A-8 accepted that the role of the AC would not be that of an international body to address maritime governance issues and where all A-8 countries accepted the different issues89 we mentioned in the operationalisation section. To quote Professor Koivurova: “the Ilulissat declaration seems to outline an agenda for cooperation between the littoral states of the Arctic Ocean over high level ocean policy issues, potentially challenging the Arctic Council, with its eight members, broad focus and soft work on environmental protection and sustainable development”90. While the AC has been indispensable in combating climate change91 and creating certain public goods, there is nothing to suggest that it will become an international body with a legal mandate and powers in the area of security as long as it continues to focus on safety, as pointed out by the Deputy Director of the Spanish Institute for Strategic Studies (IEEE), Ignacio J. García.92 This difference and the ‘glass ceiling’ to the Council’s further development has raised numerous issues in relation to the future role of the Observers within the AC. We consulted Professor Koivurova on the matter and he had this to say: “I think that’s one of the future challenges of the Arctic Council. The pressures are growing. The observers cannot say anything during a meeting. They can only deposit written statements. Of course, this weakens the AC. So I think there will be a big controversy, waiting to be solved. But at the moment, it’s a very strong position of 87 SCRIVENER, David, “Arctic Cooperation in Transition”, Polar Record, 35:51-8, (1999). 88 KOIVUROVA, 2008, p.6. 89 INGIMUNDARSON, op. cit., p.189-192. 90 KOIVUROVA, 2008, p.6. 91 STOKKE, “Environmental security”, p. 844. 92 Extract from the interview with Navy Captain Ignacio J. Garcia and Deputy Director of the Spanish Institute for Strategic Studies (IEEE) attached to the Spanish Ministry of Defence on 4-12- 2015 at the Higher Centre for National Defence Studies.
REVISTA_IEEE_10
To see the actual publication please follow the link above